Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Capt'n Midnight

There's spin - even the article suggests the UK will have to agree to lots of stuff to get a deal.
Brexit: UK hopeful of EU trade deal next month, says No 10


And reality.
EU rejects British plan for post-Brexit return of asylum seekers
Or you could point out the UK wasn't using the existing rules. In 2018 they sent 209 people back to the EU. There were 44,250 asylum applications in 2019.

But it's one more area where the UK won't be able to keep the existing rules. Unless they get really good at negotiating, real soon.

fash

AllForIt wrote: »

Well, that doesn't look like a happy situation to me. Treaties agreed upon one year, but further down the line, you can't change anything, or if you try to, it's very difficult or impossible.

And I think this is the very problem with the EU. You are tied into things where further down the line, decades even, and want a total change of policy, there is no hope for it, except to leave altogether.


This is exactly why the UK left. Even if you think the reasons they left were trivial, the EU leaves every other EU state in a kind of political limbo.

No it wasn't. Please at least try to be honest.

AllForIt

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Either post constructively or not at all please. The petty sniping is not welcome here.

I knew you'd chip in. I don't take a word back from my comments, and if you weren't so bloody biased, you will have noticed it was not I that started the petty snipping.

So, in other words, get lost.

Quin_Dub

AllForIt wrote: »

I knew you'd chip in. I don't take a word back from my comments, and if you weren't so bloody biased, you will have noticed it was not I that started the petty snipping.

So, in other words, get lost.

##Mod Note##

Banned.

And when you come back - Don't post in this thread again.

sandbelter

54and56 wrote: »

That should keep me entertained until mid January after which time the stark realities of the cliff BoJo and Co have led the UK off will come home to roost and the real fallout will begin which won't be pleasant for a lot of people who will see unprecedented Covid job losses compounded by a completely avoidable set of self inflicted circumstances which will lead to even more job losses, increased cost of living, reduced value of savings and pensions, restrictions on movement etc etc.

Actually (and this is my Economic's training talking here), initially I expect Brexit to surprise on the upside. Cheap imports will improve purchasing power and the illusion of prosperity. We saw a similar uptick in Ireland in the 1930's after start of the trade war and in Argentina in the 1950's when Peron came on board.

Brexit is about long term growth and law of compounding math. Factories won't automatically close on Jan 1 2020, owners will try to recoup as much of their original investment as they can, when that is done they will close. That may be a slower but also a more remorseless and irreversible process than imagined.

It's that 0.5% per year that puts you on a lower growth trajectory, which compounded over time can can yield stark results. NZ opted out of the Australian Commonwealth when it had a higher standard of living, a century later and it's GDP per capita is roughly 66% of Australia's with a persistent outflow to Australia every year.

This' what Brexit looks like: long and slow.

Peregrinus

sandbelter wrote: »

Actually (and this is my Economic's training talking here), initially I expect Brexit to surprise on the upside. Cheap imports will improve purchasing power and the illusion of prosperity. We saw a similar uptick in Ireland in the 1930's after start of the trade war and in Argentina in the 1950's when Peron came on board.

Brexit is about long term growth and law of compounding math. Factories won't automatically close on Jan 1 2020, owners will try to recoup as much of their original investment as they can, when that is done they will close. That may be a slower but also a more remorseless and irreversible process than imagined.

It's that 0.5% per year that puts you on a lower growth trajectory, which compounded over time can can yield stark results. NZ opted out of the Australian Commonwealth when it had a higher standard of living, a century later and it's GDP per capita is roughly 66% of Australia's with a persistent outflow to Australia every year.

This' what Brexit looks like: long and slow.

I'm more pessimistic. I agree with you about the persistent long-term drag, but I'm not seeing much scope for the short-term uptick. Where are the cheap imports coming from? Brexiter propaganda notwithstanding, by and large the EU actually has pretty low tariff barriers, and the UK intends to maintain most of them. There might be a few headline tariff reductions and some specific goods might become cheaper but even in the short term the effects of that will be more than offset by the extensive non-tariff barriers that the UK will be introducing, and by the effect on UK exports to the EU and to countries with whom it trades under an EU trade deal.

Brexiters' best hope is that the immediate effects of this will be masked by the Covid recession, and so they may avoid some blame. But that's not really a "surprise on the upside".

fash

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm more pessimistic. I agree with you about the persistent long-term drag, but I'm not seeing much scope for the short-term uptick. Where are the cheap imports coming from? Brexiter propaganda notwithstanding, by and large the EU actually has pretty low tariff barriers, and the UK intends to maintain most of them. There might be a few headline tariff reductions and some specific goods might become cheaper but even in the short term the effects of that will be more than offset by the extensive non-tariff barriers that the UK will be introducing, and by the effect on UK exports to the EU and to countries with whom it trades under an EU trade deal.

Brexiters' best hope is that the immediate effects of this will be masked by the Covid recession, and so they may avoid some blame. But that's not really a "surprise on the upside".

I imagine some bread and circuses for the plebs: reduce duty on wine and beer and say this is all thanks to finally leaving the EU. It doesn't need to be true - (as we can see) the plebs will lap it up

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

I imagine some bread and circuses for the plebs: reduce duty on wine and beer and say this is all thanks to finally leaving the EU. It doesn't need to be true - (as we can see) the plebs will lap it up

The problem with reducing tariffs on beer is that UK brewers will then have to compete with cheaper imports (including tariff-free imports from the EU!).

(Plus, I'm not sure that there is any tariff on beer in the first place.)

They could reduce the tariff on wine. UK wine producers would squeal, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference. The brewers would squeal, since it means wine prices would fall while beer would not, and that might encourage a switch in consumption towards wine. And of course it would be easy for critics to point out the boon that that confers on EU wine producers who export to the UK. So this is quite a complex exercise.

The idea tariff reductions for Brexity crowd-pleasing purposes would be on consumer goods that (a) do not compete with goods produced in the UK to any signficant extent, and (b) are predominantly imported from beyond the EU, and (c) are currently subject to high tariffs (so that the effect of the tariff reduction will be felt). But the problem with reducing those tariffs is that you are giving away what might otherwise be a bargaining counter that you could have deployed in trade deal negotiations with the producing countries.

The UK has in fact already announced its intended post-Brexit tariff schedule. Consumer products which will see tariff reductions include white goods, women's sanitary products, screwdrivers and Christmas trees. (Although, obviously, consumers are unlikely to notice a fall in the price of Christmas trees in January.)

fash

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem with reducing tariffs on beer is that UK brewers will then have to compete with cheaper imports (including tariff-free imports from the EU!).

(Plus, I'm not sure that there is any tariff on beer in the first place.)

They could reduce the tariff on wine. UK wine producers would squeal, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference. The brewers would squeal, since it means wine prices would fall while beer would not, and that might encourage a switch in consumption towards wine. And of course it would be easy for critics to point out the boon that that confers on EU wine producers who export to the UK. So this is quite a complex exercise.

The idea tariff reductions for Brexity crowd-pleasing purposes would be on consumer goods that (a) do not compete with goods produced in the UK to any signficant extent, and (b) are predominantly imported from beyond the EU, and (c) are currently subject to high tariffs (so that the effect of the tariff reduction will be felt). But the problem with reducing those tariffs is that you are giving away what might otherwise be a bargaining counter that you could have deployed in trade deal negotiations with the producing countries.

The UK has in fact already announced its intended post-Brexit tariff schedule. Consumer products which will see tariff reductions include white goods, women's sanitary products, screwdrivers and Christmas trees. (Although, obviously, consumers are unlikely to notice a fall in the price of Christmas trees in January.)

Apologies for lack of clarity: since the tariffs on wine are in reality tiny (a few cent on Chilean wine etc) and isn't meaningful to change, if I were a cynical UK government, I might reduce the (relatively massive) UK excise duty/VAT on wine (and preferably do it in a way that could hand waving-ly be connected back to EU tariffs) - and trumpet it as a brexit win.
It wouldn't take too much to convince the average brexiter.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

Apologies for lack of clarity: since the tariffs on wine are in reality tiny (a few cent on Chilean wine etc) and isn't meaningful to change, if I were a cynical UK government, I might reduce the (relatively massive) UK excise duty/VAT on wine (and preferably do it in a way that could hand waving-ly be connected back to EU tariffs) - and trumpet it as a brexit win.
It wouldn't take too much to convince the average brexiter.

It would make more sense to reduce the excise on beer, gin or whiskey, all of which are produced in the UK, and claim that as a brexit bonus.

But, either way, somebody would point out that the Tories could have reduced excise on alcohol (or anything else) at any time since coming into office in 2010, if they cared to. While some brexiters might for a short time choose to believe that the excise reduction was made possible by Brexit, this isn't a claim that will hold water for very long. For the most part trying to claim it as a beneficial consequence of Brexit risks reinforcing the damaging impression that the government can't point to any real beneficial consequences of Brexit.

Enzokk

Seems like the talks are going well then,

Brexit trade talks actually 'going backwards', warns EU's Michel Barnier

Brexit trade talks between the UK and EU are actually "going backwards" as negotiators "waste valuable time", Brussels' chief negotiator has said.

A visibly annoyed Michel Barnier told reporters on Friday after a week-long round of talks that on some subjects there had been "no progress whatsoever on the issues that matter".

"Too often this week it felt as if we were going backwards more than forward. Given the short time left ... today at this stage an agreement between the UK and the European Union seems unlikely. I still do not understand why we are wasting valuable time," he said.



David Frost, the UK's chief negotiator, said in a written statement that he believed "agreement is still possible" but that "it is clear that it will not be easy to achieve".

So either no FTA or BRINO. I suspect many think Johnson will go for BRINO because he caved on the WA, but I wonder with the majority he has now and the threat of violence relatively pushed into the background with the Irish Sea border whether Johnson will lazy himself into a no-deal.

I think if this happens we will look back to when he announced David Frost as the negotiator that the die was cast for no-deal on a FTA. He seems as delusional as the best of them unlike Olly Robbins who was aware of the situation the UK is really in.

johnnyskeleton

sandbelter wrote: »

Actually (and this is my Economic's training talking here), initially I expect Brexit to surprise on the upside. Cheap imports will improve purchasing power and the illusion of prosperity. We saw a similar uptick in Ireland in the 1930's after start of the trade war and in Argentina in the 1950's when Peron came on board.

Brexit is about long term growth and law of compounding math. Factories won't automatically close on Jan 1 2020, owners will try to recoup as much of their original investment as they can, when that is done they will close. That may be a slower but also a more remorseless and irreversible process than imagined.

It's that 0.5% per year that puts you on a lower growth trajectory, which compounded over time can can yield stark results. NZ opted out of the Australian Commonwealth when it had a higher standard of living, a century later and it's GDP per capita is roughly 66% of Australia's with a persistent outflow to Australia every year.

This' what Brexit looks like: long and slow.

With one caveat - the devaluation of sterling by c. 30% since before the vote and its consistently staying there means that the UK is approximately 30% poorer relatove to the rest of the world since the Brexit vote. So some of the Brexit damage has been done so long ago that its hard to remember it being done!

reslfj

fash wrote: »

It wouldn't take too much to convince the average brexiter.

Changing UK excise duty/VAT has never had anything to do with the EU. It is - within very wide limits - regulated by UK laws - and only UK laws.

Brexiters may be convinced, but it's still not true.

Lars

Enzokk

David Gauke, who had the whip removed from him by Johnson last year before losing his seat in parliament has this reaction to the current state of play,

https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1296758685415374849?s=20

https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1296761694396583936?s=20

So basically the government has not accepted what is needed to get a deal. The UK will blame the EU if there isn't a deal and Brexiteers will eat this up. Johnson signed up to the WA because it was the only way to leave the EU, but with his majority now there is no constraints on him accepting no FTA deal.

Geuze

Enzokk wrote: »

So either no FTA or BRINO. I suspect many think Johnson will go for BRINO because he caved on the WA, but I wonder with the majority he has now and the threat of violence relatively pushed into the background with the Irish Sea border whether Johnson will lazy himself into a no-deal.

What is BRINO?

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

What is BRINO?

Brexit in name only

moon2

Geuze wrote: »

What is BRINO?

Brexit In Name Only.

The simplistic description is: nothing changes except the UK lose their ability to vote on EU matters. They continue to abide by the vast majority of EU regulations and as a result maintain access to the EU market for the vast majority of their goods and services.

If this approach were followed I'm sure there'd be some level of divergence which makes the simplistic explanation somewhat inaccurate.

The Raging Bile Duct

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

With one caveat - the devaluation of sterling by c. 30% since before the vote and its consistently staying there means that the UK is approximately 30% poorer relatove to the rest of the world since the Brexit vote. So some of the Brexit damage has been done so long ago that its hard to remember it being done!

Add in the fact that Britain is experiencing it's deepest recession on record... I can't see there being any sort of uptick that benefits Joe Soap.

CelticRambler

Enzokk wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1296758685415374849?s=20

https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1296761694396583936?s=20

So basically the government has not accepted what is needed to get a deal. The UK will blame the EU if there isn't a deal and Brexiteers will eat this up. Johnson signed up to the WA because it was the only way to leave the EU, but with his majority now there is no constraints on him accepting no FTA deal.

Going down that rabbit hole and out the other side took me to this opinion piece regarding the government's Brexit readiness communication:

The government doesn’t seem to have learnt the lessons of last year’s ‘Get ready for Brexit’ campaign – which failed to drive preparedness amongst business. [...] The bigger firms will have had plans in place for no deal last year that can be adapted for the end of 2020. But smaller and medium sized businesses largely failed to prepare in 2019 and will have even less capacity to think about the implications of the end of the transition period.

The government has pledged further support for these kinds of businesses as the crunch point draws closer. But continuing with an advertising campaign which fails to convey any useful messaging about what steps to take and what will happen if these steps aren’t taken will only place more pressure on these other interventions succeeding.

This might not make for the type of advertising campaign that the government would prefer to run, and it is understandable that ministers want to trumpet opportunities rather than warn about problems. But it is also short-sighted. Better preparation will reduce disruption, so people need to be told exactly what they need to do to prepare – and how.

Few people have checked, let alone changed. Unless the government alters its message, spelling out what will change as a result of Brexit as well as the consequences of failing to prepare, then many businesses and citizens will end up going nowhere.

If the Covid crisis has taught us anything, it's that the current British government doesn't do preparation; and only alters its message once even the lamest old donkey has had time to shuffle out of the unbolted stable.

An Ciarraioch

Time to shake the rust off your Leaving Cert French, as Barnier expresses his frustration at the current state of talks, particularly over transport and the Irish Protocol:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_1511

CelticRambler

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Time to shake the rust off your Leaving Cert French, as Barnier expresses his frustration at the current state of talks, particularly over transport and the Irish Protocol:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_1511

There's a nice little snippet in there, too, that should rattle a cage or two on British side of the Channel:

Et évidemment, en tout état de cause, pourquoi devrions-nous donner accès à nos routes à des transporteurs routiers qui refuseraient d'appliquer des règles pourtant indispensables aux bonnes conditions de travail et à la sécurité de tous ?

Pourquoi devrions-nous aussi permettre aux transporteurs aériens britanniques d'opérer les mêmes lignes que les opérateurs européens s'ils ne sont pas liés par des standards comparables en matière de protection de l'environnement ou des passagers ?

Loosely translated and paraphrased: Why should we let hauliers use our roads if they're not going to respect our road safety regulations? Why should we let British airlines fly in our airspace if they're not going to apply our standards for the protection of passengers and the environment?

Prefaced by a comment indicating that he's been reading the British press, this could almost be interpreted as a warning directly to the British public that they are going to see unwelcome changes soon, even if their own government doesn't really want to talk about them. See Maddy Thimont Jack's piece linked above.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Time to shake the rust off your Leaving Cert French, as Barnier expresses his frustration at the current state of talks, particularly over transport and the Irish Protocol:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_1511

For someone that didn't go near French, right-click on the page and there should be an option to "translate to English".

There was a report yesterday that the UK did hand over confidential negotiating text to the EU to try and find a way past the impasse, or at least that is how it was reported,

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1296717723972534273?s=20

This thread explain why it isn't all it is being reported to be. This is just the text that both sides will use to determine where there is alignment in objectives, where there is a legal difference in basically the same position and then the big one, fundamental differences between the sides. I guess much like how during the WA negotiations there was the document with green, amber and red passages marked which would indicate how close these are to completion.

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1296717726854066176?s=20

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1296717729861382145?s=20

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1296717733300756481?s=20

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1296717737268588544?s=20

So basically, the breakthrough being touted with these texts are not a breakthrough because the differences are not technical but political. The texts are just a technical exercise to help both sides determine where the differences lie between them.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

There's a nice little snippet in there, too, that should rattle a cage or two on British side of the Channel:



Loosely translated and paraphrased: Why should we let hauliers use our roads if they're not going to respect our road safety regulations? Why should we let British airlines fly in our airspace if they're not going to apply our standards for the protection of passengers and the environment?

Prefaced by a comment indicating that he's been reading the British press, this could almost be interpreted as a warning directly to the British public that they are going to see unwelcome changes soon, even if their own government doesn't really want to talk about them. See Maddy Thimont Jack's piece linked above.

Unfortunately, the UK will do the same to our hauliers. They'll use us as hostages. It's what I'd do if I were them.

Professor Moriarty

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Except UK imports alot more than it exports, deliberately slowing landbridge traffic also hurts NI. And finally EU would have no issues ploughing money into more sea routes, at its core EU prides itself in building bridges literally and figuratively.

Such a move hurts them more. What's that saying brexiters use? They need us more than we need them.

In 2017, 85% of Irish freight trade to the EU went via the UK landbridge. And that doesn't take into account our exports to the UK. If they play hardball, we will take a serious cold shower no matter how the EU tries to help.

Professor Moriarty

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

At least we wouldn't starve unlike them. It's a very simple solution for EU to solve detain their traffic for same length of time.

It is. I think it's bluff and bluster but this Tory party is stupid enough to possibly try it. They would ultimately cave in but would have done serious damage to us in the interim.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In 2017, 85% of Irish freight trade to the EU went via the UK landbridge. And that doesn't take into account our exports to the UK. If they play hardball, we will take a serious cold shower no matter how the EU tries to help.

After WW II, in 1948, the Russians closed the autobahn into Berlin, effectively blockading Berlin. The Allies (USA Britain and France airlifted everything needed to supply Berlin for nearly a year until the Russians reopened the Autobahn.

The EU could do something similar for us. Hopefully. More ships, more routes, faster turnaround.

L1011

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In 2017, 85% of Irish freight trade to the EU went via the UK landbridge. And that doesn't take into account our exports to the UK. If they play hardball, we will take a serious cold shower no matter how the EU tries to help.

That figure has dropped year on year since then as additional sea routes bypassing the UK opened up, fully expecting this

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In 2017, 85% of Irish freight trade to the EU went via the UK landbridge. And that doesn't take into account our exports to the UK. If they play hardball, we will take a serious cold shower no matter how the EU tries to help.

TIR is where cargo can go through third countries without customs before the final destination, provided it's carried by truck at some point.

Rip up TIR and UK imports from China by train through Germany or through Rotterdam by ship will face EU customs before they get to the UK.

fash

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Unfortunately, the UK will do the same to our hauliers. They'll use us as hostages. It's what I'd do if I were them.

I believe that aside from being dealt with in the TIR and the common transit convention, it is also dealt with in the Withdrawal Agreement.
So there is already a triple lock on the UK using Irish hauliers as hostages.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is. I think it's bluff and bluster but this Tory party is stupid enough to possibly try it. They would ultimately cave in but would have done serious damage to us in the interim.

In the hypothetical situations being suggested here,it`s unlikely there would be any agreement on sea lanes or air traffic control which would make it difficult for everyone.