Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

One trading company described the Brexit deal as a "big bang event" that is a "huge own goal" for financial services. Interesting times.

Another aspect of this is that the current set up makes it hard (diplomatically, but also in certain areas legally) for one EU Member State to badmouth another or to actively encourage business to move from one Member State to another.

I would expect to see EU governments actively encouraging businesses to move away from London and towards EU bases after 1st Jan. Doubtless the UK will likewise be trying to persuade businesses away from the EU too, but I'm not sure how well that will go for them.

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Another aspect of this is that the current set up makes it hard (diplomatically, but also in certain areas legally) for one EU Member State to badmouth another or to actively encourage business to move from one Member State to another.

I would expect to see EU governments actively encouraging businesses to move away from London and towards EU bases after 1st Jan. Doubtless the UK will likewise be trying to persuade businesses away from the EU too, but I'm not sure how well that will go for them.

That's a good point.

Both sides have committed to a level playing field as I understand it so there might not be too much either side can get up to. That said, to my knowledge the deal doesn't account for financial services so we'll likely see a gradual toning down of operations in London as firms move to the continent. The UK's going to become less attractive for foreign direct investment as well but I suppose only time will tell.

jm08

peter kern wrote: »

this article would disagree with your point of negative ecconimic impact for the region . http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/international+economy/ari26-2019-galianobastarrica-economic-effects-brexit-campo-de-gibraltar-econometric-approach

not to say that your your point 2 and 3 are not correct, but as for smuggling the smuggling from gibraltar cant even be compared with the drug smuggling problmems with hasish from africa

That's someone's undergraduate thesis that was written in 2018. There are 14,000 people who cross the border to Gibraltar daily, nearly all work in hospitality or retail (is, low paying jobs).Spain provides cheap accommodation for all these workers. It's factual that companies establish themselves in Gibraltar and operate in Spain, thus not contributing to the Spanish infrastructure that educates, houses and provides health care for Gibraltar's workers - this is not a level playing field for them.


Of course drug smuggling is a problem for everyone, but cigarette smuggling isn't the same problem for Gibraltar (low tax) as it is for Spain and the rest of the EU. Millions of lost revenue every years.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That said, to my knowledge the deal doesn't account for financial services ...

The deal does not cover financial services, not at all; financial passporting is finished for London (unilateral extension arrangements aside). I read a few years back that almost all Swiss banking business with the EU was channelled through London to avail of passporting; that will obviously come to an end, and it would be interesting to know how many other non-EU countries no longer see London as a useful gateway to the SM.

ancapailldorcha

CelticRambler wrote: »

The deal does not cover financial services, not at all; financial passporting is finished for London (unilateral extension arrangements aside). I read a few years back that almost all Swiss banking business with the EU was channelled through London to avail of passporting; that will obviously come to an end, and it would be interesting to know how many other non-EU countries no longer see London as a useful gateway to the SM.

I know that the Swiss were using London for the same thing as their cornucopia or bilateral treaties doesn't cover financial services. That'll almost certainly come to an end.

An Ciarraioch

Barnier appears to be gearing up for a French presidential tilt, saying he would be prepared to "serve France" in the future.

reslfj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

mrunsure wrote: »

If Gibraltar join Schengen, will that allow them to live and work in the EU, or does it just allow them to travel to Spain and the rest of the Schengen area without a passport?

Just the travel I believe. Schengen is a borders and passports arrangement for some EU member states (e.g. Ireland is not part of it).

Schengen is a 'passport and visa union' and covers right to travel for business or as tourist for 90 days out of any 180 days period.
Schengen has 26 members 22 of the 27 EU members + 3 EEA + CH.

Once inside the Schengen area you need not show ID/passport at internal borders (except at some borders following the 2015 refugee crises), but you must be able to identify yourself everywhere else. EU citizens shall carry an ID card or a passport, but inside e.g. Denmark I have never used anything but my drivers license.

EU citizens from non Schengen EU members (BG, CY, HR, IE, and RO) can travel into the Schengen area but must show their passports at Schengen entry and exit and at departure/arrival from/to their home country.

The Schengen will introduce a visa waiver system 'ETIAS' (expected in 2022) for countries now visa free, but not in EU nor in Schengen. (It will be much like the US ESTA visa waiver).

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The right to live and work is governed by EU Directive in accordance with the TFEU.

For members of the SM (EU27 + EEA + CH) the right to stay and work or retire within the SM area is part of the TFEU - as you write - but also the EEA agreement or the EU-CH agreements - the four freedoms of the SM.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think Gibraltar would be able to avail of the right to free movement of workers etc unless they were part of the EU, and they are too small to join.

The rights for non-SM citizens to work and stay is sometimes an EU competency (e.g. UK citizens/expats having equal rights where they live before January 1. 2021 - part of the WA.)
But it's mostly a national competency to grant permission to stay longer and/or work. Rules and procedures will surely not be 'EU-identical' in all EU member states.

Note there are attempts to limit the rights of EU member states to issue 'Golden Passports' (citizenship granted for money, seen in Cyprus/Malta, I believe) to non EU persons.
Could limit what Spain can/will do toward Gibraltar.

Lars

peter kern

jm08 wrote: »

That's someone's undergraduate thesis that was written in 2018. There are 14,000 people who cross the border to Gibraltar daily, nearly all work in hospitality or retail (is, low paying jobs).Spain provides cheap accommodation for all these workers. It's factual that companies establish themselves in Gibraltar and operate in Spain, thus not contributing to the Spanish infrastructure that educates, houses and provides health care for Gibraltar's workers - this is not a level playing field for them.


Of course drug smuggling is a problem for everyone, but cigarette smuggling isn't the same problem for Gibraltar (low tax) as it is for Spain and the rest of the EU. Millions of lost revenue every years.

I am certainly economically out of my depth here, but still the min salary in gibraltar is almost 8 euro which is not low wage in andalusia.

i would assume if the spanish gov would see it as you do, than they would play hardball make it as difficult as they can, but it doesn not seem to be the case if there is still a chance it could be schengen or the workers card.
but i guess they know if they do that what they gain is very little as most of those companies such as online gambling would move most likely to malta and most of the finance business to guensey or other brit oversea territories and i guess it would reduce the tourism industry in the region as less people would travel there .
so yes i would say the cigarets costs but i would also say most of the 5 million visitors do not stay in gibraltar but in spanish hotels.and that business would be greatly reduced and places like cadiz and jerez would lose out.
how many companies do you think would move form gibraltar to spain 5 % max or even less ? than you have 10 000 more unemployed which cost the spanish gov more money.

Leonard Hofstadter

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.

They have truly gifted Scientists, too. Highly educated, intelligent and clued into the outside world. I say this as someone who works in the science industry and I work with people right across the globe on a daily basis.

I have worked all my professional life with the English (and lived in Northern England for over five years and still have many friends over there), and in general they're a pleasure to work with because they're competent, honest and straightforward, as well as just being nice people, and I see no reason why that would change now or any time into the future, nothing like some of the Leave voters (who really are as ignorant as is portrayed by some here).

The UK will continue to attract multi nationals in the Pharma and other science industries because of this, despite Brexit - but there is no doubt that the UK will be a less attractive option because of being outside the EU, and we, along with the other 26 countries remaining in the EU will gain jobs that would otherwise have gone to the UK. There is just no disputing the fact that the Brits have voted to make themselves poorer and less influential in the world - the UK is a less useful country to the multinationals with them being outside.

Dr Cockhound

Thank you Leonard for that eloquent and balanced post.
I too don't recognise the hellhole of sin and darkness that some believe the UK has become.

ancapailldorcha

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

They have truly gifted Scientists, too. Highly educated, intelligent and clued into the outside world.

I have worked all my professional life with the English (and lived in Northern England for over five years and still have many friends over there), and in general they're a pleasure to work with because they're competent, honest and straightforward, as well as just being nice people, and I see no reason why that would change now or any time into the future, nothing like some of the Leave voters who really are as ignorant as is portrayed by some here.

The UK will continue to attract multi nationals in the Pharma and other science industries because of this, despite Brexit - but there is no doubt that the UK will be a less attractive option because of being outside the EU and we, along with the other 26 countries remaining in the EU will gain jobs that would otherwise have gone to the UK.

I'm not so sure. Have a look at the list of PI's, Postocs and PhD reseachers on any elite University's website. UK science is so good because it can attract global talent and funding. Brexit makes it significantly less attractive in both regards.

Fr Tod Umptious

reslfj wrote: »

Schengen is a 'passport and visa union' and covers right to travel for business or as tourist for 90 days out of any 180 days period.
Schengen has 26 members 22 of the 27 EU members + 3 EEA + CH.

Once inside the Schengen area you need not show ID/passport at internal borders (except at some borders following the 2015 refugee crises), but you must be able to identify yourself everywhere else. EU citizens shall carry an ID card or a passport, but inside e.g. Denmark I have never used anything but my drivers license.

EU citizens from non Schengen EU members (BG, CY, HR, IE, and RO) can travel into the Schengen area but must show their passports at Schengen entry and exit and at departure/arrival from/to their home country.

The Schengen will introduce a visa waiver system 'ETIAS' (expected in 2022) for countries now visa free, but not in EU nor in Schengen. (It will be much like the US ESTA visa waiver).



For members of the SM (EU27 + EEA + CH) the right to stay and work or retire within the SM area is part of the TFEU - as you write - but also the EEA agreement or the EU-CH agreements - the four freedoms of the SM.



The rights for non-SM citizens to work and stay is sometimes an EU competency (e.g. UK citizens/expats having equal rights where they live before January 1. 2021 - part of the WA.)
But it's mostly a national competency to grant permission to stay longer and/or work. Rules and procedures will surely not be 'EU-identical' in all EU member states.

Note there are attempts to limit the rights of EU member states to issue 'Golden Passports' (citizenship granted for money, seen in Cyprus/Malta, I believe) to non EU persons.
Could limit what Spain can/will do toward Gibraltar.

Lars

Just to be pedantic ESTA is not a visa waiver.

The visa waiver is the visa waiver and has been around longer than ESTA.

ESTA is a security measure to verify incoming passengers, that is used in conjunction with the visa waiver.

johnnyskeleton

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/starmer-high-profile-labour-rebellion-brexit-deal-vote

It would seem that a significant portion of the Labour party wants to vote against the deal. It would be unfortunate if the whole debacle around TMs deal last year were to start all over again.

The two main problems still persist:
1) the specific provisions of the deal will always appear worse compared to the terms of membership of the EU;
2) Brexit doesnt, and indeed cannot, resolve deeper more fundamental issues.

Thus, some Labour MPs will vote against it because it is worse than being in the EU, which is a mistaken and irrational approach to the specific vote - theyve left and now is time to make the most of it. Meanwhile, others will vote against it because it fails to deliver a socialist future which is equally, if not more, deluded.

Leonard Hofstadter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Have a look at the list of PI's, Postocs and PhD reseachers on any elite University's website. UK science is so good because it can attract global talent and funding. Brexit makes it significantly less attractive in both regards.

Oh without a doubt the UK would not be the success it is in the science field without the contribution of people from all across the globe. Like I say, I lived there for over five years and I worked in a university - you can't get much more global or multl-cultural than that. This is why Brexit is such a stupid idea, I have always been against it, and I always will be. My English friends and colleagues are appalled by Brexit and always have been.

But my point is that the English/British themselves have excellent scientists, for the reasons I mentioned previously. That is my experience and professional opinion of them based on working and studying with them for over nine years. Brexit is not going to change that (at least not in the short term), and they will continue to attract jobs because of it, there is a massive talent pool there and they have some excellent universities with fantastic degree programmes (far better than what we produce). Science will always be a great career choice and the UK will always attract jobs because of their talent pool and obviously the devaluation of sterling helps there, too.

What will be different is because they're out of the EU's regulatory orbit, out of the single market, and because they've decided to end freedom of movement, the UK has become considerably less useful to multi-nationals, and some of the jobs they would have gotten in the past will simply go to ourselves and the other 26 EU countries (it's not like there aren't good scientists in the rest of the EU either).

With that, the fact that the UK is a less attractive location - because of all the issues that have been covered in great detail by other posters means that they won't get the jobs they used to and in the long term the remaining EU countries will get jobs they won't because of their decision to commit economic suicide. Regardless, the UK will always be an important player in the science field.

mrunsure

The UK EHIC/GHIC will not cover Switzerland, Liechtenstein or Iceland (Norway will accept a UK passport).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-residents-visiting-the-eueea-and-switzerland-healthcare

So there is some point in the Irish government funding EHIC for Northern Ireland.

tanko

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/starmer-high-profile-labour-rebellion-brexit-deal-vote

It would seem that a significant portion of the Labour party wants to vote against the deal. It would be unfortunate if the whole debacle around TMs deal last year were to start all over again.

The two main problems still persist:
1) the specific provisions of the deal will always appear worse compared to the terms of membership of the EU;
2) Brexit doesnt, and indeed cannot, resolve deeper more fundamental issues.

Thus, some Labour MPs will vote against it because it is worse than being in the EU, which is a mistaken and irrational approach to the specific vote - theyve left and now is time to make the most of it. Meanwhile, others will vote against it because it fails to deliver a socialist future which is equally, if not more, deluded.

Why would Labour vote for this deal after voting against Teresa Mays deal, what are the main differences between the two deals?

A Dub in Glasgo

Surely the May deal was the Withdrawal Agreement and this deal is the post Brexit trade deal?

ancapailldorcha

tanko wrote: »

Why would Labour vote for this deal after voting against Teresa Mays deal, what are the main differences between the two deals?

This deal is effectively the new status quo, May's was to fire the starting pistol.

tubercolossus

mrunsure wrote: »

The UK EHIC/GHIC will not cover Switzerland, Liechtenstein or Iceland (Norway will accept a UK passport).



So there is some point in the Irish government funding EHIC for Northern Ireland.

There's also the fact that it's smart politicking, and pushes the north closer to the republic in the long run. The south being seen to pay for young NI students to further their education can't be seen as anything but a win, especially if the UK's Turing scheme turns out to be a dud (a pretty good bet)

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This deal is effectively the new status quo, May's was to fire the starting pistol.

Which brings us to the question, why should Labour support this status quo when they have said they want a very different relationship with the EU?

Why not abstain (in the interest of avoiding no-deal) rather than support this Tory Brexit?

dresden8

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Which brings us to the question, why should Labour support this status quo when they have said they want a very different relationship with the EU?

Why not abstain (in the interest of avoiding no-deal) rather than support this Tory Brexit?

At the moment this is Boris' deal. When Starmer votes for it it becomes his deal and he can STFU complaining about it. He really is useless.

CelticRambler

I suppose, in terms of pure politicking, if Labour senses that there's a chance - however small - that less than 100% of the Tories will vote to ratify the deal, then it would be an understandable gamble for them to try to torpedo Johnson's "biggest, broadest ever" trade deal and effectively castrate him good-and-proper.

The UK would fall into no-deal chaos and the Tories would have to simultaneously sell the failure to get their great deal ratified as somehow Labour's fault while trying to convince the EU that it was worth re-opening negotiations for an even bigger, broader, shinier, deeper, more comprehensive deal (and this time we'll be serious about it, promise ... )

ancapailldorcha

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Which brings us to the question, why should Labour support this status quo when they have said they want a very different relationship with the EU?

Why not abstain (in the interest of avoiding no-deal) rather than support this Tory Brexit?

I don't. I think they should abstain. It's not their mess. The public voted Johnson and 80-seat majority so let him deal with it.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't. I think they should abstain. It's not their mess. The public voted Johnson and 80-seat majority so let him deal with it.

They have three choices.

1. Vote in favour just to make sure the bill passes. Any Tory ERG backsliding would be defeated.

2. Vote against and risk the bill failing - and the Tories would spin it as Labour's fault it did not pass - total lies but that is now the normal.

3. Abstain - the Tories would then get the blame as they would need about half the Tories to vote against it for it to fail. They would then find it hard to lie and spin their way out of that. A variation would be a free vote - making sure that not too many vote for or against.

I would favour the third option.

johnnyskeleton

tanko wrote: »

Why would Labour vote for this deal after voting against Teresa Mays deal, what are the main differences between the two deals?

Well I heavily criticised them for voting against that too, or at least voting against it without any concrete alternative to offer.

In terms of what the differences are, TMs "deal" was the withdrawal agreement, to decide the terms on which they leave, which subsequently passed with a few changes. This is a trade deal between the UK and the EU.

But as to why they should vote for it, because there is no time left and its either this deal or no deal. So if the alternative is no deal, that is a very good reason to vote for it.

Infini

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have three choices.

1. Vote in favour just to make sure the bill passes. Any Tory ERG backsliding would be defeated.

2. Vote against and risk the bill failing - and the Tories would spin it as Labour's fault it did not pass - total lies but that is now the normal.

3. Abstain - the Tories would then get the blame as they would need about half the Tories to vote against it for it to fail. They would then find it hard to lie and spin their way out of that. A variation would be a free vote - making sure that not too many vote for or against.

I would favour the third option.

Pretty Much this. My own opinion is Stamer should not split his party by supporting a Tory Scam that was created and owned by them. They dont have to vote against but they honestly should not support them either. Let them own their monstrosity of their own incompetent creation.

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't. I think they should abstain. It's not their mess. The public voted Johnson and 80-seat majority so let him deal with it.

I can see the charm of them abstaining from a party political point of view.

However, theyve got to do whats right for the country, not just for the Labour party. There is nothing objectionable in the agreement per se, rather its the lack of other things that are the problem. But the response there is to support it while saying it doesnt go far enough. That, I think, is what Starmer is trying to rebuild, the sensible opposition party rather than the idealistic left wing party.

Abstaining, I fear, would make them look weaker than they already are.

But I agree that abstaining or a free vote would be preferable to voting against

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I can see the charm of them abstaining from a party political point of view.

However, theyve got to do whats right for the country, not just for the Labour party. There is nothing objectionable in the agreement per se, rather its the lack of other things that are the problem. But the response there is to support it while saying it doesnt go far enough. That, I think, is what Starmer is trying to rebuild, the sensible opposition party rather than the idealistic left wing party.

Abstaining, I fear, would make them look weaker than they already are.

But I agree that abstaining or a free vote would be preferable to voting against

The thing is that come 2024, this is going to be discussed heavily. Labour won't effectively be able to criticise the deal if they vote for it and if they vote against it, they're voting for a calamitous no deal Brexit.

It may be the worst for the country but weakening the Labour party's position isn't going to help in the long term. The Leave-voting portion of the electorate don't care if it's deal or not deal while Remainers are just resigned at this point. I think the political damage would be minimal.

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing is that come 2024, this is going to be discussed heavily. Labour won't effectively be able to criticise the deal if they vote for it and if they vote against it, they're voting for a calamitous no deal Brexit.

It may be the worst for the country but weakening the Labour party's position isn't going to help in the long term. The Leave-voting portion of the electorate don't care if it's deal or not deal while Remainers are just resigned at this point. I think the political damage would be minimal.

If they abstain, they will be accused of trying to ride two horses at once! On important issues, it is important that they make a decision that they can live with and then have the confidence to follow through

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If they abstain, they will be accused of trying to ride two horses at once! On important issues, it is important that they make a decision that they can live with and then have the confidence to follow through

I think the Corbyn years has trapped them in that tarpit for the foreseeable future. Leavers think they're pro-Remain and Remainers think they're too weak to vocally support Remain and that Corbyn's coterie of extremely left wing associates were partly to blame for the result. I count myself in that category.

A free vote might be best but I think ultimately, they'll catch flak whatever they do.