Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

fash wrote: »

1st January is going to be interesting...

I doubt it simply because Boris will grab the lifeline EU throws him with an extension simply because he don't care about Brexit. If it had been Patel as PM I'd agree UK would be out and no two ways about it; Boris "I'll die in a ditch before an extension" Johnson will grab the lifeline and spin it to a net as always.

Jizique

Nody wrote: »

I doubt it simply because Boris will grab the lifeline EU throws him with an extension simply because he don't care about Brexit. If it had been Patel as PM I'd agree UK would be out and no two ways about it; Boris "I'll die in a ditch before an extension" Johnson will grab the lifeline and spin it to a net as always.

He won’t be allowed to get away with that by the party; he would be gone within a month

Professor Moriarty

Jizique wrote: »

He won’t be allowed to get away with that by the party; he would be gone within a month

In The Telegraph today, Hannan wrote an article about the extension. In his opinion, there won't be an extension because:

1. It was in the Tory manifesto that they would not apply.
2. It is enshrined in statute
3. It is the EU that wants closer alignment now - not the UK.
4. The EU will always be intransigent anyway.
5. The Coronavirus has already done the damage to the economy so the UK will have to make drastic changes to regulations in order to recover.

Interestingly, the odds on no extension are now 2/9. So the bookies think there won't be an extension.

fash

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

5. The Coronavirus has already done the damage to the economy so the UK will have to make drastic changes to regulations in order to recover.

One thing I am not convinced by is that the brexit economic impact is the same as the vivid economic impact. If they were the same, then one masks the other. If they are not the same, then both add together such that the sum is likely greater than the parts - i.e. more damage than either alone. Will be interesting to see.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In The Telegraph today, Hannan wrote an article about the extension. In his opinion, there won't be an extension because:

1. It was in the Tory manifesto that they would not apply.
2. It is enshrined in statute
3. It is the EU that wants closer alignment now - not the UK.
4. The EU will always be intransigent anyway.
5. The Coronavirus has already done the damage to the economy so the UK will have to make drastic changes to regulations in order to recover.

Interestingly, the odds on no extension are now 2/9. So the bookies think there won't be an extension.

Funny

Professor Moriarty

fash wrote: »

One thing I am not convinced by is that the brexit economic impact is the same as the vivid economic impact. If they were the same, then one masks the other. If they are not the same, then both add together such that the sum is likely greater than the parts - i.e. more damage than either alone. Will be interesting to see.

In talking about the Covid-19 economic damage, he doesn't mention any damage whatsoever from Brexit. Just that the UK will have to deregulate, change taxes and trade policy to recover from Covid-19 and leaving the EU will facilitate this. Essentially, this is the free marketeers' opportunity.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

Funny

In a pathetic way.

Capt'n Midnight

fash wrote: »

twitter.com/vivamjm/status/1269569819743072256?s=20

1st January is going to be interesting...

Especially for those trying to get their five a day of fruit and veg.

Article in Nature about how vulnerable the UK's food chain is. It was for Covid but equally applies to Brexit.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0097-7

The UK is dangerously dependent on just two countries (the Netherlands and Spain) for the lion’s share of its fresh vegetable imports.
...
The UK is reliant on seasonal migrant labour to harvest domestically grown produce with 70,000–80,000 seasonal agricultural workers entering the UK every year, mainly from Romania and Bulgaria, to harvest crops.

And not the whole of Spain it's particularly Andalusia and Murcia.

Apart from the vegetables the UK imports 84% of its fresh fruit,
70,000 to 80,000 seasonal workers are needed for food harvest.

TBH this all has me worried since we're integrated into the same supply chains generally. If they start panic buying it could have a knock-on effect to us.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH this all has me worried since we're integrated into the same supply chains generally. If they start panic buying it could have a knock-on effect to us.

You've missed the key element: it won't be a lack of product, but a lack of hauliers willing to take produce to the UK due to customs delays and admin. These factors won't apply to Ireland, seeing as Ireland's staying in the EU.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH this all has me worried since we're integrated into the same supply chains generally. If they start panic buying it could have a knock-on effect to us.

Difference is Ireland is still in EU; which means there are no issues with throwing in another 20 trucks to Dublin a day were as if you send them into the UK you don't know when they will come back (due to queues etc.). Now will it impact companies that uses UK warehouses for shipping to Ireland? Obviously but that's a great incentive for those being rejigged as well or said companies will lose business to the companies that send directly to Ireland (be that from a continental or Irish based warehouse setup). Remember the issue here not that product does not exist (it does) but the fact shipping things to UK will have a potential delay (be that VAT, trucks not returning due to queues, new import VAT/rules etc.). Hence there is the incentive to not have supply chains going with UK; first export of EU to UK and then import back from UK warehouse to EU (beyond what ever rules UK add in the middle) is a royal pain. As someone who's done Russia, to Poland, to Switzerland, to Netherlands and then back to Switzerland, supply chain once and showed the bill for it to our account holder of why this was a very very stupid idea (but the price was soooo good was their argument for doing it in the first place).

54and56

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH this all has me worried since we're integrated into the same supply chains generally. If they start panic buying it could have a knock-on effect to us.

Apart from the very valid point that we'll still be in the EU so will be well shielded from any EU/UK supply chain snarl ups there's not much point panic or bulk buying fresh fruit and veg as it has a very short shelf life. The potential issue won't really be a spike in demand, it'll be a decline in timely supply which could cause shortages of fruit and veg etc.

Capt'n Midnight

54and56 wrote: »

Apart from the very valid point that we'll still be in the EU so will be well shielded from any EU/UK supply chain snarl ups there's not much point panic or bulk buying fresh fruit and veg as it has a very short shelf life. The potential issue won't really be a spike in demand, it'll be a decline in timely supply which could cause shortages of fruit and veg etc.

The big issue is that if you want it fresh you have to buy from the EU or fly it in.

And yes some fruit and veg and meat is already flown in.

The problem is that there isn't enough spare capacity to ramp it up.

Especially if the Just In Time factories need a shipment now to keep a entire factory open at which point they'll pay a lot more.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH this all has me worried since we're integrated into the same supply chains generally. If they start panic buying it could have a knock-on effect to us.

If delays through the UK start building up it may be quicker to go direct to France, Belgium or Spain

listermint

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If delays through the UK start building up it may be quicker to go direct to France, Belgium or Spain

This is happening already.

CelticRambler

54and56 wrote: »

Apart from the very valid point that we'll still be in the EU so will be well shielded from any EU/UK supply chain snarl ups there's not much point panic or bulk buying fresh fruit and veg as it has a very short shelf life. The potential issue won't really be a spike in demand, it'll be a decline in timely supply which could cause shortages of fruit and veg etc.

We're still in the realms of hypothetical as far as shortages and panic-buying are concerned, but if the pandemic has illustrated anything, it's that the public can be completely irrational when it comes to what they decide to panic-buy. This is going to make it difficult for supermarkets and other suppliers to make rational preparations. If, at the start of the year, anyone had said that there'd be a run on toilet paper a month after Farage's [damp squib] exit party, it'd have been thought of as a great joke ...

So any mischievous troll-farm could easily whip the British public into a panic over products that are neither threatened nor essential, but could trigger a wider assault on the shelves of Tesco, Sainsbury, Lidl and Aldi, with consequent disruption to the retail supply chain in general. I don't have any confidence in the Johnson-Cummings administration being able to anticipate, prepare for or respond to such a scenario. Which will, of course, make it worse.

serfboard

CelticRambler wrote: »

So any mischievous troll-farm could easily whip the British public into a panic ... I don't have any confidence in the Johnson-Cummings administration being able to anticipate, prepare for or respond to such a scenario.

I do, for the simple reason that the most effective troll-farm operating in the UK is run by the Cummings-Johnson administration, and has been for the last four years.

Capt'n Midnight

CelticRambler wrote: »

We're still in the realms of hypothetical as far as shortages and panic-buying are concerned,

That's one theory

Here's another
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52959639

The UK has been warned by the pharmaceutical industry that some stockpiles of medical supplies have been "used up entirely" by the virus.

...
Drug makers fear stockpiles cannot feasibly be built back up again in time, if the UK should fail to strike a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU.

Leroy42

It is interesting. The last time, the UK spent billions on preparation for No Deal Brexit. This time they are adamant that come what may they are gone completely on 1st January, which raises very high the possibility of No Deal.

Do they have either the time or the money to prepare? What preparations have they made for ferries, for example? How are the new custom recruits getting on? Have they prepared alternative supply chains? Do they have the space for warehousing, for holding trucks etc etc.

Ben Done

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is interesting. The last time, the UK spent billions on preparation for No Deal Brexit. This time they are adamant that come what may they are gone completely on 1st January, which raises very high the possibility of No Deal.

Do they have either the time or the money to prepare? What preparations have they made for ferries, for example? How are the new custom recruits getting on? Have they prepared alternative supply chains? Do they have the space for warehousing, for holding trucks etc etc.

Not great, per the excellent Peter Foster..


https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1265187793044635648


I'm sure, in the manner of the Covid tests, the Tories won't be long 'ramping up' the numbers..

fash

I share this view of brexit/brexiters:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1269875379407290368?s=20

As most recently echoed by brexiter Daniel Kawczynski - and what it means for the EU: the need to now treat the UK as an actively hostile entity - at least until such time as it changes its politics. Note treating it as a hostile entity need not be as a "hot" engagement but rather a cold engagement which doesn't escalate

Roanmore

Ben Done wrote: »

I'm sure, in the manner of the Covid tests, the Tories won't be long 'ramping up' the numbers..

Or do what they did with the Nurses, retain 15000 of them and say it's an extra 15000 hired.

Leroy42

fash wrote: »

I share this view of brexit/brexiters:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1269875379407290368?s=20

As most recently echoed by brexiter Daniel Kawczynski - and what it means for the EU: the need to now treat the UK as an actively hostile entity - at least until such time as it changes its politics. Note treating it as a hostile entity need not be as a "hot" engagement but rather a cold engagement which doesn't escalate

There was a post recently linking to an article (or maybe a blog) going through the speeches of Gove and Frost with the argument that it is actually the destruction of the the EU that they really want.

And in terms if 'success', the ultimate outcome of Brexit, and this has been something bubbling under the surface, is that others countries will follow the UK, and as such the EU will collapse.

I happen to have a lot of agreement with that sentiment, and with that I think that any deal with the UK is actually a bad deal. For it will only ever be a step to another deal. The UK have already shown, that they will agree to something, not as an end, but as a means to move closer to what they ultimate goal was.

Whatever deal is struck, it will be attacked by the Brexiteers. I hope that all this negotiating and deals made are being done by the EU with the clear knowledge that it is simply playing for time and that in the end the UK will move further and further away.

johnnyskeleton

fash wrote: »

I share this view of brexit/brexiters:
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1269875379407290368?s=20

Agreed, but with a slightly different emphasis. It wasn't just that the EU be destroyed, but that it would be destroyed by the UK, who could then swoop in and rebuild a new EU that is largely the same, only the UK are the preeminent state in it.

I also maintain that, generally speaking, anything a brexiteer says about the EU can, in reality, be much more suitably be applied to themselves:

1) They're on the verge of collapse
2) They need us more than we need them
3) They always do deals at the last minute
4) They are dominated by unelected and untouchable bureaucrats
5) They are too insular, we want to trade on a global stage

etc

As most recently echoed by brexiter Daniel Kawczynski - and what it means for the EU: the need to now treat the UK as an actively hostile entity - at least until such time as it changes its politics. Note treating it as a hostile entity need not be as a "hot" engagement but rather a cold engagement which doesn't escalate

This creates a lot of difficulties for Ireland (aside from the trade difficulties). For example, we currently rely on UK armed forces to monitor our skies and partially monitor our seas. Hard to see how we can still do that if the UK is our geopolitical adversary

jm08

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

For example, we currently rely on UK armed forces to monitor our skies and partially monitor our seas. Hard to see how we can still do that if the UK is our geopolitical adversary

Ireland is a neutral country. My understanding is that the British ask to use our airspace to protect themselves. The only reason the seas have to be monitored is because the UK/US/NATO don't like Russian submarines getting too close to them.


Where there is co-operation is for Search & Rescue - but I think that works both ways. I also saw recently that the Irish Navy do a huge amount of monitoring of drugs coming from South America by sea into Europe.

Edit: an example of drug monitoring by Irish Navy working to a co-ordinator in Portugal. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/24/irish-navy-cocaine-drug-smuggled-ireland

listermint

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This creates a lot of difficulties for Ireland (aside from the trade difficulties). For example, we currently rely on UK armed forces to monitor our skies and partially monitor our seas. Hard to see how we can still do that if the UK is our geopolitical adversary

Im actually not sure of the point of this tbh, Frankly i think its a fabricated need rather than an actual one.

A reliance in name and nothing more.

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

I happen to have a lot of agreement with that sentiment, and with that I think that any deal with the UK is actually a bad deal. For it will only ever be a step to another deal. The UK have already shown, that they will agree to something, not as an end, but as a means to move closer to what they ultimate goal was.

Whatever deal is struck, it will be attacked by the Brexiteers. I hope that all this negotiating and deals made are being done by the EU with the clear knowledge that it is simply playing for time and that in the end the UK will move further and further away.

The only point I would add to that is that the UK isn't entirely brexiters. Discrediting brexit for example would allow other voices to become prominent. Brexiters will not always be in power and others will move in different directions. An equilibrium point does need to be achieved of course taking into consideration brexiters - and the future extent of their control. Hence the need to treat the UK as a "cold" rather than "hot" hostile - encourage those in favour of EU values/interests and discourage those against.

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

For example, we currently rely on UK armed forces to monitor our skies and partially monitor our seas. Hard to see how we can still do that if the UK is our geopolitical adversary

That kind of "defence" only is only necessary and only works against the kind of threats faced by nations still living in the 20th, 19th or 18th centuries. Fortunately, the EU doesn't have that kind of mentality.

Meanwhile, with reference to the Brexit readiness point raised earlier, could this example of incompetence be extrapolated to that situation? Probably not ... :rolleyes:

Plans to push ahead with reopening schools in England are in disarray, after the government admitted ... that – with little more than six weeks remaining before schools close for summer – the practicalities are too difficult for all children to return.

Those "practicalities" are bloody nuisance! :pac:

Leroy42

fash wrote: »

The only point I would add to that is that the UK isn't entirely brexiters. Discrediting brexit for example would allow other voices to become prominent. Brexiters will not always be in power and others will move in different directions. An equilibrium point does need to be achieved of course taking into consideration brexiters - and the future extent of their control. Hence the need to treat the UK as a "cold" rather than "hot" hostile - encourage those in favour of EU values/interests and discourage those against.

But at the moment they are very much in control. The recent GE would indicate a very sizable amount of the population is also on board. The Non Brexiteers seem to have been hopelessly divided and have now accepted that it has to happen and that there is very little they can do.

Given the make up of the UK cabinet, and that is the only body that the EU can deal with, it would be naive, IMO, to think that this is going any other way than further apart.

I don't like the prospect of No Deal, but my view of the last few years is that nothing will be enough for the UK. They really want everything on their own terms, and will continue to argue until they get it. They have been that way for the previous number of years in EU and will continue to do so.

IMO, and deal struck with the UK will not last. As can be seen with the WA, the UK will sing something on the basis of that point in time, and be very quick to get back to the table to negotiate further.

My own view is that failing a big climb down by the EU, they will take the approach of chipping away. So agree to border on the Irish Sea, but continue to expand the amount of product that is never checked. Until such point as it is a border in name only. At that point the EU will have simply accepted it.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

But at the moment they are very much in control.

Control of what? Certainly not in control of what happens in and with the EU ... or the US, or China, or India, or Australia.

#takebackcontrol has left the UK with no influence or control over anything other than their own back yard, an area over which they always had - but didn't really exercise - control.

Leroy42 wrote: »

IMO, and deal struck with the UK will not last. As can be seen with the WA, the UK will sing something on the basis of that point in time, and be very quick to get back to the table to negotiate further.

My own view is that failing a big climb down by the EU, they will take the approach of chipping away. So agree to border on the Irish Sea, but continue to expand the amount of product that is never checked. Until such point as it is a border in name only. At that point the EU will have simply accepted it.

The EU never "simply accepts" deviations from its third-party agreements. Having learnt from their dealings with the Swiss, you can be damn sure that any deal signed with the UK will include an "all or nothing" clause, so if it becomes obvious that the UK are not implementing the GB-NI border checks in a sincere and meaningful fashion, then the whole trade deal will be suspended.

Here again we're watching one party negotiating on the basis of decades of experience in carefully crafting workable, mutually acceptable, enforceable agreements; and on the other, a party that still wants to conduct its affairs in the anything-goes spirit of its colonial past. Where's that empire now ...?