Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Boredstiff666

cryptocurrency wrote: »

If thats the case then what is stopping the UK doing a similar model with the commonwealth without open borders and a few little changes. Remainers, all they do is harp on about the size of the market, it would suddenly be tiny compared to a commonwealth one

Because thats what the UK said they were going to do again. One of the things was to......Re-vitalise the commonwealth.

But these lot will then start whining.......Yeah but what could the UK possibly sell the commonwealth that they may want? ...........It's a race to the bottom. the UK doesnt make anything any good anymore. ............They don't work hard enough. ...............They have low production outputs. .............. Anything made in Britain is crap. ..................They commonwealth would rip them off and force them into a crap deal.........The commonwealth dont need the UK..........and all the other ****e.

And then after 10 million words and thousands of threads of whining and back slapping on inventing a new reason of why the UK will fail that the others hadn't thought of up to yet.............These lot will accuse everyone else of not producing any evidence of how the UK could possibly make a deal with the commonwealth nations.

First Up

theological wrote:

What makes you think most of the 45% of trade with the EU will be lost?

OK, I'lll try to explain it again;

The part of the UK's business in the EU at most risk is goods that are part of fast moving, integrated supply chains. This can be components for processing or going onto production lines, ingredients going into the production of chemicals, pharmaceuticals or foodstuffs or consumer ready items going straight onto shop shelves.

All of this business is time critical, with "just in time" delivery required. Being in the Single Market means zero delays at ports or airports. This allows companies to build supply chains across Europe, drawing what they need from whoever does it best. The motor industry is an example - ccoordinated delivery of hundreds of components arriving for production lines from multiple sources.

Being in the Single Market has allowed UK companies to participate in these pan European businesses, with fast movement of items inward and outward. Queues and delays at ports makes that much harder as timely delivery can"t be relied on. Add in possible UK deviation from EU standards and suddenly a previously reliable UK supplier becomes a risk.

Of course not all of the 45% of the UK's exports to the EU are in this category but a lot of high value items are and no trade 'deal" will solve it.

The CBI and others have been warning of the risks for some time, but the Daily Express probably didn't report it.

cryptocurrency

First Up wrote: »

OK, I'lll try to explain it again;

The part of the UK's business in the EU at most risk is goods that are part of fast moving, integrated supply chains. This can be components for processing or going onto production lines, ingredients going into the production of chemicals, pharmaceuticals or foodstuffs or consumer ready items going straight onto shop shelves.

All of this business is time critical, with "just in time" delivery required. Being in the Single Market means zero delays at ports or airports. This allows companies to build supply chains across Europe, drawing what they need from whoever does it best. The motor industry is an example - ccoordinated delivery of hundreds of components arriving for production lines from multiple sources.

Being in the Single Market has allowed UK companies to participate in these pan European businesses, with fast movement of items inward and outward. Queues and delays at ports makes that much harder as timely delivery can"t be relied on. Add in possible UK deviation from EU standards and suddenly a previously reliable UK supplier becomes a risk.

Of course not all of the 45% of the UK's exports to the EU are in this category but a lot of high value items are and no trade 'deal" will solve it.

The CBI and others have been warning of the risks for some time, but the Daily Express probably didn't report it.

sigh, the EU will cave. This topic is boring now.

MadYaker

cryptocurrency wrote: »

sigh, the EU will cave. This topic is boring now.

Cave on what exactly? You got any counter to the valid points he made?

relax carry on

cryptocurrency wrote: »

sigh, the EU will cave. This topic is boring now.

What are you basing that on? And cave on what exactly? All the UKs demands even though they aren't exactly sure what they want themselves?

MadYaker

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Well I must start selling some other papers to the government then.

Oh Jeez insider information scoop...........I hope you emailed them about this........they could have a 'Cobra' meeting on your scoop.

Did you get this scoop straight from your international team of lawers.........did they give you a 'whisper' because they also do work for CBI multi-nationals when not taking care of your business.

Totally boring.....change your tune.

What an embarrassing reply. He made valid points that you clearly have no answer to. It seems to be a common trend pro brexit posters. Ignore the points made and just post some irrelevant nonsense instead.

A factually correct post laying out the importance of the single marker, and it gets met with a "sigh" and a "totally boring".

It can only mean one thing. They see him as an expert.

AllForIt

I just simply don't buy that checks at ports are going to make all the difference. How long exactly are these delays going to last? Are there alternative suppliers for these jit widgets? Maybe not. Changing supplier is hardly something a business is going to opt for just like that especially for niche products. There would have to be some massive delays. Surely they could order a bit earlier with no negative effects. i.e If delays are on average 2 days longer just order 2 days easier. The point is it not like noting can be done to mitigate these delay effects and you can hardly ask posters here what the precise solutions are when they don't even work in that field most likely and every business is different.

MadYaker

AllForIt wrote: »

I just simply don't buy that checks at ports are going to make all the difference. How long exactly are these delays going to last? Are there alternative suppliers for these jit widgets? Maybe not. Changing supplier is hardly something a business is going to opt for just like that especially for niece products. There would have to be some massive delays. Surely they could order a bit earlier with no negative effects. i.e If delays are on average 2 days longer just order 2 days easier. The point is it not like noting can be done to mitigate these delay effects and you can hardly ask posters here what the precise solutions are when they don't even work in that field most likely and every business is different.

Exactly. Which is why we need to listen to people who do work in these areas and are experts in these areas. What that poster posted above is exactly what industry leaders in the UK have been saying since 2016. The problem is unpredictability is bad for business and delays translate directly to increased costs which are almost always passed on to the consumer.

theological

First Up wrote: »

OK, I'lll try to explain it again;

The part of the UK's business in the EU at most risk is goods that are part of fast moving, integrated supply chains. This can be components for processing or going onto production lines, ingredients going into the production of chemicals, pharmaceuticals or foodstuffs or consumer ready items going straight onto shop shelves.

All of this business is time critical, with "just in time" delivery required. Being in the Single Market means zero delays at ports or airports. This allows companies to build supply chains across Europe, drawing what they need from whoever does it best. The motor industry is an example - ccoordinated delivery of hundreds of components arriving for production lines from multiple sources.

Being in the Single Market has allowed UK companies to participate in these pan European businesses, with fast movement of items inward and outward. Queues and delays at ports makes that much harder as timely delivery can"t be relied on. Add in possible UK deviation from EU standards and suddenly a previously reliable UK supplier becomes a risk.

Of course not all of the 45% of the UK's exports to the EU are in this category but a lot of high value items are and no trade 'deal" will solve it.

The CBI and others have been warning of the risks for some time, but the Daily Express probably didn't report it.

This depends on the nature of the FTA agreed so you can't know.

What percentage do you think will be lost? Please explain why.

CelticRambler: The US is a country though. The EU isn't. It is like comparing apples with oranges. The closest comparison would be something like NAFTA.

First Up

theological wrote:

This depends on the nature of the FTA agreed so you can't know.

So are you starting to understand that UK - EU trade relations are not just a matter between govrnments?

theological wrote:

What percentage do you think will be lost? Please explain why.

I've just explained why and we' won't find out how much until after its too late for the UK to undo the damage.

Imreoir2

cryptocurrency wrote: »

If thats the case then what is stopping the UK doing a similar model with the commonwealth without open borders and a few little changes. Remainers, all they do is harp on about the size of the market, it would suddenly be tiny compared to a commonwealth one

Mainly a lack of interest among Commonwealth countries.

Canada is in an FTA with the EU and any deal with the UK will have to take the terms of the EU deal into account. Australia is already working on a trade deal with the EU and is more interested in a deal with the EU than a deal with the UK. India has already said that any trade deal with the UK will have to have provision for the movement of people. The rest of the Commonwealth put together has a market about the same size as Denmark so go knock yourselves out with that.

First Up

Imreoir2 wrote:

Mainly a lack of interest among Commonwealth countries.

The sort of "just in time" business I described as being at risk is not something you can do with customers far away. No trade agreement will help a UK supplier get components out of a truck or container and straight onto a production line in Australia.

Its about the sort of logistics and sophisticated supply chains that have developed across the EU. The Single Market has enabled the UK to be part of them. Leaving the SM cuts them out.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

CelticRambler: The US is a country though. The EU isn't. It is like comparing apples with oranges.

Hmm. Yeah. Kind of like comparing California with Kentucky. Two completely different States with almost nothing in common other than a shared Commander in Chief. They don't have mutual recognition of professional qualifications, harmonised tax rates or even a common policy on excecution. Hell, you can't even bring Kentucky veg into California without the correct paperwork.

So what's your definition of a country that makes the US so different to the EU, from the point of view of global trade and so unbeatably more attractive as a trading partner for GB?

Leroy42

I still don't understand why it is seen as unacceptable for the UK to accept common rule book and ECJ oversight on the basis it would stop future trade deals with non EU countries.

Sounds great, sounds reasonable, but what are these trade deals going to represent compared to the current trade with the EU?

Seems to me the Brexiteers are effectively laying down £10 now on the basis that there might be something sometime in the future.

50 years according to JRM.

AllForIt

Leroy42 wrote: »

I still don't understand why it is seen as unacceptable for the UK to accept common rule book and ECJ oversight on the basis it would stop future trade deals with non EU countries.

Sounds great, sounds reasonable, but what are these trade deals going to represent compared to the current trade with the EU?

Seems to me the Brexiteers are effectively laying down £10 now on the basis that there might be something sometime in the future.

50 years according to JRM.

How can you produce products based on differing sets of rules? I mean you can but wouldn't that be completely impractical and costly.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Hmm. Yeah. Kind of like comparing California with Kentucky. Two completely different States with almost nothing in common other than a shared Commander in Chief. They don't have mutual recognition of professional qualifications, harmonised tax rates or even a common policy on excecution. Hell, you can't even bring Kentucky veg into California without the correct paperwork.

So what's your definition of a country that makes the US so different to the EU, from the point of view of global trade and so unbeatably more attractive as a trading partner for GB?

The US is a country. One nation under God according to the pledge of allegiance. People have a national identity. Common political system. Common culture. Common dominant language.

The EU doesn't claim to be a super state. It is a union of different distinct countries. There isn't a real European demos. There is a bigger diversity of culture.

If the EU is claiming to be a super state (last I checked it isn't) I would argue that Ireland should get out at this stage also.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The US is a country. One nation under God according to the pledge of allegiance.
Nothing to do with trade deals
People have a national identity.
Nothing to do with trade deals (and they don't really)
Common political system.
Literally thousands of different, localised political regimes, some acting in overt opposition to the official national administration ... and not really anything to do trade deals that makes it different to the EU Council.
Common culture.
Since when? Oh, and nothing to do with trade deals
Common dominant language.
Spanish? Or Chinese? Or do you mean the most-spoken language of the EU, English? In any case ... nothing to do with trade deals

I really don't understand how anyone can claim that the United States are in anyway incomparable to the EU when the whole territory is essentially an EU proxy colony, nothing more than the territorial disputes of the French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Irish, Scottish and English in the "Old World" having been re-run under different conditions ... with the added interest of the Chinese making clever moves while the Europeans were distracting each other.

Boredstiff666

CelticRambler wrote: »

I really don't understand how anyone can claim that the United States are in anyway incomparable to the EU when the whole territory is essentially an EU proxy colony, nothing more than the territorial disputes of the French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Irish, Scottish and English in the "Old World" having been re-run under different conditions ... with the added interest of the Chinese making clever moves while the Europeans were distracting each other.

Too true Americans are very patriotic. In the EU not so.

Anyway seen the exit polls? Forget Brexit. Things are going to get even more interesting now.

Boredstiff666

So if the exit polls are correct what do we have?

Well the population wants change, or a fair chunk do anyway. Change from whatever Leo wanted entirely.

But now we possibly have a coalition where they wont agree anything.

Now there could be a chance of demands for a re-united Ireland.

Where is the money going to come from to keep NI happy.

Begging bowels to the EU for another 10 billion per year when they have just lost similar with the UK walking away.

So now the price could have gone up to approx 20 billion the tax payers of the EU have to find just to keep things as they are.

But of course I dont know what I am talking about.

Seth Brundle

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Now there could be a chance of demands for a re-united Ireland.

You can't demand a united Ireland. It needs agreement with the unionists who won't change their mindset with demands.

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

So if the exit polls are correct what do we have?

Well the population wants change, or a fair chunk do anyway. Change from whatever Leo wanted entirely.

But now we possibly have a coalition where they wont agree anything.

Now there could be a chance of demands for a re-united Ireland.

Where is the money going to come from to keep NI happy.

Begging bowels to the EU for another 10 billion per year when they have just lost similar with the UK walking away.

So now the price could have gone up to approx 20 billion the tax payers of the EU have to find just to keep things as they are.

But of course I dont know what I am talking about.

Well you said it not anyone else, you might want to do some reading up on the border poll etc.

Junkyard Tom

cryptocurrency wrote: »

sigh, the EU will cave. This topic is boring now.

MadYaker wrote: »

Cave on what exactly? You got any counter to the valid points he made?

He's speaking to the Brexiter future which is just about as useful as trying to find meaning in someone preparing for the rapture, and about as likely an outcome.

Junkyard Tom

Seth Brundle wrote: »

a united Ireland ... needs agreement with the unionists

It doesn't, it needs a simple majority and that does not require unionists' consent.

Seth Brundle

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It doesn't, it needs a simple majority and that does not require unionists' consent.

Let's see how that works out then. If you demand a united Ireland then you'll just aggravate tensions up there.

ancapailldorcha

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It doesn't, it needs a simple majority and that does not require unionists' consent.

Surely if there's anything to be learned from the Brexit debacle, it's that trying to force through colossal constitutional change on the basis of a tiny minority is a bad idea.

I'm not saying that a United Ireland shouldn't happen or that it shouldn't be considered, just that people advocating for it should be looking to take a very long time for the transition.

Junkyard Tom

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Let's see how that works out then. If you demand a united Ireland then you'll just aggravate tensions up there.

I'm not demanding anything except that a democratic mandate to end the division of the Irish nation be respected. Also, if you managed to get 51%of Unionists on board you'd still have another 40% who weren't, 10% who were angry and 1% who would want to resist it.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surely if there's anything to be learned from the Brexit debacle, it's that trying to force through colossal constitutional change on the basis of a tiny minority is a bad idea.

You see it as a separatist. Unification would be putting a wrong right. Brexit was a jambalaya of bullshit with no defined destination.

people advocating for it should be looking to take a very long time for the transition.

Yeah, I'm okay with that. In fact I've said before that I'd okay with just about everything staying as it is only with a shift of sovereignty from London to Dublin.

ancapailldorcha

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You see it as a separatist. Unification would be putting a wrong right. Brexit was a jambalaya of bullshit with no defined destination.

The status quo has existed for nearly a century so I think that it's a little bit dramatic to just call it a "wrong". I understand the appeal, I truly do and I certainly can't think of many sound reasons to argue for NI to remain shackled to the British state but I don't think the romantic nationalism helps.

Junkyard Tom

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think the romantic nationalism helps.

I don't really have a romantic notion, I'd say trouble is almost a certainty. But then trouble would be a certainty in a hundred years time too.

There is no perfect solution.

Having said all that I'm in no hurry - we're slowly uniting by osmosis economically and socially, the longer that goes on the more likely a UI becomes anyway.

Boredstiff666

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Let's see how that works out then. If you demand a united Ireland then you'll just aggravate tensions up there.

Not to mention we will inherit nearly a million who despise the Republic and we will not want to pay for them. But that won't stop the new SF Gov. They must have their goal. So they will impose any tax they can to raise the money for their prize.