Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

A Dub in Glasgo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that if the UK enters a trading deal with Australia it can't also have a trading relationship with the EU?

It depends on the detail so considering the UK govt is refusing to divulge the detail to anybody, it is reasonable to conclude that the trade deal has not been agreed. The announcement today is for different reasons

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

You have to hand it to the UK government, they really know how to play the media.

No, the media know how to play the public. For now, it suits them to back Johnson.

But they can turn on a dime - remember when floods of illegal immigrants arriving in the UK were the #1 issue, non stop coverage? Then poof, the whole issue went away - not because it stopped or the Government did anything about it, just because the media decided to change the narrative.

As we can see, this government are an incompetent, corrupt shower of ideologues. Any time it suits, the media can make that the story.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

Australian interests are probably closer to the UK interests than the EU's.

You said that the first time, which is why I asked you if you'd agree that the two Australian interests cited are representative of those that are "closer" to the UK interests.

RobMc59 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware the details of any potential deal haven't been disclosed so preempting arrangements would be premature.
...

Wasn't that the Brexiter strategy prior to the referendum? The didn't want to "pre-empt" any likely post-Brexit arrangements, because to consider what might happen afterwards on the basis of careful examination of the proposals would have lost them the vote.

The detail of Brexit is now disclosed, and it's a far cry from any of the sunny uplands that were promised. Does that not emphasise the importance of not letting the Tories secretly sell out UK interests in favour of their friends and generous party benefactors?

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

You said that the first time, which is why I asked you if you'd agree that the two Australian interests cited are representative of those that are "closer" to the UK interests.



Wasn't that the Brexiter strategy prior to the referendum? The didn't want to "pre-empt" any likely post-Brexit arrangements, because to consider what might happen afterwards on the basis of careful examination of the proposals would have lost them the vote.

The detail of Brexit is now disclosed, and it's a far cry from any of the sunny uplands that were promised. Does that not emphasise the importance of not letting the Tories secretly sell out UK interests in favour of their friends and generous party benefactors?

If you`re asking me do I want hormone enhanced red meat then the answer is no.I`d like to think any potential UK/Australia deal will rule that out.
Regarding mining and stripping minerals from the earth,has`nt everyone been doing that for centuries?
I don`t know what brexiteer strategy was although any suggestion an agreement would be easy was obviously not the case.To what extent trading conditions between the EU and UK will settle down remains to be seen but there does appear to be bad feeling on both sides which is why Britain returning to it`s historical tried and tested allies might be the way forward for everyone.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you`re asking me do I want hormone enhanced red meat then the answer is no.I`d like to think any potential UK/Australia deal will rule that out.
Regarding mining and stripping minerals from the earth,has`nt everyone been doing that for centuries?
I don`t know what brexiteer strategy was although any suggestion an agreement would be easy was obviously not the case.To what extent trading conditions between the EU and UK will settle down remains to be seen but there does appear to be bad feeling on both sides which is why Britain returning to it`s historical tried and tested allies might be the way forward for everyone.

It's kinda obvious that the UK is absolutely gagging for a deal with Oz and will sell its own grandmother to have one. It is also obvious that that is exactly what has happened - the UK government has sold out access for a pittance (based on super, super, never achieved in the entire history of humanity assumptions the maximum gain is 0.02% - i.e. in reality zero or less than zero) and a fig leaf - what is more is that everyone to follow will expect the same deal or better.

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

It's kinda obvious that the UK is absolutely gagging for a deal with Oz and will sell its own grandmother to have one. It is also obvious that that is exactly what has happened - the UK government has sold out access for a pittance (based on super, super, never achieved in the entire history of humanity assumptions the maximum gain is 0.02% - i.e. in reality zero or less than zero) and a fig leaf - what is more is that everyone to follow will expect the same deal or better.

I'm unsure how you know all that fash as there is very little information about the terms of the potential deal available.
I'm happy trading with the EU but it's not up to me so hoping any new deal works for the UK isn't unreasonable imo.

A Dub in Glasgo

This chap seems to think that the principles of a deal far exceed the expectations of the Austrailians. I suppose Johnson and co sign a trade deal to get the PR then roll back on it when people realise what is involved

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1404751598786654210

timetogo1

Handy graph to put the Australian deal in context.

https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1404788218453807104?s=19

ckeng

RobMc59 wrote: »

To what extent trading conditions between the EU and UK will settle down remains to be seen but there does appear to be bad feeling on both sides which is why Britain returning to it`s historical tried and tested allies might be the way forward for everyone.

Do you think the Australians would describe it in the same way? I'm sure many Aussies would argue that, in economic terms at least, the UK was tried, tested and found wanting when they chose the EEC over the commonwealth back in the '60s.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

To what extent trading conditions between the EU and UK will settle down remains to be seen but there does appear to be bad feeling on both sides which is why Britain returning to it`s historical tried and tested allies might be the way forward for everyone.

What way forward? On the basis of treaties that can be torn up because they don't suit the Tory leader?

The trading conditions between the UK and the EU are what they are, written down in black and white for everyone to see and follow. There'll be no "settling down" any more than the agreements between the EU and Switzerland have "settled down" since the first of many trade agreements was signed about half a century ago. There'll definitely be no "settling down" if the UK doesn't just quietly ignore some of its obligations, but very deliberately brags about it's refusal to abide by the conditions agreed.

In any case, how - in real terms - can Britain "returning to its historical ... allies" help in the 21st Century? If the UK manages to triple its trade with Australia, it'll just about bring it in line with the UK's trade with Belgium, and will still fall short of the UK's trade with Ireland.

Once again, you're falling back on this Brexiter notion that not only can Britain turn its own clock back to the 1900s, but that the whole of the rest of the world will reverse all of the economic progress made in the meantime.

I notice that the government spin on this deal ranks Australia as the UK's fifth largest trading partner. Most other data sets seem to place it in or around twentieth place. Who to believe, who to believe ... :rolleyes:

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm unsure how you know all that fash as there is very little information about the terms of the potential deal available.
I'm happy trading with the EU but it's not up to me so hoping any new deal works for the UK isn't unreasonable imo.

And that is all that is left. Hope. Hope that something, anything, can be shown to make this Brexit mess slightly less awful.

Despite there being no basis for this hope. The UK government have lied, been corrupt, incompetent, unable to stick to previous deals.

Where is this hope coming from. And what point do you turn around and acknowledge that the weight of prior evidence is that the UK will do badly from this?

Gerry T

RobMc59 wrote: »

Until the details of any potential deal are revealed I'm as in the dark as anyone regarding trading conditions and what would be traded.
Are you suggesting that if the UK enters a trading deal with Australia it can't also have a trading relationship with the EU?

Your right it can and we will see with time what the details are, but it will be difficult for the UK to balance maintaining their current food safety standards and the depth of scope of the deal. There is a reason countries trade mostly with their nearest neighbours and how the level of trade reduces as the distance increases.

We have heard how the UK only every wanted a trade deal, without the political union. The UK didn't value the benefits of the SM/CU, yes there is a level of shared sovereignty but it can be taken back very easily, as we have seen. If the UK see's the Australia deal as a great think it doesn't bode well.

I have no issue with brexit, but there is a way to do things. If the UK had planned it and taken the time to transition out then you probably wouldn't hear so much negative opinion on here. The UK just fell out really, which is fine, except for the fact that their actions hurts country around them, but the UK doesn't see that or care. This for me is one key reason people get wound up over brexit.

Strazdas

Gerry T wrote: »

Your right it can and we will see with time what the details are, but it will be difficult for the UK to balance maintaining their current food safety standards and the depth of scope of the deal. There is a reason countries trade mostly with their nearest neighbours and how the level of trade reduces as the distance increases.

We have heard how the UK only every wanted a trade deal, without the political union. The UK didn't value the benefits of the SM/CU, yes there is a level of shared sovereignty but it can be taken back very easily, as we have seen. If the UK see's the Australia deal as a great think it doesn't bode well.

I have no issue with brexit, but there is a way to do things. If the UK had planned it and taken the time to transition out then you probably wouldn't hear so much negative opinion on here. The UK just fell out really, which is fine, except for the fact that their actions hurts country around them, but the UK doesn't see that or care. This for me is one key reason people get wound up over brexit.

The very fact of abruptly leaving after 50 years of membership is something you would have expected only if the UK had been taken over by a right wing dictator. It was obviously going to be a disaster and sour relations with Europe for years / decades. Lord Kerr says that when he was drawing up Article 50, he never anticipated for a moment that any country would go ahead and trigger it.

beerguts

In a perverse way I think this trade deal the UK has agreed in theory with the Australian government could be of very strategic use to the Scottish nationals and the Irish that are genuinely interested in reunification.
For the Scots they will be able to play this to the electorate as the Westminster elites ignoring the other nations of the Union by destroying agriculture that is so important to the Scottish economy compared to the English one.
This will also worry the ulster farmers association and I think it will persuade a lot of the unionists involved in agri business and farming up there that the Republic is the best bet for them and future generations.
The Welsh will always be the Welsh and they won't leave.
An Australian trade deal will hit Irish agriculture but it could give the Scottish and Irish causes a boost. Just shows that the Johnson government are making the quick and easy decisions on the fly without doing a cause and effect analysis.

20silkcut

beerguts wrote: »

In a perverse way I think this trade deal the UK has agreed in theory with the Australian government could be of very strategic use to the Scottish nationals and the Irish that are genuinely interested in reunification.
For the Scots they will be able to play this to the electorate as the Westminster elites ignoring the other nations of the Union by destroying agriculture that is so important to the Scottish economy compared to the English one.
This will also worry the ulster farmers association and I think it will persuade a lot of the unionists involved in agri business and farming up there that the Republic is the best bet for them and future generations.
The Welsh will always be the Welsh and they won't leave.
An Australian trade deal will hit Irish agriculture but it could give the Scottish and Irish causes a boost. Just shows that the Johnson government are making the quick and easy decisions on the fly without doing a cause and effect analysis.

There are roughly half a million farmers in Britain I know that’s a small number relative to the size of the country but it is a significant and powerful lobby group and they could inflict serious damage on the Tories if they turn against them over an existential threat like this.
From watching British farming YouTubers the general tone from the more level headed farmers is wait and see this is a 15 year process. But I can’t see johnson waiting 15 years and the Aussies will want their beef tarriff free on the shelves a lot sooner than 15 years.

Peregrinus

ckeng wrote: »

Do you think the Australians would describe it in the same way? I'm sure many Aussies would argue that, in economic terms at least, the UK was tried, tested and found wanting when they chose the EEC over the commonwealth back in the '60s.

Honestly? Most Australians have no opinion about this. Unlike Brexiters, they are not fixated with memories of a glorious past.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Where is this hope coming from.

Ordinary brits have nothing else except hope that it all somehow works out.

dogbert27

20silkcut wrote: »

There are roughly half a million farmers in Britain I know that’s a small number relative to the size of the country but it is a significant and powerful lobby group and they could inflict serious damage on the Tories if they turn against them over an existential threat like this.
From watching British farming YouTubers the general tone from the more level headed farmers is wait and see this is a 15 year process. But I can’t see johnson waiting 15 years and the Aussies will want their beef tarriff free on the shelves a lot sooner than 15 years.

The UK farmers will apparently get visas to go work on Australian farms in the UK off season so Boris probably won't understand what they will be complaining about! :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

There are roughly half a million farmers in Britain I know that’s a small number relative to the size of the country but it is a significant and powerful lobby group and they could inflict serious damage on the Tories if they turn against them over an existential threat like this.
From watching British farming YouTubers the general tone from the more level headed farmers is wait and see this is a 15 year process. But I can’t see johnson waiting 15 years and the Aussies will want their beef tarriff free on the shelves a lot sooner than 15 years.

To the surprise of exactly nobody, there is far more detail on what has been agreed so far available from the Australian side than from the UK side.

The Australian Dept of Trade, Tourism and Investment has issued a press release about the agreement on broad outlines which, as regards beef, tell us as follows:

- The agreement has yet to be fully negotiated, signed and ratified. We don't know how long that will take and, therefore, we don't know when it will enter into force.

- Beef tariffs will be eliminated ten years after the agreement enters into force.

- During the 10-year period, tariffs will be progressively eliminated using a quota system. The annual duty-free quota for Australian beef imports inot the UK initially will be 35,000 tonnes in year 1, rising steadily to 110,000 tonnes at the end of 10 years. Imports in excess of quota will attract a tariff; we are not told how much it will be; presumably it will be the current tariff, which is 12% plus an amount per kilo depending on how the meat is dressed, ranging from £1.18/kilo for bone-in forequarters to £2.54/kilo for boneless cuts.

- For a further period of 5 years, Australian beef imports into the UK will still be restricted by quotas. The quota of 110,000 tonnes will be further raised in stages to 170,000 tonnes. Beef imports in excess of the quota in each year will attract a tariff of 20%.

- Nothing has been said about the applicable SPS rules. Will hormone-fed beef imports be permitted? Will there be permitted levels of antibiotic residues? Etc. We don't know. Again, these may be among the details yet to be negotiated.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

To the surprise of exactly nobody, there is far more detail on what has been agreed so far available from the Australian side than from the UK side.

The Australian Dept of Trade, Tourism and Investment has issued a press release about the agreement on broad outlines which, as regards beef, tell us as follows:

- The agreement has yet to be fully negotiated, signed and ratified. We don't know how long that will take and, therefore, we don't know when it will enter into force.

- Beef tariffs will be eliminated ten years after the agreement enters into force.

- During the 10-year period, tariffs will be progressively eliminated using a quota system. The annual duty-free quota for Australian beef imports inot the UK initially will be 35,000 tonnes in year 1, rising steadily to 110,000 tonnes at the end of 10 years. Imports in excess of quota will attract a tariff; we are not told how much it will be; presumably it will be the current tariff, which is 12% plus an amount per kilo depending on how the meat is dressed, ranging from £1.18/kilo for bone-in forequarters to £2.54/kilo for boneless cuts.

- For a further period of 5 years, Australian beef imports into the UK will still be restricted by quotas. The quota of 110,000 tonnes will be further raised in stages to 170,000 tonnes. Beef imports in excess of the quota in each year will attract a tariff of 20%.

- Nothing has been said about the applicable SPS rules. Will hormone-fed beef imports be permitted? Will there be permitted levels of antibiotic residues? Etc. We don't know. Again, these may be among the details yet to be negotiated.

Liz Truss was being interviewed on BBC this morning,she mentioned the progressive import quotas.She also pointed out the UK still has the tariff free deal with the EU but expects trade with the EU to gradually lessen.
When pressed on hormone-treated beef she said it will remain prohibited,no mention of antibiotics.
Interestingly,she seems to think there is a growing shift in affluence to the Pacific region which she wants the UK to be well placed to trade with as part of the proposed Pacific alliance, Britain being a major provider of digital and financial services.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

Liz Truss was being interviewed on BBC this morning,she mentioned the progressive import quotas.She also pointed out the UK still has the tariff free deal with the EU but expects trade with the EU to gradually lessen.
When pressed on hormone-treated beef she said it will remain prohibited,no mention of antibiotics.
Interestingly,she seems to think there is a growing shift in affluence to the Pacific region which she wants the UK to be well placed to trade with as part of the proposed Pacific alliance, Britain being a major provider of digital and financial services.

The increase on the tariff free quotas effectively given tariff free access from day 1.

https://twitter.com/ITVJoel/status/1404824332837306370?s=19

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Liz Truss was being interviewed on BBC this morning,she mentioned the progressive import quotas.She also pointed out the UK still has the tariff free deal with the EU but expects trade with the EU to gradually lessen.

Did she say why?

(I mean, I can think of reasons why, but the reasons I'm thinking of are not things any Brexit supporter would ever want to acknowledge, much less draw attention to.)

RobMc59 wrote: »

When pressed on hormone-treated beef she said it will remain prohibited,no mention of antibiotics.
Interestingly,she seems to think there is a growing shift in affluence to the Pacific region which she wants the UK to be well placed to trade with as part of the proposed Pacific alliance, Britain being a major provider of digital and financial services.

The announced details of the UK/AUS deal don't cover services at all, which presumably means there is no agreement on trade liberalisation in services. So that would be a poor precedent if the UK's hope is to expand its export of services to the Pacific region.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

Interestingly,she seems to think there is a growing shift in affluence to the Pacific region which she wants the UK to be well placed to trade with as part of the proposed Pacific alliance, Britain being a major provider of digital and financial services.

Uhhh ... seems to think? Has she experienced a Raab-like revelation when discovering what the rest of the world has known about for ages? The UK is as well-placed as Ireland to trade with the Pacific nations ... with the main difference being that Ireland is already exploiting this opportunity to great effect, hence the huge, huge, huge difference between our export trade with China (for example) compared to the UK's.

Inicidentally, Ireland's beef exports to China are increasing, while Australia's beef exports to China are decreasing. Where does the UK-Australia deal fit into that scenario? Well, my Wagyu-beef-farming Australian cousin would say "F***d if I know" because Australian beef-farming is struggling due to climate change.

Reading between the lines, I'd say that that 10-year plan is a clever distraction technique on the part of the Aussies. We know we can't even fill the current quota, so let's agree to a stepped increase over ten years to make it look like we're compromising; and in the meantime, let's get what we really want out of the British. The question then becomes: what did really want, and on what (very favourable) conditions did they get it.

RobMc59

I didn't suggest I agree with everything she (Liz Truss)is saying,it sounds remarkably optimistic to me...I've also seen Australian beef farmers saying they can't produce enough meat to flood the UK market.
The comments she made about digital and financial services were in relation to the UK joining the Pacific alliance.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

The comments she made about digital and financial services were in relation to the UK joining the Pacific alliance.

Fair enough. Did she place that in the context of this new "tax at the point of delivery" idea that was being promoted as a Great New Idea at the G7 summit, and - according to many in the City of London - will strip yet more value out of the UK economy? All those London-based banks and other service providers being required to declare their overseas revenues, well, overseas.

PokeHerKing

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you`re asking me do I want hormone enhanced red meat then the answer is no.I`d like to think any potential UK/Australia deal will rule that out.
Regarding mining and stripping minerals from the earth,has`nt everyone been doing that for centuries?
I don`t know what brexiteer strategy was although any suggestion an agreement would be easy was obviously not the case.To what extent trading conditions between the EU and UK will settle down remains to be seen but there does appear to be bad feeling on both sides which is why Britain returning to it`s historical tried and tested alliesmight be the way forward for everyone.

I spat my coffee out there, you meant to say 'ex-colonies' right? And on the other side of the world no less.

I'm unsure if the average brexiterer is perpetually gullible or just unwilling to admit the whole thing is a complete farce.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I didn't suggest I agree with everything she (Liz Truss)is saying,it sounds remarkably optimistic to me...I've also seen Australian beef farmers saying they can't produce enough meat to flood the UK market.
The comments she made about digital and financial services were in relation to the UK joining the Pacific alliance.

Oh, she sounded optimistic. Oh well then. Case closed. Sure it woudn't be like Truss, or any other minister, to misrepresent the facts in an interview with a view to making themselves look better than they are.

What in particular was she optimistic about? What she able to give any outlines of the advantages that working people in the UK would see? Number of jobs, level of inward investment?

Anythin at all? Or is this, just like BRexit itself, all based on hope and just having the right attitude?

these are politicans, tasked with doing things that actually make the lives of the citizens better (or in the case of Covid less bad). Nothing I have heard or read so far gives my any confidence that thus is anything other than a PR exercise where the main aim is simply to get something done to say they got something done. The costs are irrelevant.

Leroy42

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I spat my coffee out there, you meant to say 'ex-colonies' right? And on the other side of the world no less.

I'm unsure if the average brexiterer is perpetually gullible or just unwilling to admit the whole thing is a complete farce.

I know, I was going to post the same thing. Allies!!! Jesus!

I also found it funny it Truss is out saying that one of the aspects of the deal is that UK citizens can now avail of relaxation in the visa requirements, such that they get 3 years rather than 2.

Apart from the fact that it has nothing to do with trade, and Ireland and France already have the conditions (so EU wasn't the issue) what I find funny is that now they have ministers out seelng that idea that extending the freedom of people to come and live and work to foreigners is actually a good thing. I guess its only good when British people do it!

ancapailldorcha

Looks like it might not be the full 50 years. Here's Truss claiming that the deal will place the UK in a "very strong position" with no elaboration whatsoever:

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1405050808211812353

I found this nice chart from the RSPCA giving an overview of the divergent standards on agriculture:

https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1404780192619433984

I'm ultimately not really seeing what benefits this deal will have compared to what the UK was enjoying as a member of the EU. For many, it's not about the deal but it feels very much like a damp squib to me. It's too far away and too small a market to bring any real benefit IMO while it looks like Australian farmers are the only group who might benefit.

RobMc59

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I spat my coffee out there, you meant to say 'ex-colonies' right? And on the other side of the world no less.

I'm unsure if the average brexiterer is perpetually gullible or just unwilling to admit the whole thing is a complete farce.

You mistakenly assume my patriotism means I agree with brexit,I don't.