Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Tell me how

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK was outside the EU for about 15 years, begging others to join them. It didn’t seem to bother the EU; they kept knocking back the UK’s application to join. The UK founded EFTA as a rival to the EU; that fizzled. The considered opening up the Commonwealth to European democracies but that fizzled also; European democracies couldn’t see any reason why they should join the Commonwealth.

What has changed that would now make joining the UK outside the EU an attractive prospect for any EU Member State? If anything, the UK’s shambolic parade of ineptitude and idiocy over the last four years have served as an Awful Example; euroscepticism within the EU has become much more reformist and much less seccessionist. Things would have to change very radically for the UK before joining the UK outside the EU would begin to look like an attractive option for any EU Member State.


Others have pointed out that your French figures are from four years ago, which kind of underlines my point. If you read about the discontent in Italy in sources with more credibility than the Express, you’ll see that it was not based on claims about denial of sovereignty, oppression, rule by Brussels and the tyranny of bureacrats; the objection was that the EU was not doing enough; the critics wanted it to exercise more power, to take on more competences, to be more assertive to Member States - to make them do more to support Italy, basically. Pretty much the opposite of Brexitry, really.


Time has told, I suggest. We’re four years after the referendum, and the domino effect gleefully predicted by Brexiters has - like their other promises and predictions - been a complete bust. The net effect has been to divert euroscepticism in a new and different direction.

You're looking at this from the basis of someone who disagrees (as do I) with Brexit.

The point I am making is that there are consistently agitators against the Euro project with all countries to various degrees.

Aside from the imperialist persuasion of many senior influencers over the last ten years, there are strong rumors that Russia was in favour of them leaving the EU as it weakens the project. If that was true then (all the more believable given the UK Foreign Secretary has claimed he has not read the report in to that accusation yet) then they will surely continue to sow distrust if the opportunity arises.

All I am saying is that, in future, if another populist movement does get the opportunity to consider leaving, the UK will actively campaign for them to do so, whoever they are.

On the French Figures;

n a January 2018 interview with the BBC, President of France Emmanuel Macron agreed with Andrew Marr that the French people were equally disenchanted with globalisation and if presented with a simple yes / no response to such a complex question, they would "probably" have voted for Frexit in the same circumstances.[9]

In January 2019, pollster Institut français d'opinion publique conducted a survey on several questions that might be asked were the Citizens' initiative referendum to be applied in France. One of these questions is about the exit of France from the EU. The result was that 60% opposed it.

I agree more with the poster that said that the rising populist tide which seemed to be there a few years ago may have weakened considerably than the thought that every country is categorically in favour of remaining.

CelticRambler

Tell me how wrote: »

All I am saying is that, in future, if another populist movement does get the opportunity to consider leaving, the UK will actively campaign for them to do so, whoever they are.

On the French Figures;

n a January 2018 interview with the BBC, President of France Emmanuel Macron agreed with Andrew Marr that the French people were equally disenchanted with globalisation and if presented with a simple yes / no response to such a complex question, they would "probably" have voted for Frexit in the same circumstances.[9]

There, in red, is the caveat. And the period 2016-2020 has demonstrated to everyone in the EU - populists, unionists, separatists, globalists, shoplocalists, etc - that a simple yes/no question was, and still is, a ridiculous choice to put to a referendum.

In your hypothetical situation of one country's resurgent populist movement proposing an exit from the EU, the UK - or whatever's left of it by that time - will continue to stand as an example of how a simple choice turned into a nation-splitting nightmare, regardless of whatever campaigning they do.

Don't forget, too, that most other countries have better protections in place against deliberate interference in the democratic process by outside forces, and a tradition of consensual governance rather than the bipolar politics of England.

I think it would be fair to assume that the "populist wave" across the EU in recent years was supported, even coordinated, by the same shadowy figures as Brexit (and MAGA-Trump). In the EU, it failed - quite spectacularly.

Zubeneschamali

Chatter about a new proposal today: UK gets tariff free trade if they maintain LPF, EU imposes tariffs if they diverge.

So the UK technically has the right to diverge, just like Eric Idle has the right to have babies.

Can Johnson fool enough Brexiteers? No doubt the EU will help by complaining a lot.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Chatter about a new proposal today: UK gets tariff free trade if they maintain LPF, EU imposes tariffs if they diverge.

So the UK technically has the right to diverge, just like Eric Idle has the right to have babies.

Can Johnson fool enough Brexiteers? No doubt the EU will help by complaining a lot.

Haven't seen that particular report, but it sounds very much like the run into the WA. Sold as something amazing and finally delivering Brexit, but in reality no different to what has been on the table since day 1.

It gives the appearance of the UK being in control, able to break away whenever they like, which is true of course, but no different then thy have had for 40+ years.

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

Haven't seen that particular report, but it sounds very much like the run into the WA. Sold as something amazing and finally delivering Brexit, but in reality no different to what has been on the table since day 1.

It gives the appearance of the UK being in control, able to break away whenever they like, which is true of course, but no different then thy have had for 40+ years.

Lots of problems with it: who decides if UK not complying? What are the consequences of non compliance? Are they the same for a minor breach or a major breach/negligent or intentional? How quickly do the countermeasures kick in? How do you evaluate non compliance - take a set of measures as a whole or take each measure separately (e.g. change to environmental protections)?
Given the brexiter government, it is hard to see how it wouldn't just turn the entire thing into a "permanent withdrawal and transition period" scenario - with the UK making changes, ramping up rhetoric domestically and constantly in dispute with the EU.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

Lots of problems with it: who decides if UK not complying?

All to be negotiated. I'm guessing, in the first instance the EU would take the position that the UK was not complying, and would complain to the Joint Committee. If the Joint Committee couldn't resolve the issue, it would be passed on to an arbitration tribunal (which would be provided for in the FTA).

fash wrote: »

What are the consequences of non compliance?

The EU gets to impose tariffs on the UK - the same tariffs that they would have imposed, had there been no FTA. In other words, the UK loses the benefit of the FTA, at least as far as tariff concessions go.

fash wrote: »

Are they the same for a minor breach or a major breach/negligent or intentional? How quickly do the countermeasures kick in? How do you evaluate non compliance - take a set of measures as a whole or take each measure separately (e.g. change to environmental protections)?

These are matters for negotiation. They'd be negotiated as part of the FTA - not later, when the EU complains about a breach of LPF. In the negotiations, UK will take a minimalist position - EU can only apply tariffs to specified goods which are shown to directly benefit from the breach of LPF. EU will take a maximalist position - EU can apply tariffs to any classes of goods which might benefit from breach of LPF, or can apply tariffs calculated to offset all benefit to the UK or detriment to the EU from the breach of LPF, or can apply tariffs set at a level designed to make sure that UK is worse off from breaching LPF than it would be from complying with it. EU will want tariffs to kick in immediately breach is complained of; UK only after all avenues for resolving the dispute have been exhauseted; etc, etc.

fash wrote: »

Given the brexiter government, it is hard to see how it wouldn't just turn the entire thing into a "permanent withdrawal and transition period" scenario - with the UK making changes, ramping up rhetoric domestically and constantly in dispute with the EU.

That would be the EU's fear, and they will make the point in negotiations that if this system is to be stable the tariff consequences of breaching LPF have to be sufficiently immediate, and sufficiently severe, to disincentivise breaching LPF.

fash

Peregrinus wrote: »

All to be negotiated. I'm guessing, in the first instance the EU would take the position that the UK was not complying, and would complain to the Joint Committee. If the Joint Committee couldn't resolve the issue, it would be passed on to an arbitration tribunal (which would be provided for in the FTA).


The EU gets to impose tariffs on the UK - the same tariffs that they would have imposed, had there been no FTA. In other words, the UK loses the benefit of the FTA, at least as far as tariff concessions go.


These are matters for negotiation. They'd be negotiated as part of the FTA - not later, when the EU complains about a breach of LPF. In the negotiations, UK will take a minimalist position - EU can only apply tariffs to specified goods which are shown to directly benefit from the breach of LPF. EU will take a maximalist position - EU can apply tariffs to any classes of goods which might benefit from breach of LPF, or can apply tariffs calculated to offset all benefit to the UK or detriment to the EU from the breach of LPF, or can apply tariffs set at a level designed to make sure that UK is worse off from breaching LPF than it would be from complying with it. EU will want tariffs to kick in immediately breach is complained of; UK only after all avenues for resolving the dispute have been exhauseted; etc, etc.


That would be the EU's fear, and they will make the point in negotiations that if this system is to be stable the tariff consequences of breaching LPF have to be sufficiently immediate, and sufficiently severe, to disincentivise breaching LPF.

The other problem with what you are saying is that is difficult to see how that can work with any of the "ambitious" stuff the UK proposes: the quasi freedom of movement for company workers, allowing UK truck drivers to the EU, data access etc. Any innovation in terms of diagonal cumulation etc.

Presumably all of that gets dropped?

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

The other problem with what you are saying is that is difficult to see how that can work with any of the "ambitious" stuff the UK proposes: the quasi freedom of movement for company workers, allowing UK truck drivers to the EU, data access etc. Any innovation in terms of diagonal cumulation etc.

Presumably all of that gets dropped?

EU position will be that that too can be withdrawn if UK departs from the LPF.

(Just to be clear: the proposal that's being floated around is a mutual one; if either side fails to stick to the LPF provisions, the other side can impose tariffs. But the discussion of the proposal proceeds, on all sides, on the basis that it is likely to be the UK which moves away from LPF, and the EU which seeks to impose tariffs in consequence.)

(And just to be less clear: I don't know whether the proposal is that, if the EU does impose tarriffs, the UK is then free to impose tariffs as well, or whether it can't do so unless the EU also moves away from the LPF rules. But if the UK was subject to EU tariffs while not free to impose UK tariffs, that would give the UK a strong incentive to withdraw from the FTA entirely. So this provision would operate as an instability mechanism, which looks like a really bad thing to build into any treaty.)

Leroy42

Aren't all those concerns that same as with any trade deal?

The difference in this case is that the UK is openly looking to diverge so how long it can last is open to question.

The hope may be that once a deal is done Brexit is actively removed from political discussions in the UK.

Done and dusted, move on.

Zubeneschamali

fash wrote: »

The other problem with what you are saying is that is difficult to see how that can work with any of the "ambitious" stuff the UK proposes: the quasi freedom of movement for company workers, allowing UK truck drivers to the EU, data access etc. Any innovation in terms of diagonal cumulation etc.

Presumably all of that gets dropped?

No, I think they continue talking about all of that.

What gets quietly dropped is the US FTA, since it would require divergence from EU standards.

But the UK will trumpet that they have won the right to diverge, they just choose not to because of the costs.

declanflynn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, I think they continue talking about all of that.

What gets quietly dropped is the US FTA, since it would require divergence from EU standards.

But the UK will trumpet that they have won the right to diverge, they just choose not to because of the costs.

I think it's time to cut the uk loose.
Turkey would be an ideal replacement.

Sam Russell

declanflynn wrote: »

I think it's time to cut the uk loose.
Turkey would be an ideal replacement.

What - another Hungary?

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

What - another Hungary?

I'd argue Turkey is worse than Hungary at this stage to be honest. Don't get me wrong; both are very corrupt but Erdogan has elevated personal graft and dictatorship to a whole new level by comparison with things such as a personal loyal and armed militia given rights to do arrests etc. And that's before we start talking about Cyprus or the Greece v Turkey relationship and the veto that's sitting there.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

I'd argue Turkey is worse than Hungary at this stage to be honest. Don't get me wrong; both are very corrupt but Erdogan has elevated personal graft and dictatorship to a whole new level by comparison with things such as a personal loyal and armed militia given rights to do arrests etc. And that's before we start talking about Cyprus or the Greece v Turkey relationship and the veto that's sitting there.

Perhaps I should have been stronger.

Hungary is heading towards dictatorship - Turkey is already there.

Poland is moving away from the democratic rule of law - Turkey is already there.

The EU already has problems with migrants - Turkey has greater problems with migrants.

No - Turkey will not be joining the EU for a long time - maybe it will take another Ataturk.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

No - Turkey will not be joining the EU for a long time - maybe it will take another

There isn't much enthusiasm for an EU border with Iraq, Syria and Iran.

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

No - Turkey will not be joining the EU for a long time - maybe it will take another Ataturk.

Turkey will not join the EU - not now, not for a very long time, most likely never.

The size and growth of Turkey's population will be create huge democratic problems within the EU - apart from everything else and a very much missing new Ataturk.

Lars


Note: The UK was perhaps the strongest supporter of Turkey's EU application or for the last 10-20 years the only real supporter. This is of course not longer so.

Sam Russell

declanflynn wrote: »

Anything is a step up from the uk

No, a theocratic Muslim dictatorship is not a step up - even the bats**t crazy brexiteers are not as bad as Turkey under its current format.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

Perhaps I should have been stronger.

Hungary is heading towards dictatorship - Turkey is already there.

Poland is moving away from the democratic rule of law - Turkey is already there.

The EU already has problems with migrants - Turkey has greater problems with migrants.

No - Turkey will not be joining the EU for a long time - maybe it will take another Ataturk.

Your spot on on every point you make there. No way Turkey will be joining the EU anytime soon if ever.

eire4

declanflynn wrote: »

I think it's time to cut the uk loose.
Turkey would be an ideal replacement.

Thankfully there is no chance the current theocracy/dictatorship that is Turkey currently will not be joining the EU. There are a number of other Balkan states that may well join the EU in the coming years but Turkey thankfully not a chance.

First Up

eire4 wrote:

Thankfully there is no chance the current theocracy/dictatorship that is Turkey currently will not be joining the EU. There are a number of other Balkan states that may well join the EU in the coming years but Turkey thankfully not a chance.

It is neither a theocracy or a dictatorship. I'm no fan of Erdogan but his time will pass and Turkey will continue to be a strong political and economic force.

There are good reasons why Turkey isn't a good fit as an EU member. Turkey fully understands this and that it has a different role to play between Europe, the Western Balkans and what used to be called Asia Minor. It does that well and to everyone's benefit.

Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU. That's as far as it needs to go.

CelticRambler

First Up wrote: »

Turkey is in a Customs Union with the EU. That's as far as it needs to go.

... and which, to a certain extent, means it already has a more "ambitious" relationship with the EU than what would appear to be the UK's likely position in six and a half months' time.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Below standard posts deleted. Please refrain from posting short, one-line comments.

Enzokk

It was interesting that when Michael Gove gave his evidence in front of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee he was asked on the slides showing a trade deal with NZ actually showing a economic harm to NI, he was flabbergasted and confused on what the questioner meant. He then said this was taking into account the deal that NZ wanted and not the deal the UK would be looking for. Strange that the UK would model the impact of the NZ deal in their own papers, but apparently that is what they did and not the deal they were looking for.

But here is the impact a deal would mean for the UK with NZ and Australia,

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1273228681369001987?s=20

As can be seen, the impact would be a reduction of GDP in one scenario and a 0.01% increase in GDP in another. I can believe the model showing a decrease of NI GDP with the NZ deal is not the NZ deal impact but what the UK wants. It seems to me that NZ would offer goods that would negatively impact NI and their economy and if a FTA is concluded then, well it is only NI so who cares, right?

Again, the sliminess of Gove is creepy. The way he feigned ignorance of an important paper and tried to pass it off as nothing to be worried off makes me cringe. Especially when you consider he may take over if Johnson isn't thrown out of No.10 but resigns and Gove could be a successor.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote: »

... and which, to a certain extent, means it already has a more "ambitious" relationship with the EU than what would appear to be the UK's likely position in six and a half months' time.

Yes, Turkey juggles its relations East and West, using its strengths and recognising its weaknesses. I'd call that pragmatism.

The UK on the other hand is putting ideology (and mythology) at the heart of its policies. People can decide which of the two countries is closer to a theocracy.

Enzokk

Remember the Galileo satellite system and how the UK would have their own? Well it seems like those plans are being scaled back.

Britain to scale back on independent satellite system - FT

British ministers are looking to scale back plans for a 5 billion pound ($6.18 billion) satellite navigation system which was introduced back in 2018 as an alternative to the European Union’s Galileo project, the Financial Times reported on Friday.

The ministers are exploring other options which include using OneWeb, the UK satellite operator that went bankrupt in March, the newspaper reported, citing sources.

OneWeb has pledged to move its satellite production from Florida in the United States to the UK if its management wins government support for its bid, according to the report on.ft.com/2zNaC1h.

Here is the FT link

Still scratching my head that they are continuing with the face that is Brexit. I mean, seriously, what are the benefits other than getting to chose to only allow white people to come to your country?

Blowfish

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, a theocratic Muslim dictatorship is not a step up - even the bats**t crazy brexiteers are not as bad as Turkey under its current format.

Turkey over the past decade or so has slowly been shifting into an interesting situation. Erdogan has intricately linked himself and his party with Islam. In fact he's done it so much that young people, seeing the dictatorial and corrupt nature of him and his party are turning away not just from him and his party, but from Islam itself too: https://www.ft.com/content/ba284cda-e5b1-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc. This has led to several losses for Erdogan already like losing the Mayorship of Istanbul.

Erdogan's AKP party are facing the same issues as the UK Conservatives and US Republicans in that demographics aren't on his side in the long run. Whether Erdogan manages to use the power of the state to suppress this or whether the ultimate power of demographics wins out will be interesting to watch.

Zubeneschamali

The benefit of Brexit to the people who matter (both of them) is that it keeps them in #10 Downing Street.

First Up

Blowfish wrote:

Erdogan's AKP party are facing the same issues as the UK Conservatives and US Republicans in that demographics aren't on his side in the long run. Whether Erdogan manages to use the power of the state to suppress this or whether the ultimate power of demographics wins out will be interesting to watch.

It will be interesting and Turkey is far from being a homogeneous country. Istanbul is a vibrant, world class city; the old Italian region around Izmir is European in all but name and the holiday resorts along the coast cater for all types and tastes without any problem.

But Central and Eastern Anatolia are a different planet and it took a master politician and leader like Ataturk to make it not only a functioning state, but largely European and secular too.

I don't think Erdogan will cause much change to that long term. It's a robust democracy and demographics are against him. But even more important, the merchant classes (and military) have far too much at stake to let him mess with much beyond a bit of symbolism.

But they are not an EU candidate and still won't be after Erdogan.

Dyr

declanflynn wrote: »

The uk will break up before the EU, nothing like a 10 year depression to put pressure on a union

The UK might pop its clogs but I wouldnt be too sure about GB, If I was a betting man I'd bet on Sterling outliving the Euro and I think the markets will bet the same way.

Sam Russell

Bambi wrote: »

The UK might pop its clogs but I wouldnt be too sure about GB, If I was a betting man I'd bet on Sterling outliving the Euro and I think the markets will bet the same way.

Before Brexit (2015) GBP was 70p to the Euro. Currently it is 90p - that is a loss of more than 25%. The Indian Rupee is still with us, and many other soft currencies, so yes the GBP could well exist into the future. Longer than the Euro - well that might happen, but not for a very long time. Like those who bet the Prince Charles would never be king are still holding a valid betting slip.

If the CoL gets hit hard by Brexit, then GBP will rank along with the soft currencies of the world.