Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

forgottenhills wrote: »

Well in fact total French exports to the UK were GBP£41billion in 2019 so not small beer and a huge national interest for France.

Of course the Irish beef industry and the German car industry etc have been quiet in public so as not to undermine the EU's negotiating position. But talk to any Irish farmer or food processing and exporting group and they are desperate for a deal. And as I have stated previously it was only on the intervention of Merkel that the talks have seemed to go back on track. This is despite provocations such as the UK's recent Internal Markets Bill which would have been a legitimate excuse for the EU to walk away from the table. This is clear evidence that the EU side desperately wants a deal also. There is also the approx €39 billion UK cash settlement which will likely evaporate if no deal is the outcome.

And I do hope that Scottish Nationalists have a plan ready whenever they are allowed their next referendum. Because they went into the last one a few years ago with no clear plan for what currency they would use on independence or no clear plan for when, or how, they would be able to rejoin the EU. And unsurprisingly they lost that referendum.

Can you for the love of the Queen please back up ANYTHING you claim with an actual source rather than "I think so; hence it has to be true"? Because honestly it's a waste of time arguing with someone if they refuse to actually factually back up their claims. You might as well claim aliens control EU and there's a deep state conspiracy controlling a robot who looks like Boris as it's exactly as factual as your claims currently and I've produced as many sources of proof to back them up as you have to your wild claims which we've been sitting here showing you how they are patently wrong with actual facts.

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

It is a balanced article but you have quoted all the negatives for London in that article without listing the positive arguments in the article stating why it it likely to retain its pre-eminence in Europe.

I thought the article was a pretty balanced assessment of what's coming down the tracks towards the City, but didn't see any particularly exclusive positive arguments. Sure, they speak English - but so does most of the rest of the world - Dublin, New York and Hong Kong in particular. My reading of the analysis was that the best London can hope for is to stand still, not being ousted by any EU city, but losing all the US, Middle Eastern and Asian EU business currently routed through London; and competing against those other financial centres to remain relevant. "Charm" isn't really enough on its own, and is also something easily lost.

forgottenhills wrote: »

tell that to Irish farmers who are still heavily reliant on beef and cheese exports to the UK and for whom tariffs would be devastating. Or tell that to individual car makers in Germany who will lose billions in car sales each when the market is already very weak due to COVID.

European exporters will not be as disadvantaged by Brexit as you might think. Even if tariffs are applied to beef or beemers, these are premium products sold to premium customers who will happily pay the extra 10 or 20% so that they don't have to eat the crap, or drive around in the bangers, that Brexit will throw at the lower classes.

Professor Moriarty

Brexit will have cost the UK £200,000,000,000 by the end of 2020. According to the remoaners in The Express.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Can you for the love of the Queen please back up ANYTHING you claim with an actual source rather than "I think so; hence it has to be true"? Because honestly it's a waste of time arguing with someone if they refuse to actually factually back up their claims. You might as well claim aliens control EU and there's a deep state conspiracy controlling a robot who looks like Boris as it's exactly as factual as your claims currently and I've produced as many sources of proof to back them up as you have to your wild claims which we've been sitting here showing you how they are patently wrong with actual facts.

I gave up.

CelticRambler

dogbert27 wrote: »

Wow I just came across this:

However, from late 2022 onwards, visitors from countries with visa-free agreements with the EU (including the UK)will not be able to enter the Schengen Area with only their passports. The EU Commission has confirmed that UK citizens will need to pay a fee to visit Europe and will need to complete the online ETIAS application form before setting off.

You need to pay more attention! We discussed this quite some time ago, including the implications for mixed EU-UK groups (couples, families, stag night tours, school classes) and especially in 2025, when the first waivers will have to be renewed and likely be forgotten about by at least some people who only remember the golden days of Free Movement.

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Does the NI protocol state how this is managed in Ireland? E.G Will people in the North need to fill this application when they visit the South?

It's a Schengen Area scheme. Ireland is not concerned by it, so no change for NI residents staying on the island.

ambro25

forgottenhills wrote: »

I am not arguing for Brexiteer views on immigration or the extent of actual EU oversight or to what extent their sovereignty was pooled by being a member of the EU or anything else. But they held those views regardless of whether they were correct or not, voted to leave, and to people who held those views Brexit is already a success as they will be 100% responsible for their own immigration policies from Jan 2021.

Repeating the argument does not validate it.

I (we posters?) get that you are not a Brexiter and not arguing/espousing Brexiteer views.

But you cannot expect rational people to accept that Brexit is "a success" under any measure howsoever, just because some Brexiteers believe it to be so, to support other arguments.

So I'll accept that some Brexiters believe it to be a success. Does not make Brexiit a success in economic terms (EDIT: or any others, for that matter), and so does not advance your other points about the City of London, French cheese and wine makers and German car manufacturers - because these points are predicated on the economics of Brexit.

forgottenhills

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would be surprised if Merkel would move to save the auto industry. I think she has a much wider view.

I said the failure of Brexit would be economic ruin - not just economics. The Lehman Brothers crash led to economic ruin - well it was for us.

The reason people voted for Brexit is much wider than just one idea - it is a collection of contradictory ideas, and many voted for some and would not have voted for others, but Brexit was not defined at all, so who was to know what it was. Also, the Leave side told lies, and even have driven the project away from its stated goals.

No one is claiming that there is any upside for Brexit, only misery and extra costs.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying here and personally for me Brexit has no good sides. However I am making the point that there are many core Brexiteers who simply don't care about the economic impact, they simply want to be out whatever the cost. When presented with overwhelming evidence of the likely damage they simply do not care. Their measure of the success of Brexit is not economic.

And if you are to look at something rationally even on the economic front, while Brexit is likely to be a car crash on a 1 to 20 year scale, who is to know how it will pan out in 30-50 years? They might be back in the EU by then or they might be thriving outside it. Nothing in economics has a 100% certainty.

Sam Russell

forgottenhills wrote: »

I don't disagree with anything you are saying here and personally for me Brexit has no good sides. However I am making the point that there are many core Brexiteers who simply don't care about the economic impact, they simply want to be out whatever the cost. When presented with overwhelming evidence of the likely damage they simply do not care. Their measure of the success of Brexit is not economic.

And if you are to look at something rationally even on the economic front, while Brexit is likely to be a car crash on a 1 to 20 year scale, who is to know how it will pan out in 30-50 years? They might be back in the EU by then or they might be thriving outside it. Nothing in economics has a 100% certainty.

That sounds like the woman who said she would not vote Labour in the last election because they promised to get rid of food banks - clearly misunderstanding the point.

Nothing in economics has a 100% certainty.

I think plenty of things are 100% certain in economics - and Brexit is one of them.

forgottenhills

Nody wrote: »

Can you for the love of the Queen please back up ANYTHING you claim with an actual source rather than "I think so; hence it has to be true"? Because honestly it's a waste of time arguing with someone if they refuse to actually factually back up their claims. You might as well claim aliens control EU and there's a deep state conspiracy controlling a robot who looks like Boris as it's exactly as factual as your claims currently and I've produced as many sources of proof to back them up as you have to your wild claims which we've been sitting here showing you how they are patently wrong with actual facts.

Please tell me which of the pieces in that post that I need to back up.

1. French exports to the UK in 2019 being €41 billion?
2. Irish farmers and food processing groups being desperate for a EU/UK trade deal that avoids tariffs?
3. Scottish nationalists losing the last referendum on Scottish Independence in 2014 and not having a clear plan for their currency and EU membership leading up to that referendum (or indeed now)?

I think that all of these are non disputed facts that you could easily educate yourself on.

ancapailldorcha

forgottenhills wrote: »

I think that all of these are non disputed facts that you could easily educate yourself on.

Mod: Asking people to back up points you made is not permitted here. It's perfectly reasonable for people to ask for sources.

Nody

forgottenhills wrote: »

Please tell me which of the pieces in that post that I need to back up.

1. French exports to the UK in 2019 being €41 billion?
2. Irish farmers and food processing groups being desperate for a EU/UK trade deal that avoids tariffs?
3. Scottish nationalists losing the last referendum on Scottish Independence in 2014 and not having a clear plan for their currency and EU membership leading up to that referendum (or indeed now)?

I think that all of these are non disputed facts that you could easily educate yourself on.

And you've clearly failed to do what you recommend and keep making statements that are factually wrong (see for example the divorce bill; it's only missing a couple of billions which are spread out to 2064); I'll join Professor Moriarty on this and simply sit this one out. Once you actually start making claims with actual facts backing them up I'll consider if it's worth engaging again but until then I'm sorry but I'm not going to reply to you further.

forgottenhills

CelticRambler wrote: »

European exporters will not be as disadvantaged by Brexit as you might think. Even if tariffs are applied to beef or beemers, these are premium products sold to premium customers who will happily pay the extra 10 or 20% so that they don't have to eat the crap, or drive around in the bangers, that Brexit will throw at the lower classes.

The case around cars not being price sensitive is arguable. Unfortunately though the likes of beef and cheese exports from here to the UK are commodities and and very price sensitive and I understand that import food tariffs can be as high a 30 or 40%. If there is a no deal then the UK will move quickly to bring in cheap food imports from South America, Australia etc and Irish farming exports to the UK, which is still an important market and cannot be easily replaced, will be in big trouble.

forgottenhills

ambro25 wrote: »

Repeating the argument does not validate it.

I (we posters?) get that you are not a Brexiter and not arguing/espousing Brexiteer views.

But you cannot expect rational people to accept that Brexit is "a success" under any measure howsoever, just because some Brexiteers believe it to be so, to support other arguments.

So I'll accept that some Brexiters believe it to be a success. Does not make Brexiit a success in economic terms (EDIT: or any others, for that matter), and so does not advance your other points about the City of London, French cheese and wine makers and German car manufacturers - because these points are predicated on the economics of Brexit.

Thank you for accepting that i am not a Brexiteer. Some people seem to be confused/jumping to incorrect conclusions here.

I am not stating that Brexit is a success because some Brexiteers already believe to to be a success. I am basically stating that there are other views and that the definition of success or failure of Brexit depends on who you talk to and their idea of what determines success in terms of their beliefs and goals. Maybe the point is too nuanced for here or perhaps people need to get out of their own fish bowl a bit more.

forgottenhills

forgottenhills wrote: »

Please tell me which of the pieces in that post that I need to back up.

1. French exports to the UK in 2019 being €41 billion?
2. Irish farmers and food processing groups being desperate for a EU/UK trade deal that avoids tariffs?
3. Scottish nationalists losing the last referendum on Scottish Independence in 2014 and not having a clear plan for their currency and EU membership leading up to that referendum (or indeed now)?

I think that all of these are non disputed facts that you could easily educate yourself on.

Here are easily available links

1. French exports to the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_United_Kingdom


2. Irish farmers and food processors desperate for a UK trade deal? Talk to any beef farmer or read the Irish Farmers Journal or numerous other trade publications for articles such as this: https://www.farmersjournal.ie/why-tariffs-are-such-a-big-deal-if-there-is-no-deal-577978

3. Scottish nationalists losing the last referendum on Scottish Independence with commentary on currency and EU membership uncertainties?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_referendum

ambro25

forgottenhills wrote: »

Thank you for accepting that i am not a Brexiteer. Some people seem to be confused/jumping to incorrect conclusions here.

I am not stating that Brexit is a success because some Brexiteers already believe to to be a success. I am basically stating that there are other views and that the definition of success or failure of Brexit depends on who you talk to and their idea of what determines success in terms of their beliefs and goals. Maybe the point is too nuanced for here or perhaps people need to get out of their own fish bowl a bit more.

That point was never in doubt, but there is little point in belabouring it or carrying it forward in here.

Not because it is too nuanced, or because this thread may be seen by some as an anti-Brexit echo chamber, but because this sub-forum thread is frequented by rational posters, and holding a belief that Brexit is already successful is irrational by any measure of objectivity one cares to consider. Call me prejudiced, but people of that persuasion are the least likely to poke their browser in here, and the least likely to hold an objective and cobstructive conversation about Brexit.

Put bluntly: So, some Brexiters believe Brexit is a success? Big wow. So, you have discussions with such Brexiteers IRL on a regular basis? Commiserations. Next Project-Fear-turned-Reality for table 7, please.

Zubeneschamali

forgottenhills wrote: »

the definition of success or failure of Brexit depends on who you talk to and their idea of what determines success in terms of their beliefs and goals.

The real consequences have so far been cushioned by transition.

No Deal will be so catastrophic that nobody will be able to claim success.

forgottenhills

Nody wrote: »

And you've clearly failed to do what you recommend and keep making statements that are factually wrong (see for example the divorce bill; it's only missing a couple of billions which are spread out to 2064); I'll join Professor Moriarty on this and simply sit this one out. Once you actually start making claims with actual facts backing them up I'll consider if it's worth engaging again but until then I'm sorry but I'm not going to reply to you further.

I have posted those links for you.

I don't know what point you are trying to make on the divorce bill element.

From your own link the last estimate of the bill amounts to £32.8bn and "The OBR estimated that the majority of this will be paid by 2023/24 with relatively small amounts paid up until 2064". So not much of this likely to be paid by Jan 21.

Do you think that the UK will pay up all of this bill (which is likely to be still tens of billions in Jan 21) if there is an acrimonious No Deal exit? A UK government that has already reneged on the NI protocol? It will simply become another of their negotiating weapons.

Strazdas

forgottenhills wrote: »

Thank you for accepting that i am not a Brexiteer. Some people seem to be confused/jumping to incorrect conclusions here.

I am not stating that Brexit is a success because some Brexiteers already believe to to be a success. I am basically stating that there are other views and that the definition of success or failure of Brexit depends on who you talk to and their idea of what determines success in terms of their beliefs and goals. Maybe the point is too nuanced for here or perhaps people need to get out of their own fish bowl a bit more.

Brexit can only be a success when viewed from the 'sovereignty' angle alone. Virtually every economist thinks that withdrawing from the SMCU will damage the UK (i.e. the economic arguments for leaving were always wrong / bogus).

54and56

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The real consequences have so far been cushioned by transition.

No Deal will be so catastrophic that nobody will be able to claim success.

IMHO No Deal is now off the table. The negotiators wouldn't be engaging as intensively as they currently (eventually) are if they hadn't sight of a common landing zone for a deal and a means to get there. What balance of compromises that will involve remains to be seen but given the heft of the EU and rules based structure the negotiators are working within my bet (and hope) is that ultimately the UK will align with what the EU is proposing and in exchange the UK will get some sort of pyrrhic victory on fishing which will be celebrated with much flag waving and thumping of chests by Brexiteers at little financial cost to the EU.

Whether that deal is a BRINO type deal which minimises economic impact to the UK economy but maximises pressure on BoJo for not delivering a "pure" Brexit or is a thin FTA which maximises economic impact on the UK economy but enables BoJo to hold onto office as he can claim to have delivered a pure Brexit remains to be seen.

I hope it's the former, but fear it'll be the latter.

trellheim

in exchange the UK will get some sort of pyrrhic victory on fishing which will be celebrated with much flag waving and thumping of chests by Brexiteers at little financial cost to the EU

Danes and French will have their own redlines on fishies its not as simple as that.

forgottenhills

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think plenty of things are 100% certain in economics - and Brexit is one of them.

So you are 100% certain that Brexit will lead to the economic ruin of the UK? And over what timescale - 1 year, 5 years. 20 years, 50 years?

Not even a 0.0000001% chance that the UK might trade their way through the short term difficulties they will undoubtedly face, reform their economy, innovate in technology areas and somehow become a economic powerhouse (again) within, lets say, even 50 years?

I admire certainty like that. Reminds me of some fans of strong football teams before a match against a lesser side, there is no way they could ever envisage the opposition winning even though history is full of shocks.

Enzokk

forgottenhills wrote: »

And once again - a Brexit "failure" cannot simply be defined by economics - I doubt you will find many Brexit voters who primarily voted for it on economic grounds. For those who voted for it because they don't like any EU control, or on the grounds of immigration, both of which were far bigger reasons, the fact that they have left the EU and have total freedom over many areas of their legislation, is already seen as 100% success, despite what will happen economically. I know this as I speak with some of these Brexiteers on an almost daily basis.

Wait, if a Brexit failure cannot be determined by economics but by "taking back control", then surely it doesn't matter what happens. It will be up to Johnson to tell people that Brexit has been a success because there is no more ECJ involvement or EU Parliament votes that has an effect in the UK. The fact that this will hurt the economy doesn't matter, it is a victory!

And me telling you that this point of view is idiotic will be used as evidence that this thread is an echo chamber and anti-UK.

If you are going to try and argue that Brexit is a success because of reasons other than economic then you should not waste our or your time. You can then choose metrics that cannot be defined or calculated to show that it could be a success. Posters here will bring facts to the table and feelings will win over facts because you can change how you feel about something but you cannot change a fact. Like its a fact the UK are worse off economically due to Brexit. But Mr Brexit feels better so he will win the argument everytime as you cannot define what success or failure will be for him.

fash

forgottenhills wrote: »

I have posted those links for you.

I don't know what point you are trying to make on the divorce bill element.

From your own link the last estimate of the bill amounts to £32.8bn and "The OBR estimated that the majority of this will be paid by 2023/24 with relatively small amounts paid up until 2064". So not much of this likely to be paid by Jan 21.

Do you think that the UK will pay up all of this bill (which is likely to be still tens of billions in Jan 21) if there is an acrimonious No Deal exit? A UK government that has already reneged on the NI protocol? It will simply become another of their negotiating weapons.

It wouldn't really become a weapon for the UK - they've already acknowledged the debt. Instead it would be a weapon for the EU - that and the interest and penalities on it due to the UK reneging.

listermint

The ultimate mark of how sovereign the UK is. Was that it was always fully entitled to leave.


And has done so.

Enzokk

And also, the divorce payment is done. It was settled in the Withdrawal Agreement. There is no taking back the money unless the UK want to become a pariah with other states. They have confirmed they owe this money, not paying it would mean any bonds the UK government issues are void as they have shown themselves not to pay what they owe.

Can we stop saying the divorce payment is up for debate please.

Sam Russell

forgottenhills wrote: »

So you are 100% certain that Brexit will lead to the economic ruin of the UK? And over what timescale - 1 year, 5 years. 20 years, 50 years?

Not even a 0.0000001% chance that the UK might trade their way through the short term difficulties they will undoubtedly face, reform their economy, innovate in technology areas and somehow become a economic powerhouse (again) within, lets say, even 50 years?

I admire certainty like that. Reminds me of some fans of strong football teams before a match against a lesser side, there is no way they could ever envisage the opposition winning even though history is full of shocks.

To quote Keynes, 'In the long term, we are all dead'.

A lost decade would be bad but a lost generation would be a catastrophe.

I expect it to be the latter. The 'victory' of WW II was not fruitful until long after the magic of the SMCU worked on the UK economy. That took 50 years.

I think Brexit might take longer, and could well be overtaken by other factors.

View

dogbert27 wrote: »

With the UK being out of the EU will they decide not to implement the decision regarding changes to daylight savings just to be contrary?

Could it be in 2021 Ireland and Northern Ireland are in two different times?

I personally favour us returning to our traditional “Irish Standard Time” which was GMT -0.5hrs, given that, geographically speaking time wise, the east coast is 25 minutes behind the geographical time in Greenwich and the west coast is over 40 minutes behind it (ie much closer to GMT -1 hr than to GMT itself).

Apparently the reason we moved to GMT was that the time difference of half an hour had proved a nuisance for communications between London and Dublin in the wake of the Easter rising and it was introduced as a “temporary measure”. As that crisis is well past, the reason for that temporary measure is long gone and it should be consigned to history.

Zubeneschamali

forgottenhills wrote: »

Not even a 0.0000001% chance that the UK might trade their way through the short term difficulties they will undoubtedly face, reform their economy, innovate in technology areas and somehow become a economic powerhouse (again) within, lets say, even 50 years?

Of course there is a chance that they will someday be successful.

No-one is predicting an actual Mad Max wasteland.

What people are saying is that Brexit makes success harder, and imposes such a big cost up front that even if they succeed and get back to a pre brexit growth curve, they will never recover what they have lost vs. If they Remained.

So best case, Brexit costs them for decades. Worst case, it puts them on a permanently lower growth curve, so they fall further and further behind, forever.

forgottenhills

Enzokk wrote: »

Wait, if a Brexit failure cannot be determined by economics but by "taking back control", then surely it doesn't matter what happens. It will be up to Johnson to tell people that Brexit has been a success because there is no more ECJ involvement or EU Parliament votes that has an effect in the UK. The fact that this will hurt the economy doesn't matter, it is a victory!

And me telling you that this point of view is idiotic will be used as evidence that this thread is an echo chamber and anti-UK.

If you are going to try and argue that Brexit is a success because of reasons other than economic then you should not waste our or your time. You can then choose metrics that cannot be defined or calculated to show that it could be a success. Posters here will bring facts to the table and feelings will win over facts because you can change how you feel about something but you cannot change a fact. Like its a fact the UK are worse off economically due to Brexit. But Mr Brexit feels better so he will win the argument everytime as you cannot define what success or failure will be for him.

You have got the wrong end of the stick is stating that it is me arguing that Brexit is a success because of non-economic matters. The nub of my argument on this particular point is that there are Brexiteers out there (not me) who will be happy that they have left the EU even if their economy goes down the toilet. Maybe this is because nationalism trumps everything else for them, maybe it is because they are rich or are on pensions and won't be affected, but the point is that these people exist, in fact they seem to be surprisingly numerous in the UK. It is denial to think that these people don't exist or presumptious to think that a different criteria for the success of Brexit on thier behalf is idiotic (even we may all disagree strongly with their worldview).

It is somewhat akin to holding the view that the only criteria for a reunification of Ireland should be that of the economic success of the project and to regard other views on the criteria for the success of the project as worthless.


My second unrelated point is that it is a given that the UK will be worse off economically in the short to medium term. It is not a given though that they won't be able to trade their way out of difficulties and even produce a boom economy over a longer timescale of 20 to 50 years. So even using economics as the only criteria you then have to decide over what timescale do you measure the economic impact and success or otherwise of Brexit.

johnnyskeleton

forgottenhills wrote: »

Not even a 0.0000001% chance that the UK might trade their way through the short term difficulties they will undoubtedly face, reform their economy, innovate in technology areas and somehow become a economic powerhouse (again) within, lets say, even 50 years?

It depends what you mean by an economic powerhouse. Brexiteers have been making the point that most of the growth in the world is outside of Europe and so it is. Developing nations are catching up on European nations. India has overtaken the UK economically but so too will Brazil, Nigeria, the Philipines etc, probably in the next few decades.

I would imagine that the UK will remain a top 10 economy or at least a top 20 economy for decades to come, but it is on the decline, not the way up. Brexit wont help that and will likely hasten it.

The UK simply cannot compete with the US, China, India, Japan, Germany and maybe Russia in the next decade, baring a major catastrophy like an all out war