Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what are peoples opinions on what the UK will actually do (as opposed to what one thinks they should do!)

No deal with EU; new "bend over here comes the pain" deal with the US with multiple items that will come in the future (i.e. first year no GMO, second year NHS access etc. to try to get people forget what will happen). The US deal will be done under duress to compensate for loss to EU markets (expect fish to be allowed as a concession for example to "prove that UK don't need EU") instead in one of the most one sided deals ever struck as a FTA. It is likely to be a secret on the details with high level items only shown to not show how embarrassingly bad the deal is claiming it's standard practice. I'd expect the deal will also come with requirements of UK sharing information one way to the US and US companies and a theoretical chance for them to return it but in practice giving UK nothing along with required law changes etc. on safety, health, work etc. standards to align better for US.

Hermy

Nody wrote: »

No deal with EU; new "bend over here comes the pain" deal with the US with multiple items that will come in the future...

Just supposing this or something like it comes to pass, and supposing that following this the UK electorate finally come to their senses and labour win a landslide majority at the next election, how would they extricate themselves from said "bend over" deal?

Nody

Hermy wrote: »

Just supposing this or something like it comes to pass, and supposing that following this the UK electorate finally come to their senses and labour win a landslide majority at the next election, how would they extricate themselves from said "bend over" deal?

Any FTA can be cancelled at any time or renegotiated; the problem is UK is negotiating from a very weak position. Between size difference, their desperate need for the deal, the fact US knows they can ask for pretty much anything and UK being sub servant in their general attitude to the US in everything ("special relationship").

Hence the answer is they can on paper do something about it; in practice there's very limited options to actually make a difference no matter the government in charge as US will state this is the deal and UK (no matter the government) gets to say "Thank you sir".

Leroy42

Hermy wrote: »

Just supposing this or something like it comes to pass, and supposing that following this the UK electorate finally come to their senses and labour win a landslide majority at the next election, how would they extricate themselves from said "bend over" deal?

In of itself it would be pretty straightforward, although the EU would probably be looking for even more than now. A big hurdle will be the impact of any trade deal with the US.

If the UK have lowered their standards, how can they ensure that they meet the EU standards? Will the UK have to give up parts of a US deal?

It, and other trade deals, will make it very unlikely that the UK will be looking for a fulldeal any time in the near future.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

No deal with EU; new "bend over here comes the pain" deal with the US with multiple items that will come in the future (i.e. first year no GMO, second year NHS access etc. to try to get people forget what will happen). The US deal will be done under duress to compensate for loss to EU markets (expect fish to be allowed as a concession for example to "prove that UK don't need EU") instead in one of the most one sided deals ever struck as a FTA. It is likely to be a secret on the details with high level items only shown to not show how embarrassingly bad the deal is claiming it's standard practice. I'd expect the deal will also come with requirements of UK sharing information one way to the US and US companies and a theoretical chance for them to return it but in practice giving UK nothing along with required law changes etc. on safety, health, work etc. standards to align better for US.

The UK have always been subservient to the USA since Pearl Harbour. Ike was the Commander in Chief for the D-Day Normandy landings.

The UK gave up their computer industry to the USA in the 1960s, and also their aircraft industry. Concorde was a blip, but was neutered by the USA not allowing overflight, thus killing it. They also gave up their nuclear business when they agreed to take USA nuclear missiles like trident. They currently act as spies for the USA getting not much in return beyond a 'Special Relationship'.

Joining the EU prevented GM foods, and chlorinated chicken, but it did not stop the progressive privatisation of the NHS, but there is still more room for more big pharma involvement with the NHS there.

I think they will learn that Uncle Sam takes no prisoners and gives no favours.

Enzokk

Here is an article on what the UK tariff scheme means in practice if there is no FTA agreed,

Cheese, wine, and cars to get more expensive if Brexit talks fail but padlocks to get 2.7% cheaper

British consumers will face substantial price hikes for European goods like wine, cheese and cars at the end of the year under plans unveiled by the UK government, unless a trade agreement can be signed with the EU in time.

Liz Truss, the trade secretary, announced on Tuesday the levels of tariffs the UK would apply to imported goods from countries without a free trade agreement when it leaves the single market.

Here are some of what it means for UK consumers,

Under the plans, wine from countries like Italy, France and Spain would become around £2 more expensive for British consumers per bottle - a 50% rise for some of the best value bottles of supermarket wine.

Goods like cheese, too, would get between 63p to 93p more expensive per 500g depending on the type of cheese, adding to weekly shopping bills.

Price rises would be imposed across all European food subject to tariffs, raising the price of, for instance, Italian tinned tomatoes by 14 per cent.

Staples like pasta would get 6 per cent more expensive, while a litre of olive oil would increase in price by nearly £1.20.

But fear not, items like padlocks and mirrors will be cheaper. Luckily you buy more padlocks and mirrors than food items like cheese and wine.

Igotadose

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is an article on what the UK tariff scheme means in practice if there is no FTA agreed,

Cheese, wine, and cars to get more expensive if Brexit talks fail but padlocks to get 2.7% cheaper

Uhh... are those numbers solid? Seem low, and they come from Liz Truss. Plus, aren't they the numbers for 'day 0' which can, of course, change at any time esp. if one of the EU27 decides to raise it on a particular UK item?

I think these are the minimums, at best, and my guess underestimated.

And with the UK economy in the dumper anyway, will the EU care at all if the UK tarriffs cars? Not like they're buying cars when they can't afford food.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

The US deal will be done under duress to compensate for loss to EU markets

They might do a rushed and unfavourable deal for political reasons, but it simply cannot compensate for the loss of the Single Market. Even if they were treated as a 51st state, the US is just too far away in comparison.

Enzokk

Interesting tweet about the UK texts on the FTA negotiations.

https://twitter.com/IanaDreyer/status/1262817671470604293?s=20

Thread Reader

It is interesting to get another side to what is being asked for by the UK. Maybe I am only looking for items that confirms my biases, but this is someone that also sees the UK as not just asking for a CETA FTA but much more.

looksee

Enzokk wrote: »

It is interesting to get another side to what is being asked for by the UK. Maybe I am only looking for items that confirms my biases, but this is someone that also sees the UK as not just asking for a CETA FTA but much more.

I just tried to read that but it was incomprehensible, or maybe I am just slow this evening.

johnnyskeleton

Igotadose wrote: »

Uhh... are those numbers solid? Seem low, and they come from Liz Truss. Plus, aren't they the numbers for 'day 0' which can, of course, change at any time esp. if one of the EU27 decides to raise it on a particular UK item?

I think these are the minimums, at best, and my guess underestimated.

And with the UK economy in the dumper anyway, will the EU care at all if the UK tarriffs cars? Not like they're buying cars when they can't afford food.

As I understand it, post Brexit tarrifs have always been unlikely to affect the trade of goods other than in a few key politically charged areas (fish, meat, cars).

The problems are:

1) non tarrif barriers, which could be substantial - delays at ports, limited supplies of medicines if needed elsewhere in the EU, goods not meeting each others standards etc;

2) the elephant in the room - trade in services.

So the problem will not be so much that Italian specialty cheese is 50p more expensive, it's that it simply might disappear completely from British shelves. And then people in the EU might not have access to Pot Noodles or, um, fish fingers. And the city of London financial district will cease to be of world significance and will become a mere regional city. And tonnes of freshly caught fish will rot on piers as the queues to get them exported will take too long.

EU are unlikely to change their tarrifs, as they are set on the MFN basis for worldwide (bar Africa & FTA countries) imports.

Enzokk

looksee wrote: »

I just tried to read that but it was incomprehensible, or maybe I am just slow this evening.

Yeah, lots of acronyms and a few mistakes on spelling. It looks like the way I sometimes type when I am in a hurry. I think English isn't the first language as well. Basically, if I have it correct, while there are no real headline items on what the UK is asking for that is out of this world, they are still asking for so much more than the EU has given to other countries.

The UK is also ignoring the deals that the EU has with their direct neighbours includes the very things they are fighting against. All other neighbours other than Russia had to accept rules alignment for access to the single market. The UK seems to think it is far away like, South Korea and Canada and Japan, from the EU when it in fact shares a land border with the EU.

Basically there will be a price to pay for the items the UK wants from the EU, even if they only get a fraction of what they want. They should learn from the way smaller countries negotiated with the EU, no grandstanding and to focus on the areas that interest them.

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

Yeah, lots of acronyms and a few mistakes on spelling. It looks like the way I sometimes type when I am in a hurry. I think English isn't the first language as well. Basically, if I have it correct, while there are no real headline items on what the UK is asking for that is out of this world, they are still asking for so much more than the EU has given to other countries.

The UK is also ignoring the deals that the EU has with their direct neighbours includes the very things they are fighting against. All other neighbours other than Russia had to accept rules alignment for access to the single market. The UK seems to think it is far away like, South Korea and Canada and Japan, from the EU when it in fact shares a land border with the EU.

Basically there will be a price to pay for the items the UK wants from the EU, even if they only get a fraction of what they want. They should learn from the way smaller countries negotiated with the EU, no grandstanding and to focus on the areas that interest them.

It sounds like they want a deal on services as well, which is the real jewel in the crown!

I liked the comment, if true, that by demanding that they be recognised as "sovereign equals" they demonstrated that they were not!

Shelga

Just reading this article makes my head hurt: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/uk-confirms-high-tariffs-for-irish-food-exports-if-brexit-trade-talks-fail-1.4257533

Why on earth are they doing this again? Why would you start a fight with your neighbours for absolutely nothing?

ancapailldorcha

What I'm wondering about is the NHS. The NHS is going to be more untouchable than ever coming out of this pandemic. I think it's the only thing that could catalyse any form of systemic unrest from the otherwise placid British public.

The two things the US will demand in a trade deal as priorities are access to the NHS for healthcare firms and access to the British market for cheap and low quality agricultural US exports. Setting the latter aside, I have no idea how Johnson could even countenance the former with the current situation. On the other hand, there's no way that the US will simply ignore lobbying from its healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. I can't imagine Johnson compromising here. The NHS is the closest thing the British have to an all-encompassing religion. Progressives and older Conservatives love it or at least will protect it if they think it's under genuine threat. Not the routine threats of underfunding and rigidity in the face of an ageing and expensive population but the threat of being hollowed out to enrich American corporations.

Johnson travels ideologically light and has a poor reputation amongst many people for obvious reasons but I don't see him compromising here.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What I'm wondering about is the NHS. The NHS is going to be more untouchable than ever coming out of this pandemic. I think it's the only thing that could catalyse any form of systemic unrest from the otherwise placid British public.

The two things the US will demand in a trade deal as priorities are access to the NHS for healthcare firms and access to the British market for cheap and low quality agricultural US exports. Setting the latter aside, I have no idea how Johnson could even countenance the former with the current situation. On the other hand, there's no way that the US will simply ignore lobbying from its healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. I can't imagine Johnson compromising here. The NHS is the closest thing the British have to an all-encompassing religion. Progressives and older Conservatives love it or at least will protect it if they think it's under genuine threat. Not the routine threats of underfunding and rigidity in the face of an ageing and expensive population but the threat of being hollowed out to enrich American corporations.

Johnson travels ideologically light and has a poor reputation amongst many people for obvious reasons but I don't see him compromising here.

There will not be a compromise.

First there will be a trade deal that gives the NHS much better access to the leading (more expensive) patented drugs USA firms produce.

Then will come better private health services that offer shorter wait times and specialist treatments for those that have private health insurance. Of course targeted tax relief will accelerate this transfer to a two tier health service, favoured by the high rollers.

And then they will come for you (or not - if you do not have the right insurance).

A brave new world.

Gerry T

Shelga wrote: »

Just reading this article makes my head hurt: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/uk-confirms-high-tariffs-for-irish-food-exports-if-brexit-trade-talks-fail-1.4257533

Why on earth are they doing this again? Why would you start a fight with your neighbours for absolutely nothing?

It's just rhetoric, under WTO the UK will have the same tariffs for all 3rd countries. So if they put a high tariff on say Irish beef then they have a high tariff on all beef they import.

It's blazing saddles time "don't come any closer or the Sheriff get's it"

Sam Russell

Gerry T wrote: »

It's just rhetoric, under WTO the UK will have the same tariffs for all 3rd countries. So if they put a high tariff on say Irish beef then they have a high tariff on all beef they import.

It's blazing saddles time "don't come any closer or the Sheriff get's it"

So Irish beef gets a high tariff, but NI beef does not. Hmmm - so Sean the bullock migrates north and becomes Billy the bullock and then finest best steak, and then heads over to Blighty - tariff free.

The same could apply to cheese re-packed in NI using Irish Cheddar cheese blocks.

Why would the UK Gov object to such practices that keeps jobs in NI and food prices down in the supermarkets?

Gerry T

Sam Russell wrote: »

So Irish beef gets a high tariff, but NI beef does not. Hmmm - so Sean the bullock migrates north and becomes Billy the bullock and then finest best steak, and then heads over to Blighty - tariff free.

The same could apply to cheese re-packed in NI using Irish Cheddar cheese blocks.

Why would the UK Gov object to such practices that keeps jobs in NI and food prices down in the supermarkets?

I'm sure that will happen, but more likely the UK will keep tariffs low. I thought they had all ready issued their tariff schedule to WTO for ratification, best to just ignore press releases such as the above.

Capt'n Midnight

As recently as a year ago the UK were going to scrap 90% of tariffs.

So there'll be a lot of disappointed countries which will mean trade deals that suddenly got way harder.


As for the car industry, tariffs on parts will make UK car exports more expensive, especially to places that apply tit for tat tariffs.

And in most markets free trade deals don't cover cars with large amounts of imported parts , ie. most cars assembled in the UK , so they can still get hit with tariffs.


Only 80% of the UK's car production is exported.
Many car makers have hinted that it would be uneconomic to continue unless they have tariff free imports/exports to the EU and places the EU has Free Trade Deals with.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As recently as a year ago the UK were going to scrap 90% of tariffs.

So there'll be a lot of disappointed countries which will mean trade deals that suddenly got way harder . . .

Other way round. If you unilaterally scrap most of your tariffs it becomes more difficult to do trade deals, since the countries you're negotiating with already have low-tariff or tariff-free access to your markets, and this is no longer something that you can offer as an inducement to make a deal.

Enzokk

Here is another twitter thread expanding on the letter David Frost has sent to Michel Barnier and the published texts that were available to Barnier but he was not able to share with any of the EU countries.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1262795459644534787?s=20

Thread reader

The thread seems to confirm much of the previous one, the UK is being disingenuous in asking for only a FTA but then picking different parts of different FTA's the EU has with other countries. Foster has this to say as well,

So which is it? The full buccaneer - Global Britain ruling the waves (increasingly turbulent now with Trump and #COVID19) or a close trading relationship with the the market that takes 43% of UK exports? After four years we still seem to be in the 'cake zone' /9

So it is not only Barnier or trade experts but now journalists that sees the UK position for what it is, taking what it likes from the EU without any real cost. I would guess Barnier may have been receiving some pushback from government on why there has been no progress on the talks when the UK has only been asking for FTA's that has been given to other countries. Now he can go back and show the texts and this letter as the reason why the EU is in their corner and taking the position he is taking in the talks.

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is another twitter thread expanding on the letter David Frost has sent to Michel Barnier and the published texts that were available to Barnier but he was not able to share with any of the EU countries.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1262795459644534787?s=20

Thread reader

The thread seems to confirm much of the previous one, the UK is being disingenuous in asking for only a FTA but then picking different parts of different FTA's the EU has with other countries. Foster has this to say as well,



So it is not only Barnier or trade experts but now journalists that sees the UK position for what it is, taking what it likes from the EU without any real cost. I would guess Barnier may have been receiving some pushback from government on why there has been no progress on the talks when the UK has only been asking for FTA's that has been given to other countries. Now he can go back and show the texts and this letter as the reason why the EU is in their corner and taking the position he is taking in the talks.

Interesting quote st the end - the assymetries are too great for bluff! Cuts to the heart of the they need us more than we need them nonsense - the EU will do a deal based on reality and can afford to ignore the bluffing. The UK cant say the same!

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

There will not be a compromise.

First there will be a trade deal that gives the NHS much better access to the leading (more expensive) patented drugs USA firms produce.

Then will come better private health services that offer shorter wait times and specialist treatments for those that have private health insurance. Of course targeted tax relief will accelerate this transfer to a two tier health service, favoured by the high rollers.

And then they will come for you (or not - if you do not have the right insurance).

A brave new world.

I do not think so. You can level a lot against the Conservatives but they're not stupid.

Opposition to US healthcare firms in their markets was part of the reason TTIP failed and this was in countries without the same cult surrounding their health services which were already public-private.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I do not think so. You can level a lot against the Conservatives but they're not stupid.

Opposition to US healthcare firms in their markets was part of the reason TTIP failed and this was in countries without the same cult surrounding their health services which were already public-private.

But the recent reporting is that the US have requested that details of a trade deal be kept secret for up to 5 years after said deal is done. So how will people know?

Things like privatisation don't happen overnight, there is a lead in. But getting cheaper beef products can start almost immediately.

One only has to look at the reporting of Patel removing immigration rights. No mention is made of the loss of the rights of each and every UK citizen to travel freely in the EU, just that immigration at home is being dealt with.

So any deal struck with the US will be lauded as a great example of UK independence, without having to go into any detail of the price they pauid for that deal.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the recent reporting is that the US have requested that details of a trade deal be kept secret for up to 5 years after said deal is done. So how will people know?

Is that commonly done? It seems pretty outrageous to me.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that commonly done? It seems pretty outrageous to me.

I have no idea, but I do know that this government has consistently failed to provide any real details and even with Covid they hid behind "following the science" rather than actually being up front.
Couple that with, if No Deal does happen, this government will be desperate to get a win to show that Brexit is worth it and I can see it being a very real possibility.

In any event. the finer details of trade deals are not normally something that the general public, or mainstream media, are particularly interested in.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the recent reporting is that the US have requested that details of a trade deal be kept secret for up to 5 years after said deal is done. So how will people know?

The same way they usually do. Leaks. Even if that were not to happen, there's no way you can outsource an organisation like the fifth largest employer in the world to US corporations without someone knowing about it.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Things like privatisation don't happen overnight, there is a lead in. But getting cheaper beef products can start almost immediately.

It can but it comes at a cost, namely rural pro-Brexit voters who will at the very least be losing a portion of their subsidies. There's no way farmers' unions here will not be lobbying for all their worth.

They can start, sure but it will begin the process of sundering their coalition. Even though southeastern England is the UK's richest region, it's also extremely rural (and drop dead gorgeous if I do say so myself).

Leroy42 wrote: »

One only has to look at the reporting of Patel removing immigration rights. No mention is made of the loss of the rights of each and every UK citizen to travel freely in the EU, just that immigration at home is being dealt with.

So any deal struck with the US will be lauded as a great example of UK independence, without having to go into any detail of the price they pauid for that deal.

I do not see what you're getting at here. People here voted for an end to freedom of movement and "sovereignty". Virtually nobody cares about trade deals. That was a helpful soundbyte from Vote Leave to help Leave voters avoid feeling stupid.

Believe me, if the deal adversely affects farmers or the NHS it will be reported on. Elderly voters aren't going to want to rot in US-run care homes and farmers will balk at any loss in income. It's part of the reason I've not gotten bored of the subject to be honest. Johnson doesn't have so much a majority as a coaliiton with mutually exclusive interests. It's like if the Remain parties won a threadbare majority in 2019.

Leroy42

But some big American company, with a US flag, won't come in to a town and demolished the existing care home or Hosptial. It will be far more nuacnhed than that. Preferential bidder status on supplies, set up of UK subsidiaries to run to hospitals etc.

It won't ever be that the NHS itself will be sold off, the US doesn't even need that. Far too much hassle. THey just want the juicy bits, the money making bits.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

But some big American company, with a US flag, won't come in to a town and demolished the existing care home or Hosptial. It will be far more nuacnhed than that. Preferential bidder status on supplies, set up of UK subsidiaries to run to hospitals etc.

It won't ever be that the NHS itself will be sold off, the US doesn't even need that. Far too much hassle. THey just want the juicy bits, the money making bits.

Right but how do you hide this information from the people who constitute the NHS, journalists, regulators, civil servants and politicians? It only takes one whistleblower to alert the public to the whole thing.