Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

Looks like the plan to take it down to the wire and then get a deal will not work just to get a deal, at least from the French side. If that is a strategy from Johnson it looks like there are pitfalls everywhere for him.

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1231879926346854400?s=20

It "worked" with the WA because he backtracked to a previous position he himself thought no PM would sign up for, but with the FTA there is no previous position other than ECJ oversight and LPF signup, so what could the UK do but crash out?

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

Looks like the plan to take it down to the wire and then get a deal will not work just to get a deal, at least from the French side. If that is a strategy from Johnson it looks like there are pitfalls everywhere for him.

But we all know France are a bunch of surrender monkies who can't defend themselves and surrender to everyone. Why UK had to come to their aid during both world wars because they are so keen to surrender and they owe us after all! We liberated Paris for them and they will talk tough but once we threaten to not drink champagne they will throw themselves at us in surrender! They need us more than we need them!

ambro25

With Merkel on the political wane, Macron is opportunistically filling the soft power void surrendered by the UK since 2016 as fast as he can, usefully storing political capital in readiness for Macron vs Lepen round 2 (doubly useful to him, since MLP has buried any velleities of Frexit, where his diplomatic strongman act also steals some of her nationalist chest-beating thunder).

It's also no secret at all (by now), that Macron is out to steal as much UK plc business and FDI as France can possibly get out of Brexit, and sod the broken plates in the UK.

Expect much more of this all year-long and until year end (the current wrangling over Barnier's mandate, which this tweet is about, is all down to France stalling for full-on dynamic alignment in that mandate - which most pundits expect France to get, even though it's a deal breaker for Johnson).

Christy42

ambro25 wrote: »

With Merkel on the political wane, Macron is opportunistically filling the soft power void surrendered by the UK since 2016 as fast as he can, usefully storing political capital in readiness for Macron vs Lepen round 2 (doubly useful to him, since MLP has buried any velleities of Frexit, where his diplomatic strongman act also steals some of her nationalist chest-beating thunder).

It's also no secret at all (by now), that Macron is out to steal as much UK plc business and FDI as France can possibly get out of Brexit, and sod the broken plates in the UK.

Expect much more of this all year-long and until year end (the current wrangling over Barnier's mandate, which this tweet is about, is all down to France stalling for full-on dynamic alignment in that mandate - which most pundits expect France to get, even though it's a deal breaker for Johnson).

Was it ever a secret? I mean we will also take them quite happily. I presume every country is the same here and looking out for their interests.

CelticRambler

Enzokk wrote: »

If that is a strategy from Johnson it looks like there are pitfalls everywhere for him.

ambro25 wrote: »

usefully storing political capital in readiness for Macron vs Lepen round 2

One of the many fatal flaws of the Brexiter Bubble: underestimating how much of a gift Brexit is to "our friends in Europe". Macron has been served the most delicious bargaining chip: no fish, no deal. In one easy veto, earn him massive brownie points with the French fishing industry and pitch Johnson into an inescapable net: capitulate on fishing, or watch those British fish literally dying in front of him (and I'm sure Farage will help make the point).

ambro25

Christy42 wrote: »

Was it ever a secret? I mean we will also take them quite happily. I presume every country is the same here and looking out for their interests.

Figure of speech: other member states have been rather more diplomatic/less overt about cashing in on Brexit.

France (particularly the ecofin Ministries and the business heart of Paris, La Défense) rolled out the red carpet and started beating in Brexodus drum in the City of London, very ostensibly, the minute Theresa May deposited the Art.50 instrument in 2017.

It hasn't been paying off as well as Macron & friends expected so far, however, with Brexodees favouring specialist knowledge/practice-clustering in Frankfurt, Dublin and Luxembourg.

But it remains good optics for Macron at home (and a bit beyond) all the same.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

One of the many fatal flaws of the Brexiter Bubble: underestimating how much of a gift Brexit is to "our friends in Europe". Macron has been served the most delicious bargaining chip: no fish, no deal. In one easy veto, earn him massive brownie points with the French fishing industry and pitch Johnson into an inescapable net: capitulate on fishing, or watch those British fish literally dying in front of him (and I'm sure Farage will help make the point).

Monsieur Macron's obsession with the UK's fishing grounds is indeed fascinating and that one subject could bring him or Johnson down.
If Macron isn't seen to be playing hardball with the UK and socking it to them his own position could be in jeopardy, on the other hand,apparently having the EU(France in particular)fretting about access to UK waters is a fantastic bargaining chip for Johnson-alternatively the EU attempting to threaten the 'plucky UK' puts Johnson in a good light with hardline brexiteers- whilst complying with EU demands would probably bring him down.

I hope a mutually acceptable deal can be agreed .

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

Monsieur Macron's obsession with the UK's fishing grounds is indeed fascinating and that one subject could bring him or Johnson down.
If Macron isn't seen to be playing hardball with the UK and socking it to them his own position could be in jeopardy, on the other hand,apparently having the EU(France in particular)fretting about access to UK waters is a fantastic bargaining chip for Johnson-alternatively the EU attempting to threaten the 'plucky UK' puts Johnson in a good light with hardline brexiteers- whilst complying with EU demands would probably bring him down.

I hope a mutually acceptable deal can be agreed .

In the Brexit context, fishing is an economic side show for both sides, but a political landmine for Johnson.

The 'tell' is in the PR noise from the EU about it, the aim of which is solely for bracketing Johnson politically between his domestic audience's expectations on the topic (borne from Leave and other snake oil merchants peddling taking back control of UK waters) and the deal requirements of the City (as full an access to the SM as possible to prevent operational collapse, which means full alignment with EU). Or, as beautifully summarised by Celtic, "no fish, no deal".

The deal is pretty straightforward, once the nationalist, rah-rah'ing blinkers are stowed away: respect the frontstop, sign on Canada+ with dynamic alignment, and all will be well. It doesn't have to be mutually acceptable however: this is not a negotiation of equals.

RobMc59

ambro25 wrote: »

In the Brexit context, fishing is an economic side show for both sides, but a political landmine for Johnson.

The 'tell' is in the PR noise from the EU about it, the aim of which is solely for bracketing Johnson politically between his domestic audience's expectations on the topic (borne from Leave and other snake oil merchants peddling taking back control of UK waters) and the deal requirements of the City (as full an access to the SM as possible to prevent operational collapse, which means full alignment with EU). Or, as beautifully summarised by Celtic, "no fish, no deal".

The deal is pretty straightforward, once the nationalist, rah-rah'ing blinkers are stowed away: respect the frontstop, sign on Canada+ with dynamic alignment, and all will be well. It doesn't have to be mutually acceptable however: this is not a negotiation of equals.

You may be right although I doubt the 'kneel before zod' attitude will go down well with those who want a hard brexit and aren't bothered about remaining close to the EU.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's going to be fun watching the Home Office trying to predict the migrant labour needs of every sector of the UK economy in every part of the UK, failing miserably every time, and pissing off businesses left, right and centre.

Sure, like every policy it can be implemented well or badly. I've no doubt in the early stages there will be mistakes but on the other hand other countries manage it.

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

You may be right although I doubt the 'kneel before zod' attitude will go down well with those who want a hard brexit and aren't bothered about remaining close to the EU.

The British can adopt whatever view of the equilibrium of forces in play as they wish: it does not take anything away from its objective and factual basis.

They can also continue to cut their nose to spite their face, then move on to still more essential appendages, for however long they please: it still won't take anything away from the equilibrium of forces in play.

Brexit was sought on the basis that the UK did not owe the EU a living. £350m and all that. That swings both ways, to the surprise of absolutely noone with two grey cells to rub together.

/shrugs

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Once again, the Leaver argument on this topic seems to be based entirely on a gut feeling that EU foreigners in Britain are a bad lot, even if they're working-age adults making a useful contribution to the British economy; while ignoring the tens of thousands of old-age British emigrants who have taken advantage of exactly the same freedoms to cash in their UK chips to buy cheap property in France and Spain and Italy.

I don't think controlling immigration according to the needs of of the country implies viewing foreigners as a bad lot.

And if you're a European business, you are not just entitled to offer a job to a European first, you're required to do so.

Sure and there's nothing wrong with that. The UK is simply applying the same principle to their own territory.

If you were born and raised in the state of California, you can move to New York to live and work; if you were born and raised in Perth, you can move to Sydney to live and work. There are moves afoot in East Africa to allow people from Kenya to move to Tanzania to live and work, or Uganda or Rwanda. These are territories far larger than any European country; larger than the EU, in fact. The only thing you're complaining about is where the line is drawn. Should English jobs be for the English only?

There's no hard and fast rule but there's always a line that is drawn. As far as I'm aware the EU is currently the largest territory where this sort of freedom of movement is practiced. I've no problem with it in principle but it is not going to suit everyone equally.

ambro25

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think controlling immigration according to the needs of of the country implies viewing foreigners as a bad lot. (...)

I don't think you have much familiarity with Leave's messaging (and that of its predecessor, UKIP) over the years to the run up to the 2016 referendum.

"Controlling immigration according to the needs of of the country" is the thinnest of politically-expedient veneer, applied after-the-fact to a decade's worth of relentless immigrant othering in British media.

Never mind Farage's 2016 "Breaking Point" poster, I'm old enough to remember the alarmist headlines and public attitudes in the UK to the earlier years' EU refugee 'crises', and the facts that the UK was not in Schengen and that refugees could not avail of FoM were as well discussed and understood then, as they were in 2016 and ever since.

It really doesn't matter how much gold and glitter you use, tbh.

Bit cynical

ambro25 wrote: »

I don't think you have much familiarity with Leave's messaging (and that of its predecessor, UKIP) over the years to the run up to the 2016 referendum.

"Controlling immigration according to the needs of of the country" is the thinnest of politically-expedient veneer, applied after-the-fact to a decade's worth of relentless immigrant othering in British media.

That may be the case but the subject still needs to be evaluated on its own merits independent of what one or other group might have said about it.

reslfj

Peregrinus wrote: »

As of February 2015, there were something like 113,000 working-age benefit claimants in the UK who were nationals of another Member State when they first entered the UK national insurance system.

Points to note:
...
Not all of them were necessarily "EU migrants" as conventionally understood. Some, for example, might have been the children of migrants, who grew up in the UK, entered the National Insurance system in the usual way, and only years later became benefit claimants. Others might have been the spouses of British citizens. Etc, etc.
...

Compared to 3-3.5 million EU-citizens plus some coming into the UK from other member states (before or after these states became members) and now being UK citizens the number 113.000 is very low and more like next to nothing.

113.000 /3.500.000 = 3.2%

Being between jobs and out of a job for a shorter time will in most systems add significantly to such statistics.

Lars

ambro25

Bit cynical wrote: »

That may be the case but the subject still needs to be evaluated on its own merits independent of what one or other group might have said about it.

Can you please explain why, and why independently?

Enzokk

I thought we would be over dealing with the UK using the Irish border as a bargaining chip.

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1231503230426808321?s=20

So that is all of May's old hits being rehashed by new people in charge and hoping for a different result. Taking the deal down to the last minute and now again the Irish protocol that Johnson himself signed up for. Do they not think the EU will read these stories and when it comes to LPF discussions? What can the UK say? "Trust us, our word is solid if you ignore the legal agreement we are trying to subvert we have just signed with you".

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure, like every policy it can be implemented well or badly. I've no doubt in the early stages there will be mistakes but on the other hand other countries manage it.

I remember years ago watching a TV programme that showed a group of USSR economists proudly demonstrating their very elaborate computer-modelled demand chart for various types of stockings across the USSR.

The model was used to allocate resources, personnel, machinery, fabrics etc, to various factories that made stockings across the USSR.

Needless to say, it was a complete and utter farce: centrally planned micromanagement of the economy by the state doesn't work.

sondagefaux

According to UK government statistics, at least 49% of UK businesses that traded internationally (exported or imported or both) in 2018 only traded with the EU.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/2018-uk-importer-and-exporter-population

The figures for trade with the EU only don't include busineses that aren't registered for VAT, whereas the figures for trading with non-EU countries includes both VAT-registered businesses and businesses not registered for VAT.

So the percentage of UK businesses that trade internationally and only do so with the EU is likely to be over 50%.

Why is this important?

Because UK businesses that only trade with the EU will face increased costs from next year, and will have to deal with paperwork that they don't have to deal with now, which means added expense and potential for mistakes.

A country contemplating increasing costs and administration for around half of its trading businesses must surely have a well-planned and executed programme to inform and support these businesses in advance of the changes and during the early stages of the new system?

Sam Russell

sondagefaux wrote: »

I remember years ago watching a TV programme that showed a group of USSR economists proudly demonstrating their very elaborate computer-modelled demand chart for various types of stockings across the USSR.

The model was used to allocate resources, personnel, machinery, fabrics etc, to various factories that made stockings across the USSR.

Needless to say, it was a complete and utter farce: centrally planned micromanagement of the economy by the state doesn't work.

I remember reading of a manager of a USSR factory that made sewer pipes, and his production targets were given to him every five years. He said the problem he faced was the target was always in tonnes of pipe produced. He said that was fine while the best material was concrete, but when it would be better to change to plastic, he could not do so because the demand/target was in tonnes, not metres. Failing to meet the target was not an option. That is centralised planning.

I think the current regime in London will try and micromanage lots of the economy, particularly immigration.

RobMc59

ambro25 wrote: »

The British can adopt whatever view of the equilibrium of forces in play as they wish: it does not take anything away from its objective and factual basis.

They can also continue to cut their nose to spite their face, then move on to still more essential appendages, for however long they please: it still won't take anything away from the equilibrium of forces in play.

Brexit was sought on the basis that the UK did not owe the EU a living. £350m and all that. That swings both ways, to the surprise of absolutely noone with two grey cells to rub together.

/shrugs

Some of what you say makes sense but your suggestion that the EU isn't negotiating in good faith and does in fact hold the view 'do as you're told 'as a negotiating strategy is...strange to say the least.

Strazdas

sondagefaux wrote: »

According to UK government statistics, at least 49% of UK businesses that traded internationally (exported or imported or both) in 2018 only traded with the EU.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/2018-uk-importer-and-exporter-population

The figures for trade with the EU only don't include busineses that aren't registered for VAT, whereas the figures for trading with non-EU countries includes both VAT-registered businesses and businesses not registered for VAT.

So the percentage of UK businesses that trade internationally and only do so with the EU is likely to be over 50%.

Why is this important?

Because UK businesses that only trade with the EU will face increased costs from next year, and will have to deal with paperwork that they don't have to deal with now, which means added expense and potential for mistakes.

A country contemplating increasing costs and administration for around half of its trading businesses must surely have a well-planned and executed programme to inform and support these businesses in advance of the changes and during the early stages of the new system?

This stat was denied by approximately ten billion Brexiteers on Twitter. The number of times I've seen them say 'We do comparatively little trade with the EU and it will be easily replicated with other markets'.

These guys are going to crash their economy, aren't they.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the EU is currently the largest territory where this sort of freedom of movement is practiced.

Alas, you're not sufficiently aware:
- EU 4.4m sq.km
- Australia 7.7m sq.km
- USA 9.8m sq.km
- Russia 17.1m sq.km
All of the above permit (and/or have enshrined in their constitution) a "freedom of movement" allowing their citizens to move from one constituent state/nation/republic/territory to another.

For comparison:
- GB 0.9m sq.km
Once again: why does it make sense for GB to be so isolationist when so much of the rest of the world (and certainly all the nearest neighbours) have found no benefit in preventing neighbouring populations from sharing their skills and revenues?

sondagefaux

Sam Russell wrote: »

I remember reading of a manager of a USSR factory that made sewer pipes, and his production targets were given to him every five years. He said the problem he faced was the target was always in tonnes of pipe produced. He said that was fine while the best material was concrete, but when it would be better to change to plastic, he could not do so because the demand/target was in tonnes, not metres. Failing to meet the target was not an option. That is centralised planning.

I think the current regime in London will try and micromanage lots of the economy, particularly immigration.

They're going to have a hell of a job convincing EEA/Swiss citizens to migrate to the UK when the new immigration system starts to apply to them.

The UK’s “sky-high” visa fees could deter vital NHS staff and the “brightest and best” scientists that Boris Johnson wants to attract with his new immigration policy, experts have warned.

Nurses, lab technicians, engineers and tech experts who currently flock to the UK from the EU may not be able to afford to do so if the prime minister’s proposed immigration overhaul becomes law.

At £1,220 per person, or £900 for those on the shortage occupation list, the fees are among the highest in the world – and this is before charges for using the NHS and costs for sponsoring employers are taken into account.

Comparisons with fee structures in other countries, published by the Institute for Government (IfG) thinktank, show that a family of five with a five-year work visa for one individual would have to pay £21,299 before they could enter in the country.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/20/uk-visa-fees-deter-nhs-staff-scientists

Why bother migrating from Spain with your family to work in the UK, at that price, when you could move to any EEA country (bar Liechtenstein) or Switzerland with no visa fees to pay?

sondagefaux

Strazdas wrote: »

This stat was denied by approximately ten billion Brexiteers on Twitter. The number of times I've seen them say 'We do comparatively little trade with the EU and it will be easily replicated with other markets'.

These guys are going to crash their economy, aren't they.

F*ck business to borrow a phrase...

rogue-entity

CelticRambler wrote: »

Alas, you're not sufficiently aware:
- EU 4.4m sq.km
- Australia 7.7m sq.km
- USA 9.8m sq.km
- Russia 17.1m sq.km
All of the above permit (and/or have enshrined in their constitution) a "freedom of movement" allowing their citizens to move from one constituent state/nation/republic/territory to another.

Australia has an FoM agreement with New Zealand
Russia has, as far as I know, has agreements with Belarus and Kazakhstan but

The USA is the odd-man on that list as far as I can tell, and most of these FoM agreements have been long established and there hasn't been much appetite for extending those agreements with additional third countries.

Incidentally the USA is increasingly isolationist in its own right.

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

Some of what you say makes sense but your suggestion that the EU isn't negotiating in good faith and does in fact hold the view 'do as you're told 'as a negotiating strategy is...strange to say the least.

Where did I make any such suggestion?

As for the EU's negotiating strategy, what is relevant, and which informs my opinion, is the objective ('factual') record of 'Brexit' since 2016: but for the 3 extensions to get there, the WA with frontstop and political declaration signed up to by the UK in 2020 are 100% straight out of Barnier's first mandate of 2017, and fully according to objectives-

The first phase of negotiations will tackle three main areas: safeguarding the status and rights of citizens – EU27 citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU27 – and their families; reaching an agreement on the principles of the financial settlement of the UK's obligations as an EU member; providing for the new external borders of the EU, including the protection of the Good Friday Agreement, and finding imaginative solutions in order to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. Other issues include arrangements regarding dispute settlement and the governance of the withdrawal agreement.

Factually therefore, by any measure you care to adopt, in terms of negotiation the UK has yet to get on the scoreboard nvm, the pitch. And in their infinite wisdom, after the first friendly they chose to ditch the caretaker manager for a mascot and the reserve squad for a goon squad before the first qualifier :pac:

Barnier's mandate for the next bit, is being agreed this week. By the way.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Alas, you're not sufficiently aware:
- EU 4.4m sq.km
- Australia 7.7m sq.km
- USA 9.8m sq.km
- Russia 17.1m sq.km
All of the above permit (and/or have enshrined in their constitution) a "freedom of movement" allowing their citizens to move from one constituent state/nation/republic/territory to another.

For comparison:
- GB 0.9m sq.km
Once again: why does it make sense for GB to be so isolationist when so much of the rest of the world (and certainly all the nearest neighbours) have found no benefit in preventing neighbouring populations from sharing their skills and revenues?

I meant the largest by population.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

I remember years ago watching a TV programme that showed a group of USSR economists proudly demonstrating their very elaborate computer-modelled demand chart for various types of stockings across the USSR.

The model was used to allocate resources, personnel, machinery, fabrics etc, to various factories that made stockings across the USSR.

Needless to say, it was a complete and utter farce: centrally planned micromanagement of the economy by the state doesn't work.

I'm not sure this is a helpful analogy. Immigration control as employed by most countries do not involve micromanaging the economy.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Some of what you say makes sense but your suggestion that the EU isn't negotiating in good faith and does in fact hold the view 'do as you're told 'as a negotiating strategy is...strange to say the least.

Since when does "negotiating in good faith" require that both sides pretend that they are equal? The EU is far bigger than the UK and has a lot of leverage that it can use. Being aware of that fact does not mean that the EU are not negotiating in good faith.

Using the leverage available to your side to get the best possible deal for those you represent is not strange, it is what they are paid to do.