Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

amacca

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

And the basis for this is what exactly? What is a ‘better trade deal’? A deal is something that both sides agree to based on getting the majority of what they want while giving away as little as possible of what they don’t.....if a deal was that bad they wouldn’t sign up to it.

their self serving incompetent politicians cheered on by an equally self serving media/propaganda machine might sign them up to such a deal if they kept being voted in..........after all why mess with a winning formula.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Two posts have been deleted and sanctions issued for ignoring this.

More posts have been deleted and a sanction has been issued.

HalfAndHalf

SNIP. Use the proper names of publications please. No name calling.

HalfAndHalf

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I've deleted a few posts. If you've an issue with someone's posts, report them and leave it to the mods. Calling it out on thread just contributes to the problem.

Also, let's not make this personal. No more Irish bashing, English bashing, or allegations of either.

Thanks

Apologies Chips, was catching up and commenting on posts from overnight and hadn’t got to the last few pages with the warning. Noted, thanks.

Padre_Pio

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

And the basis for this is what exactly? What is a ‘better trade deal’? A deal is something that both sides agree to based on getting the majority of what they want while giving away as little as possible of what they don’t.....if a deal was that bad they wouldn’t sign up to it.

Thats an excellent question, and one that has been asked for 4 long years.

What is Brexit?
What does Brexit mean to those who voted for it?
Because what we have now bears absolutely no resemblance to what was promised in 2016.

HalfAndHalf

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Thats an excellent question, and one that has been asked for 4 long years.

What is Brexit?
What does Brexit mean to those who voted for it?
Because what we have now bears absolutely no resemblance to what was promised in 2016.

This doesn’t answer my question

CelticRambler

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Yyou think the U.K. will be worse off forever more based on them having a worse relationship with the EU......and that’s it.

Why would this be? So you think that’s it now forever, the U.K. will not make any other deals for the rest of eternity? That’s insane!

Well, let's take their most recent trade deal as an example: back in 2015, the UK had complete, unfetterred, frictionless access to the EU for goods, services and people. After five years of agitation, they've finally secured a new deal which is considerably worse than the previous one. Severely restricted access for services and people, and all goods now have to be certified compliant with EU standards, accompanied by customs declarations and exported by an operator with an appropriate export licence.

The deal with the Faeroe Islands was largely more beneficial to the Faoroes than to the UK; the deal with Japan was largely more beneficial to Japan than the UK; the deal with the EU is definitely more beneficitial to to the EU than the UK.

So we have real-world examples of the UK repeatedly making not-great deals on its own. Now turn your question around: what evidence can you offer to support the view that the UK will be able to make good deals with other parties in the future, and what evidence leads you to believe that they will be better than the deals they've just given up?

Gerry T

Dr Cockhound wrote:

The thing is Gerry, writing off 17m that you can't possibly have met as bigots and that last line about the UK being hopelessly inferior to the EU, smacks of ... well..... precisely the kind of exceptionalism that some here accuse the English of.

I wouldnt say im writing them off, but over the yrs Brexit has morphed, it was at one stage about "lets make britain great again" , as if its not great now, its a very clever slogan tugging at peoples emotions about a time when the UK was the global super power. Cummings in fairness knew how to tap into an undercurrent. As the debate started in 2016 it became clearly obvious to anyone following that the immediate aftermath of brexit would be a large financial hit, so then brexit was not about short term gains, suddendly the 350m a week big red bus dissappeared. The same happened the easiest trade deal, that took longer to dissolve as we had a long period of "they need us more than we need them" which turned into "the eu always capitulate at the last hr". But that proved very wrong. What was left boiled down to fish, ECJ oversight and Sovereignty, which few understand.

But the last bit is real. The EU and UK are in no way equals, the EU is by far the larger market, 15T v 2.5T. Secondly the EU exports below 7% of its exports to the UK compaired to over 40%. Thirdly the EU has FTA trade and bilaterial deals with over 80 countries, the UK had none. Finally the UK imports about 80% of all its food consumption (that includes ingredients to make other foods, then classed as UK origin).
Who do you think is superior or do you think them equal ?
When it comes to human rights or workers rights or basic human dignity then of course we are all equal. But Brexit is about leaving the EU as a trading block and as trade is concerned the UK is most def not the EU's equal. Nor is it Chinas or the USAs.

Dr Cockhound

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Thats an excellent question, and one that has been asked for 4 long years.

What is Brexit?
What does Brexit mean to those who voted for it?
Because what we have now bears absolutely no resemblance to what was promised in 2016.

The nuance is that it's no longer 2016, the world is a very different place and the future is likely to be more different than any of us can imagine.

Whilst I feel it's important to remember the lessons of the past, there's little to be gained by continuing the battles of the past.


Personally, I'm here to read and learn from differing opinions and viewpoints but not fight and win battles.

HalfAndHalf

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, let's take their most recent trade deal as an example: back in 2015, the UK had complete, unfetterred, frictionless access to the EU for goods, services and people. After five years of agitation, they've finally secured a new deal which is considerably worse than the previous one. Severely restricted access for services and people, and all goods now have to be certified compliant with EU standards, accompanied by customs declarations and exported by an operator with an appropriate export licence.

The deal with the Faeroe Islands was largely more beneficial to the Faoroes than to the UK; the deal with Japan was largely more beneficial to Japan than the UK; the deal with the EU is definitely more beneficitial to to the EU than the UK.

So we have real-world examples of the UK repeatedly making not-great deals on its own. Now turn your question around: what evidence can you offer to support the view that the UK will be able to make good deals with other parties in the future, and what evidence leads you to believe that they will be better than the deals they've just given up?

Considerably worse for U.K.
Largely more beneficial for not the U.K.

Can you give examples of how the U.K. will be worse off with these grandiose terms please?

Are you saying that the U.K., who Tbf haven’t made a bad job of it over X amount of years to be the worlds 5th largest economy are suddenly going to become a third world country relying an handouts?

You seem to focus on the changed relationship with the EU, which everyone knew would be worse for the U.K. than what they had, but that was a given.

CelticRambler

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Considerably worse for U.K.
Largely more beneficial for not the U.K.

Can you give examples of how the U.K. will be worse off with these grandiose terms please?

Are you saying that the U.K., who Tbf haven’t made a bad job of it over X amount of years to be the worlds 5th largest economy are suddenly going to become a third world country relying an handouts?

You seem to focus on the changed relationship with the EU, which everyone knew would be worse for the U.K. than what they had, but that was a given.

Great debating technique there - lobbing your own unsupported arguments into the conversation and then demanding examples for the contrary position (hey look: they were there in the message you replied to)

As for the "5th largest economy" trope. Go back and read the other threads on this and you'll see that this has already been discussed. That's what I was referring to in an earlier post when I stated that the UK has struggled in the last two decades, slipping from 5th to 6th to 7th (especially since the referendum result) and forecast to be out of the top ten within another decade, overtaken by EU and Asian states.

But how about addressing the point I've put to you twice now: what unique product, service or sector does GB have to offer the world that it can use to earn a great trade deal with some other country or bloc. Please be as specific as you can.

Lumen

CelticRambler wrote: »

what unique product, service or sector does GB have to offer the world that it can use to earn a great trade deal with some other country or bloc. Please be as specific as you can.

GB has excellent and quite reasonably priced lawyers and accountants. I've fingers in a couple of pies both sides of the Irish sea, and have found the British easily outcompete the Irish in these areas. Now obviously that's anecdotal based on only a few data points over the last decade or so, and I have no experience of other jurisdictions, but on the other hand this view had been reluctantly arrived at in spite of me wishing to find the opposite, so it's not just confirmation bias.

Specifically, I can get a fairly complex business dispute settled in the English courts for barely into five figures, and the opening salvos cost a fraction of that. I've shown the work to a family member who practices in Ireland and they were amazed at the value.

HalfAndHalf

CelticRambler wrote: »

Great debating technique there - lobbing your own unsupported arguments into the conversation and then demanding examples for the contrary position (hey look: they were there in the message you replied to)

As for the "5th largest economy" trope. Go back and read the other threads on this and you'll see that this has already been discussed. That's what I was referring to in an earlier post when I stated that the UK has struggled in the last two decades, slipping from 5th to 6th to 7th (especially since the referendum result) and forecast to be out of the top ten within another decade, overtaken by EU and Asian states.

But how about addressing the point I've put to you twice now: what unique product, service or sector does GB have to offer the world that it can use to earn a great trade deal with some other country or bloc. Please be as specific as you can.

Oh don’t mistake my response for a debate, there’s no point debating with your good self as I’ve read many of your posts and you seem to have all the answers. I’m nowhere near as clued up.

As for out of top 10, the latest list shows the U.K. back in 5th, so should we believe the publications or what you say? I’m happy to believe yourself if you can show me publicised facts or the UKs impending armeggedon.

Thanks

Capt'n Midnight

sam1986uk wrote: »

A trade deal with the largest economy on the planet and a fellow anglophone country results in a "0.07% increase in UK GDP after 15 years"

I'm no expert but even i think that's a bit off

UK population is expected to grow 5% over 10 years.

mrunsure

It should be noted that the UK is one of the largest economies in the world (5th/6th/7th/whatever) mainly because of its large population. Brexiteers, Daily Mail etc. like to brag about the UK's position in that league table but it is not a good indicator of how rich an average person is. Per capita GDP is lower than most other western/northern European countries.

Having a large economy does have some advantages, for example better funded national broadcasters, better choice of service providers and retailers and therefore more competition and lower prices. One disappointing aspect of the EU (so far) is that a lot of service providers still only choose to serve their own country or maybe a few neighbouring countries, despite the vast EU market and economy. An obvious example is online retailers only delivering and marketing to certain countries. I presume this situation will improve with further and closer integration.

Dr Cockhound

mrunsure wrote: »

Having a large economy does have some advantages, for example better funded national broadcasters, better choice of service providers and retailers and therefore more competition and lower prices. One disappointing aspect of the EU (so far) is that a lot of service providers still only choose to serve their own country or maybe a few neighbouring countries, despite the vast EU market and economy. An obvious example is online retailers only delivering and marketing to certain countries. I presume this situation will improve with further and closer integration.

Business is driven by profit and not ideology.

If the opportunity for profit arises, expect the situation to improve, if the risk versus reward equation doesn't stack up and there's little chance of making significant profit, expect the situation to remain roughly the same.

yagan

mrunsure wrote: »

It should be noted that the UK is one of the largest economies in the world (5th/6th/7th/whatever) mainly because of its large population. Brexiteers, Daily Mail etc. like to brag about the UK's position in that league table but it is not a good indicator of how rich an average person is. Per capita GDP is lower than most other western/northern European countries.

Very true, if broken down into regions 9 out of the 10 poorest in northern Europe are in the UK, the 10th being a former coal mining district of Belgium.

North and south England may as well be two different countries.

CelticRambler

Lumen wrote: »

GB has excellent and quite reasonably priced lawyers and accountants. I've fingers in a couple of pies both sides of the Irish sea, and have found the British easily outcompete the Irish in these areas. Now obviously that's anecdotal based on only a few data points over the last decade or so, and I have no experience of other jurisdictions, but on the other hand this view had been reluctantly arrived at in spite of me wishing to find the opposite, so it's not just confirmation bias.

Specifically, I can get a fairly complex business dispute settled in the English courts for barely into five figures, and the opening salvos cost a fraction of that. I've shown the work to a family member who practices in Ireland and they were amazed at the value.

Uhhhh, yeah but that's two sides of the same (legacy) legal and accounting systems. How do GB laywers and accountants fare in, say, the Congo or Vietnam or Chile? And in particular, what unique talents would they be bringing to those countries that would mark them out as superior to competitors coming from Nigeria, China or Brazil?

We know what the British can do in the EU because we've lived and worked with them in that context for more than 40 years. But apparently they're going to do far better for themselves in these other, untapped markets - so much so that it was worth sacrificing their freedom to provide these services to their 27 nearest neighbours.

HalfAndHalf

CelticRambler wrote: »

Uhhhh, yeah but that's two sides of the same (legacy) legal and accounting systems. How do GB laywers and accountants fare in, say, the Congo or Vietnam or Chile? And in particular, what unique talents would they be bringing to those countries that would mark them out as superior to competitors coming from Nigeria, China or Brazil?

We know what the British can do in the EU because we've lived and worked with them in that context for more than 40 years. But apparently they're going to do far better for themselves in these other, untapped markets - so much so that it was worth sacrificing their freedom to provide these services to their 27 nearest neighbours.

Sacrificing their freedom......Jesus!

Irish Praetorian

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Sacrificing their freedom......Jesus!

Oh come now, it hardly holds a candle to the dreck we've seen from elements of the Leave moment for the past 5 years now; everything from EUSSR to 'vassalage'.

Dr Cockhound

CelticRambler wrote: »

Uhhhh, yeah but that's two sides of the same (legacy) legal and accounting systems. How do GB laywers and accountants fare in, say, the Congo or Vietnam or Chile? And in particular, what unique talents would they be bringing to those countries that would mark them out as superior to competitors coming from Nigeria, China or Brazil?

'English Law' remains very popular in international disputes between companies or wealthy individuals, based in different countries, as a non-partisan solution where the opponents are looking for a resolution based solely on fairness.


Clearly, there would be a lesser advantage in taking a case to 'English Law' when the proponents are of the same jurisdiction, unless one of the proponents feels they have reason to, or lack trust in that country's legal system.


https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/20190508-LIDW-English-Law-on-the-World-Stage-For-publication.pdf

yagan

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Sacrificing their freedom......Jesus!

There was this thing called Freedom of Movement....

CelticRambler

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Sacrificing their freedom......Jesus!

I take it you haven't read any of the new trade agreement? That's exactly what's been agreed. For the rest of today, and the last three days of the year, UK lawyers and accountants can offer their services in 28 different countries on an "at home" basis. On the 1st January, they can't - they'll be limited to one: the UK. If a UK lawyer wants to offer services in Czechia on the 2nd January, he or she has to apply to the Czech regulators, complete a competency evaluation, confirm that he or she has a registered place of business in Czechia, be resident there and pay the relevant fees. If they want to pop over the border and offer their services in Austria, they have to apply to the Austrian regulators, complete a competency evaluation, confirm that he or she has a registered place of business in Austria, confirm that they are not resident in Austria there and pay the relevant fees.

As an Irishman (not a lawyer, but equivalent regulated profession), I can offer my services in Austria in the morning, in Czechia in the afternoon and let the regulators know the following morning that I've been and gone. I have that freedom; my British colleagues have lost it.

CelticRambler

A quick comment on the detail of the agreement: I've had a look through some of it, and one thing that struck me is the number of references to authorisations, permits and other documents issued in respect of exports prior to and during the transitional period: they all expire on 31st Dec, and exporters and transporters have to apply for new ones. These can be applied for in advance, on condition that they are marked as valid only from 1st Jan 2021. I can see many small businesses who were only just getting to grips with all this new paperwork, but thinking they'd done things right, finding themselves having to do it all over again. I reckon the first six months of 2021 will see an awful lot of hair being pulled from small business heads ...

HalfAndHalf

yagan wrote: »

There was this thing called Freedom of Movement....

There were four freedoms, but it’s not like they’ve given up their ‘freedom’ fgs! Dramatic or what!

HalfAndHalf

CelticRambler wrote: »

I take it you haven't read any of the new trade agreement? That's exactly what's been agreed. For the rest of today, and the last three days of the year, UK lawyers and accountants can offer their services in 28 different countries on an "at home" basis. On the 1st January, they can't - they'll be limited to one: the UK. If a UK lawyer wants to offer services in Czechia on the 2nd January, he or she has to apply to the Czech regulators, complete a competency evaluation, confirm that he or she has a registered place of business in Czechia, be resident there and pay the relevant fees. If they want to pop over the border and offer their services in Austria, they have to apply to the Austrian regulators, complete a competency evaluation, confirm that he or she has a registered place of business in Austria, confirm that they are not resident in Austria there and pay the relevant fees.

As an Irishman (not a lawyer, but equivalent regulated profession), I can offer my services in Austria in the morning, in Czechia in the afternoon and let the regulators know the following morning that I've been and gone. I have that freedom; my British colleagues have lost it.

Yes...........we all know this. And I think I’ve said about FIVE times now, the U.K. relationship with the EU will be different forever more.

But come on, it’s not like they’ve been slapped in chains and will be working the mines! Given up their freedom. Sure all a company would have to do is have opened up an EU base and their services will be served from there.

yagan

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Yes...........we all know this. And I think I’ve said about FIVE times now, the U.K. relationship with the EU will be different forever more.

But come on, it’s not like they’ve been slapped in chains and will be working the mines! Given up their freedom. Sure all a company would have to do is have opened up an EU base and their services will be served from there.

There's more food banks that McDonalds in England as the ranks of the working poor swell.

Dr Cockhound

Business will always find ways to do business and blind eyes will be turned where they need to.


Expect even more 'Brass Plate Offices' in Dublin, The Channel Islands, Malta et al.

HalfAndHalf

yagan wrote: »

There's more food banks that McDonalds in England as the ranks of the working poor swell.

Yeah saw that get mentioned a few times. I’m not too sure what bearing it has on Brexit though. The U.K. still don’t leave until the 31st December. Germany who are the biggest economy in the EU have 20% of children at risk of poverty, and they are still in the EU???

Lumen

CelticRambler wrote: »

Uhhhh, yeah but that's two sides of the same (legacy) legal and accounting systems. How do GB laywers and accountants fare in, say, the Congo or Vietnam or Chile? And in particular, what unique talents would they be bringing to those countries that would mark them out as superior to competitors coming from Nigeria, China or Brazil?

We know what the British can do in the EU because we've lived and worked with them in that context for more than 40 years. But apparently they're going to do far better for themselves in these other, untapped markets - so much so that it was worth sacrificing their freedom to provide these services to their 27 nearest neighbours.

I'm not making a case for Brexit, I'm simply responding to your question. In fact, the competitiveness of these services is a case against Brexit, not for it.

Relating to what Dr Cockhound posted, English law is a big thing internationally. This isn't my area, but I remember reading about it in relation to parri passu and Argentinian bonds. From what I recall, bondholders prefer sovereign bonds issued under English law as they have stronger protections for creditors.

The City isn't just about money laundering for despots.