Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The point of Brexit isn't to seek to control legislation in other countries, it's to increase control over what happens in the UK.

In that case, give us an example of what is happening in the UK today that isn't under the UK's control - something that will make life better or easier for British citizens after Brexit.

Spanish Eyes

Oh dear, the penny/cent hasn't dropped yet for many has it?

But I suppose post Brexit we will be regaled with the positives, the benefits of gaining back control, of sovereignty and the immigrants and trade deals in a week and so on.

Best of luck to them.

Strazdas

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Oh dear, the penny/cent hasn't dropped yet for many has it?

But I suppose post Brexit we will be regaled with the positives, the benefits of gaining back control, of sovereignty and the immigrants and trade deals in a week and so on.

Best of luck to them.

A recurring theme with the Leave movement is that most of its supporters and it's leading proponents seem to be extremely poor on economics and to have little understanding of the global economy. You'll see this virtually anywhere someone is saying Brexit is a great idea - economic mumbo jumbo and ideas about trade from the 1950s.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Of course there will. And the UK will have to comply 100% with every EU regulation in order to sell into the EU (as does every other non-EU country). Are you happy for the UK to be obliged to follow rules over which they have no control - in contrast the current situation where they have directy input into the final shape of each and every regulation?

EU goods have to comply to US regulations and standards in the same way as you describe and vice versa but I doubt you would describe the US as having to follow rules they have no control over as if they were some inferior nation -I don`t want brexit but if it`s going to happen, complying to EU standards is a good thing-some kind of agreement by the UK with the EU is imperative if the UK wants to emerge from this self inflicted nightmare relatively unscathed and THEN be able to do what they`ve done best for hundreds of years(no,not invading other countries!)which is trading and technology with the rest of the world.
I do hope it`s not Johnson`s selfish`get rich quick`scenario..

Spanish Eyes

CelticRambler wrote: »

In that case, give us an example of what is happening in the UK today that isn't under the UK's control - something that will make life better or easier for British citizens after Brexit.

Good point. Let us wait and see what comes forth. For example some will cite immigration, Theresa May as HS could have controlled intra EU migrants under the Free Movement provisions but chose not to. Not a word about that now is there? It is an EU rule, three months, have a job, support yourself, be identified, observe it or do not observe it. UK didn't and here we are.

Irony is there are more non EU migrants entering Britain now in comparison to Free Movement EU folk. I don't think that is what was envisaged in Taking Back Control of our Borders!

There are many other examples, but I am sick of the intransigence and lack of awareness of such things now.

listermint

theological wrote: »

There are more reasons than trade alone for wanting to leave the EU.

The belief that you have about the UK not being able to "replace market access" is absurd. Firstly, nobody is arguing for no trade with the EU going forward. No matter what scenario there will be continued trade with the EU. Secondly, how big of a deficit in EU trade post-Brexit do you think there'll be such that the UK in time immemorial won't be able to develop in terms of trade.

Posts like this are baseless and irrational rhetoric. Please provide solid reasons as to why you believe things like this.

Sorry, but I've been following your posts for the past week.

Based off them I assumed you loved rethoric without detailed facts for same.


Is this not your posting style? If assumed you'd relate.

fash

theological wrote: »

Specific about what? The outcome of trade negotiations that haven't happened yet?

I agree, I can't be specific about things that haven't happened. More importantly, neither can you. We're not Nostradamus.


In the scenario that neither of us have mystical powers, the best thing we can do is look to precedent and look to other countries even countries that are smaller that have managed to build successful economies outside of the EU.

Actually it is very easy for anyone competent to work out what is possible outside the EU- one need not be Nostradamus:
You can't have a trade deal with a country which doesn't exist. You must obey gravity (double the distance, half the trade). It's relatively easy to model the effects of any FTA to care to mention- the most amazing deal in the history of the world with the US would bring a 0.5% increase in GDP to the UK - although it would also cost 8-9% in lost EU trade - and a US deal would be by far the biggest possible by the UK and would come with terrible consequences for citizens of the UK.
This has been modeled in great detail by various economists, think-tanks and international and national bodies.
I note however that you are obliged by your position (and the fact that it is unsupported by facts or reality) to limit yourself to shrugging and throwing your hands in the air.

Smaller countries have built successful economies based on USPs. The UK is losing almost all of its USPs - it had the most privileged access to the EU of any state. It had a reputation for competent, stable and pragmatic governance. It was able to explain its future economic policies to potential investors- and there seemed to be a broad political and social consensus supporting that. All now burnt to a crisp.

I agree with you that the UK needs a good FTA with the EU, the same is also true the other way around.

The EU doesn't need a good FTA with the UK. The UK is a tiny market from the EU's perspective - while the EU takes 48% of UK exports. Furthermore the vast majority of EU exports to the UK are unaffected by tariffs even in a WTO arrangement - whereas a very large amount of UK exports are affected.

This is the assumption that I don't agree with you on. There is no good reason as to why the UK cannot negotiate good deals with other countries. Other smaller countries have done so.

I also don't agree with what you've said about FTA's that the UK has rolled over being only beneficial to other countries. That's a matter of your opinion and not a matter of fact.

You are trying to be Nostradamus without any good basis for believing that the UK cannot succeed in building a new trade policy.

Complete nonsense.
Other small countries have not done so- nor have they started with the disadvantages the UK now has (leaving existing arrangements and going out into the cold).
Both Canada and Japan have stated they will not give the UK as good a deal as they gave the EU. Australia has said it will wait until the big boys break the UK and then demand the same terms following their precedent.
Aside from that, it is entirely obvious that in a market place, you seek the best price you can: the EU offers a massive and wealthy market and it is comfortable in its current position. The UK is small and desperate and will do anything, anything to get any sort of deal with anyone- no matter the cost.

I disagree. The EU is also one of the most protectionist places on Earth for trade. Within its borders sure, it's pretty open. Outside I don't think so.

Unfortunately reality disagrees with your "feelings":
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1192343726762463233

https://www.tradebarrierindex.org

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/894304509568180224

You've misread my post. I replied to your point "Why hasn't this been done before?" the answer is because the EU forbids individual member states from negotiating trade deals.

There are obviously more countries that the UK will want to negotiate free trade with. The US is one of the first that should be pursued. The first priority should be to go through countries where the UK is already doing a lot of trade with outside the EU and to explore expanding trade both in terms of goods and services.

What countries? be specific - as stated, the greatest deal in history with the US would mean a paltry 0.5% increase in GDP for the UK - and all of the rest far less. That is without taking into consideration the painful concessions or the massive drop in GDP by leaving the EU.

What services will the UK trade? Services in the US are dealt with at state not federal level and are less integrated than in the EU. How will the UK achieve more than the state of New York or California have achieved in 250 years? What will the UK concede to get that? Why would the US offer anything in relation to services given that the UK has already got amongst the most open service economies in the world- and hence the comparative advantage it could offer the US is negligible?

Totally disagree with this conclusion. The EU requires much more control to be handed over for membership than any other trading bloc on earth today. Control of fishing waters,

This is mostly under WTO control.


agricultural policy,

unlimited migration

migration was always entirely under UK control. More than 2/3rds of migration from non EU countries. Refugee policy under UK control.
Unlike almost anywhere else the UK government specifically opened up to the once in forever 10 new EU accession states - a migration of young fit educated liberal hard working workers who contributed massively to the UK economy and generally plan to go home to their own countries ( and can freely) . The UK refuses to use EU rules to return non workers to their home states.

And you vote to give more power to the people who made and will continue to make these decisions

handing over complete control over trade policy amongst other things.

Can you please provide any examples of a FTA that requires more control than this to be handed over?

I will the second you can tell me about any other FTA that achieves even a tiny tiny fraction of what the single market achieves in getting rid of borders and non trade barriers - ensuring the most seamless cross border trade in recorded history. I suspect I will be waiting a long time - possibly until the heat death of the universe.

fash

theological wrote: »

Please read my recent posts. I've already answered these questions.

I read your posts - no you didn't. If you believe you did, please indicate which ones specifically.

Danzy

All the major trade deals the EU has under taken have been radically free market.

The TTip deal it did with America would have had difficulty passing through the Tory party, never mind the house of Commons.

If it is a Conservative Govt going for the deal, they'll meet people on the same page as Rees Mogg in the EU negotiations.

Water John

Isn't Sabine Weyand taking charge of trade deal negotiations for the EU?
Best of luck to them, she'll take them to the cleaners.

reslfj

theological wrote: »

...
The belief that you have about the UK not being able to "replace market access" is absurd.

Can I just ask you theological, what your background in and knowledge about trade is ?

Lars

jm08

listermint wrote: »

Pie in the sky stuff. They can do all this inside the EU.

They'll never replace that market access.

Never.

I know. He was speaking like he was unaware that Argentina would want concessions over the Falklands before doing any trade deal with the Mercosor countries and probably didn't realise the only trade the UK were doing with the Mercosour countries is down to the EU block.

briany

Isn't Boris Johnson's deal really just no-deal by the back door? Pundits are sceptical that an FTA can be arranged by the end of 2020, and Johnson is currently saying he will not extend the transition period. If the Conservatives get a large enough majority, they could perhaps shoot down the possibility of adding amendments to the deal that would give parliament more control. In that case, it's really a shrewd move for the BP to support it. Better for them that no-deal happens a little later than not at all.

Joe_ Public

briany wrote: »

Isn't Boris Johnson's deal really just no-deal by the back door? Pundits are sceptical that an FTA can be arranged by the end of 2020, and Johnson is currently saying he will not extend the transition period. If the Conservatives get a large enough majority, they could perhaps shoot down the possibility of adding amendments to the deal that would give parliament more control. In that case, it's really a shrewd move for the BP to support it. Better for them that no-deal happens a little later than not at all.

A fta cannot be agreed before the end of 2020, even the most deluded in the tory party cannot believe that fantasy. But even with a majority i think there would be enormous pressure on johnson to agree an extension next june when it has to be agreed. Whats one more broken promise among a litany of them?

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

Isn't Sabine Weyand taking charge of trade deal negotiations for the EU?
Best of luck to them, she'll take them to the cleaners.

Now forgive me, but I thought it might be Phil Hogan. I may be wrong of course, I often am...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/phil-hogan-honoured-as-he-is-confirmed-eu-trade-commissioner-1.4036822

Joe_ Public

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Now forgive me, but I thought it might be Phil Hogan. I may be wrong of course, I often am...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/phil-hogan-honoured-as-he-is-confirmed-eu-trade-commissioner-1.4036822

Barnier will be staying on to lead the fta discussions. No brainer for EU side really.

Water John

Sabine is now DG for Trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate-General_for_Trade

briany

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A fta cannot be agreed before the end of 2020, even the most deluded in the tory party cannot believe that fantasy. But even with a majority i think there would be enormous pressure on johnson to agree an extension next june when it has to be agreed. Whats one more broken promise among a litany of them?

Say the Conservatives returned with a resounding majority of 340 MPs. It would be interesting to see how many would rebel from the whip and vote in favour of an amendment adding parliamentary oversight.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

EU goods have to comply to US regulations and standards in the same way as you describe and vice versa but I doubt you would describe the US as having to follow rules they have no control over as if they were some inferior nation

Well ... yeah, I would! I seem to have lost the link, but I recently read US guidance for (their own) exporters, and they pointed out that many EU standards were stricter than US providers would be used to. This is the great advantage of being an EU-based provider: the EU has become the de facto global gold standard, to the extent that quite a few (usually smaller) non-EU countries adopt EU regulations as their own guidelines because it makes life easier for their manufacturers/exporters: if you're certified to EU standard, you can export to every country in the world. Problems with exporting to the US are more often due to quotas and other protectionist barriers (and/or phytosanitary controls, which exist even within the EU and the US).

boring accountant

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes thats fair. I think there's an understanding that when it comes to elections immigration isnt much of a vote winner. I mean, it delivered in 2016, but not a year later when ukip crashed in the GE. I think even farage understands that because i notice he tends not to bring it up in his interviews very much. Maybe its different in his radio shows, dont listen to them.

I think it's a bit wishful to suggest that immigration is not a vote getter. Immigration was the primary motivator for the Brexit vote.



UKIP crashed for a variety of reasons. Internal squabbles. Lack of a raison d'etre in Brexit. The conservatives becoming increasingly hardline.

There's only a hair's breath between 2015 UKIP and 2019 Tory, so UKIP have no reason to exist anymore.


You might not see as much talk about immigration from Farage et al now because the priority delivering Brexit, and lumping immigration in is bad optics for the Brexiters.

Rest assured, once Brexit is done and dusted the immigration debate will continue with even more ferocity.

Joe_ Public

boring accountant wrote: »

I think it's a bit wishful to suggest that immigration is not a vote getter. Immigration was the primary motivator for the Brexit vote.



UKIP crashed for a variety of reasons. Internal squabbles. Lack of a raison d'etre in Brexit. The conservatives becoming increasingly hardline.

There's only a hair's breath between 2015 UKIP and 2019 Tory, so UKIP have no reason to exist anymore.


You might not see as much talk about immigration from Farage et al now because the priority delivering Brexit, and lumping immigration in is bad optics for the Brexiters.

Rest assured, once Brexit is done and dusted the immigration debate will continue with even more ferocity.

Thats all certainly possible. Of course, as i acknowledged, immigration was a key mover in 2016 vote, but what also characterised that vote was rare or first time voters who saw a chance for a meaningful protest vote. The kind of people who dont normally bother with elections. Will they turn out for this vote? I dont think in such great numbers which is probably better news for labour.

Joe_ Public

briany wrote: »

Say the Conservatives returned with a resounding majority of 340 MPs. It would be interesting to see how many would rebel from the whip and vote in favour of an amendment adding parliamentary oversight.

Problem is it would be all very well having a motion to give parliament the say on any fta deal, but how likely is it to actually see one? Not by end of year anyway i am certain, eu just does not work that way, to suit the imperative of others. Parliament will have to stop this before the summer recess and with bercow gone and new numbers, it will be interesting to see how the battle lines are drawn.

Capt'n Midnight

[QUOTE=CelticRambler;111747166

theological wrote:

The evidence shows there are lots of opportunities for the UK after leaving.

What evidence? Give us some links describing these opportunities.[/QUOTE]

UK exports of goods and services have NOT increased relative to the fall in Sterling.

It is that simple.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This whole 'The UK will trade' narrative falls down when asked what exactly will the UK trade?

Take this vague 'Goods' for example. What 'goods' are made in the UK that cannot be purchased elsewhere?

There's lots of niche industries.

But the only huge one is Rolls Royce.
The gas turbines , not the car company owned by the Germans. See also Bentley.


Rolls Royce make jet engines that are matched to the airliners and military aircraft. And they have 20-25 year maintenance contracts because the choice of engine is limited when the airframe is manufactured. And Rolls Royce have oodles of reserves so should weather Brexit.

Or so I thought -
http://www.talk-finance.co.uk/economics/rolls-royce-reserves-another-1-4-billion-to-fix-the-troubled-trent/

Rolls-Royce, the British manufacturer of aircraft engines is setting aside another 1.4 billion pounds this year due to problems with its Trent 1000 engines. This provision is at the expense of the operating profit for the entire year.

BTW Turkey is a drop in replacement for the UK car industry.
Ford Transits are made there and will attract large tariffs after Brexit. It will be a huge cost for any small trader in the UK.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Unbelievably, in 2014, Britain added drugs and prostitution to its stats on GDP. This change will have added nearly 1% to their GDP.

In fairness this has also been done for other OECD countries.

The UK population grows at about 0.6 - 0.7% a year. Growth at anything below that means the average person is getting poorer.

UK growth is barely above recession level, even with the stockpiling.
For UK manufacturing it's worse as most of the growth has been in services. And a free trade deal, only achievable if negotiations during the WA deal time exceed all expectations, does nothing for services.

Capt'n Midnight

storker wrote: »

Brexit could well turn out to be like the French Revolution. Two hundred years from now when someone asks if it was a good idea, the answer will be "It's too early to tell."

According to one of the most prominent Brexiters, Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, we should see the benefits of Brexit in about half a century.
Completely meaningless as he won't have any skin in the game in 2070.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49961301

Even a "relatively benign" no-deal Brexit would push UK debt to its highest since the 1960s, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said.

The think tank said borrowing was likely to rise to £100bn and total debt would soar to 90% of national income.

Capt'n Midnight

stefanovich wrote: »

The UK is one of 28 members. Any agreements need to suit all 28 which means a big opportunity cost for the UK.

True.

Some EU deals will suite the UK better than others.

This and billions in development aid is how the UK has been able to get continuity deals for just 8% of it's trade.


Me, I'd be more worried about about the other 92% of trade that hasn't been secured. And the services which are a much bigger part of the UK economy.

fash

boring accountant wrote: »

I think it's a bit wishful to suggest that immigration is not a vote getter. Immigration was the primary motivator for the Brexit vote.



UKIP crashed for a variety of reasons. Internal squabbles. Lack of a raison d'etre in Brexit. The conservatives becoming increasingly hardline.

There's only a hair's breath between 2015 UKIP and 2019 Tory, so UKIP have no reason to exist anymore.


You might not see as much talk about immigration from Farage et al now because the priority delivering Brexit, and lumping immigration in is bad optics for the Brexiters.

Rest assured, once Brexit is done and dusted the immigration debate will continue with even more ferocity.

Interesting data on UK attitudes to FOM which appears to contradict what you are saying:
link

Janey Mack

theological wrote: »

Last post for today:

Obviously if I sell things into the EU I will have to comply with EU standards.

If I sell things into the US I will have to comply with US standards.

The point of Brexit isn't to seek to control legislation in other countries, it's to increase control over what happens in the UK.

This completely misses the point. US trade objectives are all about the UK aligning its regulations/standards with the US and it is not just about food. South Korea had to allow the import of cars built to (less stringent) American safety/environmental standards.

The link below offers a good analysis of US objectives and the UK’s weak negotiating position -

https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2019/03/05/the-us-negotiating-objectives-for-the-uk-us-trade-deal-clearly-put-america-first/

If you think there is Remainer bias in the article it has a comments section.

In any event, on your point, it is not always economically viable to manufacture to different standards, in which case manufacturers will choose between the higher standards to broaden their market access or lower standards in order to compete against cheap imports.

Tony Connelly had a good article on the EUs preparations/expectations for the FTA negotiations
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/1109/1089604-brexit-future-relationship/

A long read but a good indication of the tough choices ahead for the U.K. I am still trying to find out what exactly the plan for ‘Global Britain’ is.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1194395872882245632?s=19

Independent Tories like this could swing the election and the future of Brexit

Russman

Janey Mack wrote: »

Tony Connelly had a good article on the EUs preparations/expectations for the FTA negotiations
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/1109/1089604-brexit-future-relationship/

A long read but a good indication of the tough choices ahead for the U.K. I am still trying to find out what exactly the plan for ‘Global Britain’ is.

Very interesting article by TC.
I suspect the UK just don't expect to be treated like a bona fide 3rd country on 1st Feb, more like a trusted neighbour, and everything can be done with a wink and a nod because ".....after all, we were members up til yesterday, sure you know us etc etc.....". They're in for a rude awakening methinks.

Although, that said, the Tory ministers will hardly be anxious to broadcast the concessions they'll have to make in the negotiations, and Harry from Huddersfield will have next to zero interest in the FTA discussions and details, so, with a compliant press, they may well be able to spin it that they "got the job done" and that'll be enough for the leavers.