Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Firblog

bobmalooka wrote: »

My source shows a marginal difference in the rates.

A marginal difference that showed you were mistaken when saying the "UK charged us more"

go on just admit you were wrong

Firblog

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Many people on newspaper comments in the UK describe the UK loan as a bung or a bail-out to Ireland and Ireland should get down on both knees to thank the UK. Very few have any understanding whatsoever that the UK banking insustry was heavily exposed in Ireland and the UK loaned Ireland money at commercial interest rates with punitive clauses to deter early repayment. How that can ever be described as a bail out or bung is beyond me.

I suppose my mortgage company bailed me out on my house loan!

Its a bailout when you get it at a rate that neither international money markets or the EFSM will lend it to you at.

bobmalooka

Firblog wrote: »

A marginal difference that showed you were mistaken when saying the "UK charged us more"

go on just admit you were wrong

I’m not wrong though, the weighted average rate from the troika institutions is marginally lower than from the UK. The UK charged us more.

You are the guy refusing to back down from contrasting those similar rates as low and rape.

looksee

ambro25 wrote: »

Sounds like it's just got 2 minutes past too late: the 4 biggest MEP groups (EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens) have reportedly agreed no ratification to take place in 2020. That means either a short period of no deal, or a technical prolongation of the transition period. No deal is better than a bad deal - the irony!

Anyone who follows ciaran the euro courier (@donnyc1975) on Twitter will already know what's what as regards logistics. But it's particularly grim reading tonight.

It's positively raining anecdotal reports of no further orders getting taken on the Continent and/or by hauliers for UK delivery, and no further truck slots for love or (a ton of-) money until sometime in January.

Getting back on topic, is there any more on this? I can't find any references on news sources.

listermint

Firblog wrote: »

Its a bailout when you get it at a rate that neither international money markets or the EFSM will lend it to you at.

Brexits happened. The UK is a third country.

The end.


Well not really. They need a deal so will keep coming back. But there's also a queue .

Brexit is a sideshow now.

Sam Russell

looksee wrote: »

Getting back on topic, is there any more on this? I can't find any references on news sources.

Barnier mentioned a short NO DEAL in January as there is not time left for it to be ratified.

MEPs have been saying so for ages.

Nody

Firblog wrote: »

You when are you going to admit you were mistaken?

The article you linked to gave the rate charged by the ESFM @ 6.1% and the UK @ 5.9% your own source contradicts your assertion that the "UK charged us more"

The European Union has approved an €85 billion rescue package for Ireland which, if drawn down in its entirety today, would attract an average interest rate of 5.83 per cent.

The €85bn bailout package agreed last November is made up of a series of loans from the IMF, two EU funds and bi-lateral loans from the UK, Sweden and Denmark and the UK's direct aid is second most expensive, charged at an interest rate of 5.9%.

UK rate 5.9% on the bilateral loan. Now last time I did math 5.9% is larger than 5.83%; so for the gazillion time now tell us how EU's rate were "rapey" but UK's rate where perfectly fine when they charged more.

looksee

ambro25 wrote: »

Sounds like it's just got 2 minutes past too late: the 4 biggest MEP groups (EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens) have reportedly agreed no ratification to take place in 2020. That means either a short period of no deal, or a technical prolongation of the transition period. No deal is better than a bad deal - the irony!

Anyone who follows ciaran the euro courier (@donnyc1975) on Twitter will already know what's what as regards logistics. But it's particularly grim reading tonight.

It's positively raining anecdotal reports of no further orders getting taken on the Continent and/or by hauliers for UK delivery, and no further truck slots for love or (a ton of-) money until sometime in January.

I just found an article on rte ( :rolleyes: might have been a good place to look first) which is still vague and doesn't prove anything.

The supposedly alarming stuff on the twitter link shows delays between POland and Ukraine, but it appears from Sixfold (source of most transport delay info) that there is very little delay anywhere else apart from a couple of hours at the channel tunnel. https://covid-19.sixfold.com/ That specifies covid but it would presumably be difficult to differentiate between covid and brexit delays, a delay is a delay.

The anticipated delays would be another thing, I can't find any info on them.

Spanish Eyes

A trade deal doesn't change the status of a third country. UK have left EU now so all that's left is no FOM etc and Third country status.

That pesky Trade Deal after all.

Sam Russell

The GBP is back in the 91.5p = €1 region again. Market must be back expecting no deal again.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

The GBP is back in the 91.5p = €1 region again. Market must be back expecting no deal again.

At this stage, I don't think "the market" is any better informed than any of us here. For the most part, it looks to me like the exchange rate is linked more to the amount of noise generated by "sources close to [either side]" than any basis in reality.

In particular, there a tendency for certain to get really excited by claims that a agreement has been reached on "95% ... 97% ... 98% ..." of the deal, while forgetting the maxim that has governed these talks from Day 1: nothing is agreed unless everything is agreed.

The EU has been very clear from the outset that they do not want a repeat of the pick-n-mix relationship it has with the Swiss; and the UK has been clear from the outset that they want to "solve" the hardest problems on the basis of a "trust us" gentleman's agreement while demonstrating that they are neither gentlemen nor trustworthy.

So no matter how close we get, if there's no agreement on that last - and inevitably most difficult - 2% ... 1% ... 0.5% then there will be no all-in-one deal to present to the EP & EU27 parliaments for ratification by 01-01-21.

A Dub in Glasgo

Just got the following email from Amazon France (translated using google)

Hello,

We are contacting you because, in the past, you ordered from Amazon.fr and selected a UK delivery address and some changes are expected.

Indeed, from January 1, 2021, when the Brexit transition period ends, you will see some changes when shopping on Amazon.fr when you select a delivery address in the United Kingdom. These changes may concern:

• VAT (more information on: www.amazon.fr/tauxtva) or the regional equivalent, where applicable, payable in the country where the delivery takes place, or the fact that your package is subject to duties, taxes and customs charges ("Import charges");
• the collection of VAT, or an estimate of import taxes (more details on www.amazon.fr/taxes-importation), which may result in a price change at the time of payment.

We will continue to accept your returns provided they are eligible. If the reason for the return results from an error on Amazon's part (for example, if the item is defective, damaged, or incorrect), the costs incurred for the return will be paid by Amazon. Otherwise, all costs incurred for the return (including freight charges, as well as any associated import or customs charges, if applicable) will be the responsibility of the person returning the merchandise. For more information on our return policies, you can consult the following page: www.amazon.fr/retours-politique.

I hope this information helps. We hope to see you soon.

Regards,

Client service
Amazon.com

trellheim

Council can agree to provisonally apply a trade deal - they dont need to get parliament or the 27 to ratify , I think council legal put that up last night.

that does not stop the absolute hames being made of the UK government to deliberately delay and stall this out to leave the current logistics logjam all to create crisis situation to try and get an infinitesimally better deal is just inflicting pain on their own people especially during a pandemic.

Sam Russell

trellheim wrote: »

Council can agree to provisonally apply a trade deal - they dont need to get parliament or the 27 to ratify , I think council legal put that up last night.

that does not stop the absolute hames being made of the UK government to deliberately delay and stall this out to leave the current logistics logjam all to create crisis situation to try and get an infinitesimally better deal is just inflicting pain on their own people especially during a pandemic.

I would think the MEPs might hole that below the waterline if there is any play acting by the UK Gov - because they have a plenary meeting set down for, IIRC, the 28th of Dec, so they can vote down such a proposal and prevent any type of deal going through.

I am not sure if that would be good or bad. The UK have demonstrated their ability to screw around and waste time, while trying to game the EU to try and get an advantage. They are totally untrustworthy, and, as we know from our history, always have been.

Can you believe when fish are high on the list of problems, they release the gunboats? When the NI protocol was high on the list, they introduce the IMB?

I think that a period of No Deal might be best, but it will be painful for us, but hopefully only in the short term. They need to understand any backsliding will be punished quickly and severely.

Nate--IRL--

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would think the MEPs might hole that below the waterline if there is any play acting by the UK Gov - because they have a plenary meeting set down for, IIRC, the 28th of Dec, so they can vote down such a proposal and prevent any type of deal going through.

Can the parliament overrule the council on provisional application? I don't think it can. It'd be political fireworks but the Council could press ahead legally I think.

Nate

Sam Russell

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Can the parliament overrule the council on provisional application? I don't think it can. It'd be political fireworks but the Council could press ahead legally I think.

Nate

I do not know - not a lawyer, but the EP are getting very anti the UK deal at the moment. The MEPs can sack the Commission, but not the Council of Ministers.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would think the MEPs might hole that below the waterline if there is any play acting by the UK Gov - because they have a plenary meeting set down for, IIRC, the 28th of Dec, so they can vote down such a proposal and prevent any type of deal going through.

I am not sure if that would be good or bad. The UK have demonstrated their ability to screw around and waste time, while trying to game the EU to try and get an advantage. They are totally untrustworthy, and, as we know from our history, always have been.

Can you believe when fish are high on the list of problems, they release the gunboats? When the NI protocol was high on the list, they introduce the IMB?

I think that a period of No Deal might be best, but it will be painful for us, but hopefully only in the short term. They need to understand any backsliding will be punished quickly and severely.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Barnier and Frost agree a deal and, a few days or weeks later, Johnson and his pals resile.

trellheim

Can the parliament overrule the council on provisional application? I don't think it can. It'd be political fireworks but the Council could press ahead legally I think.

Nate

I think so too - I had a quick (if there can be such a thing) look through Lisbon treaty and it seems council are what matters.

Sam Russell

The deal might need to be ratified by HoC before the EU Council considers a pro-tem agreement could allow the putative agreement come into force until ratified by EU27 and the EP.

The UK do not need to translate into any languages, nor do they have to wait for other ratifications.

newport2

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would think the MEPs might hole that below the waterline if there is any play acting by the UK Gov - because they have a plenary meeting set down for, IIRC, the 28th of Dec, so they can vote down such a proposal and prevent any type of deal going through.

I am not sure if that would be good or bad. The UK have demonstrated their ability to screw around and waste time, while trying to game the EU to try and get an advantage. They are totally untrustworthy, and, as we know from our history, always have been.

Can you believe when fish are high on the list of problems, they release the gunboats? When the NI protocol was high on the list, they introduce the IMB?

I think that a period of No Deal might be best, but it will be painful for us, but hopefully only in the short term. They need to understand any backsliding will be punished quickly and severely.

It just beggars belief that a country trying to create a trading agreement would include in their process threats to break international law and to deploy gunboats.

swampgas

On with the tinfoil hat, once again ...

If there is a plot to short sterling (say) then to maximise currency fluctuations, would a no-deal crash-out need to come out of the blue as far as possible? Johnson seems to be running down the clock, giving false hope of a final deal, but perhaps he is intending to pull the plug at the last moment to deliver the sort of shock to the system that his backers need to maximise the profit they can make?

After a few days of chaos in the new year the bets will have been cashed in and Johnson will be given permission to finalise his FTA.

The next few days will reveal what he intends to do either way.

ancapailldorcha

swampgas wrote: »

On with the tinfoil hat, once again ...

If there is a plot to short sterling (say) then to maximise currency fluctuations, would a no-deal crash-out need to come out of the blue as far as possible? Johnson seems to be running down the clock, giving false hope of a final deal, but perhaps he is intending to pull the plug at the last moment to deliver the sort of shock to the system that his backers need to maximise the profit they can make?

After a few days of chaos in the new year the bets will have been cashed in and Johnson will be given permission to finalise his FTA.

The next few days will reveal what he intends to do either way.

I just don't see it. It would require far too much from the current Conservative party in terms of teamwork, cohesion, skill and finesse. This is the same Conservative party which continues to exalt Chris Grayling who chartered ferries from a company with no boats and Dominic Raab who didn't know how things travelled between Dover and Calais.

Even if it were, the Tories are one year into a five-year term. Allow the last year for election-related issues and events and they'd destroy themselves electorally but as I said above, I just don't think they're capable of pulling off such a thing.

listermint

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I just don't see it. It would require far too much from the current Conservative party in terms of teamwork, cohesion, skill and finesse. This is the same Conservative party which continues to exalt Chris Grayling who chartered ferries from a company with no boats and Dominic Raab who didn't know how things travelled between Dover and Calais.

Even if it were, the Tories are one year into a five-year term. Allow the last year for election-related issues and events and they'd destroy themselves electorally but as I said above, I just don't think they're capable of pulling off such a thing.

none of the above requires anyone outside of number 10 to pull off though!

Charles Babbage

Sam Russell wrote: »

The GBP is back in the 91.5p = €1 region again. Market must be back expecting no deal again.

The difference between 90.7p and 91.5p is more or less usual variation. I think if the markets really thought it was no deal then it would be several pence higher than that.

The markets still think there will be a deal, in my opinion. And I think they are correct.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Barnier and Frost agree a deal and, a few days or weeks later, Johnson and his pals resile.

In that case though, Johnson would just keep up the "serious differences" malarkey. It's he and his Brexit buddies at No.10 who keep briefing the press, not Frost.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

In that case though, Johnson would just keep up the "serious differences" malarkey. It's he and his Brexit buddies at No.10 who keep briefing the press, not Frost.

Yes indeed, though it could be argued that it's a silly game of good cop, bad cop. Until they, yet again, show themselves to be untrustworthy liars. It must be remembered that many EU countries don't actually care all that much about Brexit, especially during a pandemic, and are growing increasingly impatient with how much time and energy it is draining from the EU as a whole. Very soon, they will clamour to pull the plug irregardless. Johnson is playing a very dangerous game.

View

In the relevant article of the TFEU - art 218.5 - it says that the (European) Council (of heads of government) may - if necessary - provisionally apply a new treaty (with a non-EU country or countries) prior to it entering into force.

The obvious legal question there would be what exactly counts as “if necessary”.

There have been eleven months of negotiations on this and for much of it the U.K. was seriously disengaged. Why therefore is it now “necessary” for the EU to provisionally apply a new EU-U.K. trade deal rather than going through the slower but proper procedures for ratifying it?

Brussels Sprout

swampgas wrote: »

On with the tinfoil hat, once again ...

If there is a plot to short sterling (say) then to maximise currency fluctuations, would a no-deal crash-out need to come out of the blue as far as possible? Johnson seems to be running down the clock, giving false hope of a final deal, but perhaps he is intending to pull the plug at the last moment to deliver the sort of shock to the system that his backers need to maximise the profit they can make?

After a few days of chaos in the new year the bets will have been cashed in and Johnson will be given permission to finalise his FTA.

The next few days will reveal what he intends to do either way.

"never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

In the relevant article of the TFEU - art 218.5 - it says that the (European) Council (of heads of government) may - if necessary - provisionally apply a new treaty (with a non-EU country or countries) prior to it entering into force.

The obvious legal question there would be what exactly counts as “if necessary”.

There have been eleven months of negotiations on this and for much of it the U.K. was seriously disengaged. Why therefore is it now “necessary” for the EU to provisionally apply a new EU-U.K. trade deal rather than going through the slower but proper procedures for ratifying it?

If the UK had already ratified the FTA prior to the end of the transition period, then that might be sufficient to regard it 'necessary' but without that ratified by the HoC, particularly given the prior behaviour of the UK over the WA, then I think that test fails.

I think it would be better/safer to at least wait for the EP to ratify it as well.

Enzokk

Some news about a deal,

https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1338878954841759745?s=20

https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1338880612317458433?s=20

I will be interested to see what the deal is and if the Brexiters would really be assured.