Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

timetogo1

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Obviously I haven't see the Panorama programme yet (thanks for the heads-up, will record).
But I suspect that the 'easier to export shellfish to China than the EU' comment will turn out to be largely hyperbolic, in a 'its easier to send to the moon than the EU' kind of way.

I was thinking that too. With the standard of BBC these days, don't expect the follow up question of "How many shellfish have you sent to China?"

Personally I thought a lot of the issues of sending shellfish abroad was due to the exporting of live shellfish. It sounds expensive to export that to China, but I'm not an expert.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

Capitalism doesn't sit well with me but neither does over protectionism in a cartel. Although,if a country/organisation(US or EU for example)is powerful enough to do that it does give them an advantage.

The cartel comment is the sort of nonsense that Brexiters need to stop using if they want to be taken seriously. Every functional country in the world regulates virtually everything.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I doubt leaving the EU means British shellfish will suddenly be unfit for consumption.
European customers have found new suppliers for products they previously got from the UK,it stands to reason UK vendors will look elsewhere to sell their products.

This is the contradiction buried in Brexit.

It was meant to signal a change, a fundamental shift, yet nothing as actually going to change!

joeysoap

There’s a lot of misunderstanding out there. I thought I heard a farmer on a bbc program last night saying he had reduced the number of lambs he keeps because he thought the price would fall because of Brexit and regretted it now as the price didn’t fall and exports to the Eu were holding up.

BlitzKrieg

RobMc59 wrote: »

There's a documentary this evening(19.35 BBC1)'Panorama,Brexit six months on'.
In which UK fishermen claim it's easier to send shellfish to China than the EU due to the paperwork required.

Just to help here giving context this is the extract of the segment on the bbc website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-57696461

RobMc59

J Mysterio wrote: »

What is the conclusion to be reached with this opaque statement?

China good, EU bad?
UK's fault/ EU's fault?

Does this tell you something about why the particular Brexit Johnson and co sought was a form of self harm? e.g. no single market, no customs union and consequent damage to trade.

What would you advocate as a solution to the trade difficulties? 'EU fix it'/ 'don't be so difficult'/ 'just trust us'?

Do you understand why the EU require paperwork? Do you have a view on differing standards between the EU and China, and the UK's nebulous position?

Everyone said that Brexit was going to create difficulties in trade (since 2016 this has been repeatedly made clear), yet here you are, throwing out this half arsed statement like it would be a surprise to anyone at all.

It's simply incredible that Brexiteers (from Sunderland voter John up to Sir. Frost and everywhere in between) are turning around and saying 'hey, we don't like this - change it', when the writing has been on the wall for years as regards the implications of Brexit. We told you.

I didn't say anything about 'UK good, EU bad I mentioned there's a documentary this evening about brexit so far which I thought other posters with access to BBC might find of interest.
Regarding trading difficulties,although I believe the NI protocol(for example)gives NI an advantage it could potentially be a banana skin for the EU if further disagreement results in them insisting Ireland operate a physical border between NI and Ireland.

Leroy42

I'm not comparing China to the mob, but that argument from the fisherman is akin to arguing that selling on the black market is easier than selling on the high street as no one ask questions and there is no tax to pay!

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

There's a documentary this evening(19.35 BBC1)'Panorama,Brexit six months on'.
In which UK fishermen claim it's easier to send shellfish to China than the EU due to the paperwork required.

There are very stringent conditions for shell fish because they are lethal for making people ill. Have you ever had a dodgy mussel? If you have not, you don't want to try it.

Water (where they are grown) has to be tested regularly and then they have to go through a special cleansing (washing) process before being certified for human consumption. This can be tough going if exporting fresh shellfish when under time pressure. It would be a bit easier for frozen stuff.

Edit: and I see its live shelfish that is going to the EU.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I didn't say anything about 'UK good, EU bad I mentioned there's a documentary this evening about brexit so far which I thought other posters with access to BBC might find of interest.
Regarding trading difficulties,although I believe the NI protocol(for example)gives NI an advantage it could potentially be a banana skin for the EU if further disagreement results in them insisting Ireland operate a physical border between NI and Ireland.

How? The NIP is the only workable solution to protect the SM and help preserve the GFA and the gains enjoyed since its approval.

If it doesn't work then we are back to the default, a border will need to be built. The EU will have tried their best to avoid that by being flexible and allowing the UK a special position in relation to an external border with the EU.

A position that no other country has been given. But the UK seem intent on claiming the victim and blaming everything on the EU not being flexible enough.

The last 5 years have been the EU trying to minimise the destruction and chaos that an ill judged and ill informed referendum, coupled with ignorance by the voters and the MP's and officials, could potentially lead to.

The UK still has yet to face up to the fact that Brexit, far from being a win-win, is actually a lose-lose. As far as the UK seem to think, the EU should lose and the Uk should continue on as if nothing happened.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I doubt leaving the EU means British shellfish will suddenly be unfit for consumption.

That's not entirely correct is it?
Outside the single market there are inevitable border delays - fresh shell fish don't do well sitting in the sun for several days.
Why did the UK choose the form of brexit it did it such things were important to it?

J Mysterio

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Just to help here giving context this is the extract of the segment on the bbc website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-57696461

Fair play to this lad for his gumshin in adapting to an awful set of circumstances - he is doing all he can - but it's crazy to have to send fish halfway around the world to make up a 40% shortfall to your near neigbours.

"It's cheaper and quicker to export to China then France".

Due to Brexit damage, this may well be true, but is there any serious consideration in this piece as to why this is the case? EU being difficult again? It ends with "the UK government are working with the EU to resolve these issues"... But these 'issues' are not going to be resolved any time soon - it's the new 'normal'.

Leroy42

fash wrote: »

That's not entirely correct is it?
Outside the single market there are inevitable border delays - fresh shell fish don't do well sitting in the sun for several days.
Why did the UK choose the form of brexit it did it such things were important to it?

They aren't important to it. As Frost said about musicians and culture in general last week, people simply need to accept that change has happened and get on with it.

They are of course important to the people actually involved, but not to the actual decision makers. Johnson and his government didn't think twice about the effect on NI. Not a thought for seasonal workers in Ibiza or ski resorts. Didn't care about hauliers, or exporters.

All they care about is saying they did it. That Brexit got done. That is as far as their concern goes. Let everyone else work out the details.

J Mysterio

RobMc59 wrote: »

I didn't say anything about 'UK good, EU bad I mentioned there's a documentary this evening about brexit so far which I thought other posters with access to BBC might find of interest.
Regarding trading difficulties,although I believe the NI protocol(for example)gives NI an advantage it could potentially be a banana skin for the EU if further disagreement results in them insisting Ireland operate a physical border between NI and Ireland.

Total red herring Rob. Off topic and not addressing my post.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

If the Brexit war is "done" and the Covid war is "done" what or who will be the Tories' next phony target, to help them win their next couple of elections?

Did not the Falklands war allow the Tories to drum up public opinion how the plucky British Armed Forces defended a few island in the South Atlantic that no one had ever heard of since Shackleton passed there on his ill fated trip south in 1911.

Those islands housed a lot of sheep and a few locals. The British forces travelled 4,000 miles to defend the little islands against Argentina. Argentina had been promised by the British Foreign Secretary that Britain had no interest.

Hmmm -- won Thatcher the next election and the one after that.

Worth a try to copy that idea. Wonder who they will 'defend' next.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

I doubt leaving the EU means British shellfish will suddenly be unfit for consumption.
European customers have found new suppliers for products they previously got from the UK,it stands to reason UK vendors will look elsewhere to sell their products.

The UK was aware that were they to leave the EU SM and CU then such checks would be necessary, as they are for all third countries. The EU has rules on imports that they must meet minimum standards. The UK was involved in creating the current rules before it left.
However, the UK has decided to not align itself to the EU's minimum standards and therefore is now faced with a large increase in bureaucracy in order to export into the EU.
This was all known by the UK prior to the referendum. This was all known by the UK prior to the UK government triggering Art 50. This was all known by the UK during the transition period. This was all known by the UK as it turned down various EU offers to extend deadlines.
The UK is in absolutely no position now to turn around and suggest that this is somehow unfair.

MustangMick

RobMc59 wrote: »

I doubt leaving the EU means British shellfish will suddenly be unfit for consumption.
European customers have found new suppliers for products they previously got from the UK,it stands to reason UK vendors will look elsewhere to sell their products.

So say we want to sell shellfish (or any item for that matter to China) instead of the EU?

Prices as of this morning
40ft High Cube Container (these are standard containers not refrigerated)

UK - France €1700
UK - China €14,000 today but has been averaging €7000-8000 this past year.

So absolute minimum the shipping cost alone is 4 TIMES of sending it to the EU, there's your profit margin gone already. Or in other terms an additional €203 per pallet.

So the UK company seller needs a unit price of €203/pallet LESS than a similar supplier in China just to price-match?

Doesn't compute sorry
Mick

PS As for the EU companies that used to source from the UK, guess where they now source from..... the EU... as it is much easier and cheaper now compared to the UK.

PokeHerKing

Really sums up the lunacy that is Brexit when, considering all the items for export that could have been referenced, shellfish was chosen as an example of tapping the Chinese Market :pac:

It's quite literally a monty python sketch.

ancapailldorcha

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Really sums up the lunacy that is Brexit when, considering all the items for export that could have been referenced, shellfish was chosen as an example of tapping the Chinese Market :pac:

It's quite literally a monty python sketch.

The jumping the shark moment for me was presenting the fishing aspect of the deal as a win. This country has a services-based economy which nobody seems to be interested in talking about. The Conservatives have denuded both the state and the manufacturing arm of the economy and we're now supposed to just lap up the fact that an allegation of being able to somehow export more shellfish to a country that's on the other side of the world and has a famously maritime neighbour is somehow a win.

Sam Russell

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Really sums up the lunacy that is Brexit when, considering all the items for export that could have been referenced, shellfish was chosen as an example of tapping the Chinese Market :pac:

It's quite literally a monty python sketch.

Lizz Truss likes cheese so maybe that is also something they will benchmark for selling to China. They have already cornered the Japanese market for blue cheese. (Not sure how big a market for fresh shellfish is in China, but 3 or 4 day old shellfish must be quite small - no seller shouts 'rotten fish').

RobMc59

Sam Russell wrote: »

Did not the Falklands war allow the Tories to drum up public opinion how the plucky British Armed Forces defended a few island in the South Atlantic that no one had ever heard of since Shackleton passed there on his ill fated trip south in 1911.

Those islands housed a lot of sheep and a few locals. The British forces travelled 4,000 miles to defend the little islands against Argentina. Argentina had been promised by the British Foreign Secretary that Britain had no interest.

Hmmm -- won Thatcher the next election and the one after that.

Worth a try to copy that idea. Wonder who they will 'defend' next.

I'd imagine the oil reserves around the Falklands had something to do with it and sending a force that distance is probably a difficult operation,perish the thought the British had the audacity to fight for what they believe.

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd imagine the oil reserves around the Falklands had something to do with it and sending a force that distance is probably a difficult operation,perish the thought the British had the audacity to fight for what they believe.

I think, given France’s involvement with disabling Argentinians Exocets (and other countries’ support in various forms), and the British wall-building enduring since on/around 2017, that it’s quite ironic to be talking about the Falklands conflict in a Brexit thread.

Much more interesting to consider the current plight of these “freshly-re-liberated” Falklanders, with a national economy completely thrashed by Brexit. 90% of fish exported to the EU, which generates 60% of local government revenue and represents 40% of the islands’ GDP: Frost/Johnson did not include them in the scope of the EU/UK FTA.

They were not allowed a vote in the 2016 referendum.

RobMc59

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Really sums up the lunacy that is Brexit when, considering all the items for export that could have been referenced, shellfish was chosen as an example of tapping the Chinese Market :pac:

It's quite literally a monty python sketch.

So the prospect of the UK exploring new markets to export to is ridiculous-why?
Just as EU nations have sourced products and produce they previously got from the UK,also filling the void left by British products no longer available within the EU,the UK is looking to do the same.
Extraordinary that the UK doing that is ridiculous but EU doing exactly the same is smart business..

RobMc59

ambro25 wrote: »

I think, given France’s involvement with disabling Argentinians Exocets (and other countries’ support in various forms), and the British wall-building enduring since on/around 2017, that it’s quite ironic to be talking about the Falklands conflict in a Brexit thread.

Much more interesting to consider the current plight of these “freshly-re-liberated” Falklanders, with a national economy completely thrashed by Brexit. 90% of fish exported to the EU, which generates 60% of local government revenue and represents 40% of the islands’ GDP: Frost/Johnson did not include them in the scope of the EU/UK FTA.

They were not allowed a vote in the 2016 referendum.

Just to clarify,I didn't bring up the subject of the Falklands..

As I recall,the French were pleased with the performance of the excellent exorcist missile at the time.
The British learned hard lessons from that conflict which has helped military readiness in the event of future conflict.
I'm surprised you chose to completely overlook the financial benefits of oil to the Falkland islands.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

So the prospect of the UK exploring new markets to export to is ridiculous-why?
Just as EU nations have sourced products and produce they previously got from the UK, filling the void left by British products no longer available within the EU,the UK is looking to do the same.
Extraordinary that the UK doing that is ridiculous but EU doing exactly the same is smart business..

No, the prospect of voluntarily giving up your largest market such that you now need to comb the globe looking for partial replacement is ridiculous.

In what business plan would that ever appear? Grown your business, not trash it and hope that something else comes along.

Its not smart business, it is a necessity for the EU since the costs (time & money) of dealing with UK companies have increased. Most EU companies would be more than happy to continue to deal with their previous UK suppliers, but the UK have forced them to change.

So it was not a plan of the EU, it was a plan by the UK.


They are not remotely comparable.

ClosedAccountFuzzy

There was never a dichotomy between global trade and EU trade. It’s falsely presented as such by those who want to cut themselves off from Europe entirely.

The decision to isolate themselves from the EU market is a Brexit Party / UKIP and wing of the Tory Party irrational obsession.

This extreme Brexit position wasn’t even what was presented by the majority of pro Brexit politicians during the campaigns. It was all about some nebulous notions of taking back control (nobody was sure of what exactly) and a calm, often patronising, reassurance that nothing much would change in any practical way if they left the EU.

What they are delivering is more like isolationism than a global Britain.

You can’t replace a deeply interconnected proximal market that’s already flowing with huge amounts of goods & services with notions of trade with places far, far way.

It’s logistically extremely difficult and more expensive, companies will not be able to adapt and they’re trying to find markets not out of seeking opportunities, but in a panic because their connectivity has been suddenly disrupted by a massive upheaval in market access and the regulatory environment, driven by extreme politics.

The economic impacts of this are being masked by COVID-19 at the moment which is providing political cover for disruptive impact. We’ve no clear vision of the true impacts of either, but it will become clearer when the dust eventually settles.

The reality of this is going to cause a lot of people who did not ever vote for this, or who were totally misled by spin and lies, to end up losing out.

It’s negative for the EU too, Ireland in particular is dealing with serious disruption to some aspects of trade and a complicated mess with the border and GFA.

What all of this achieved, I will never know. I suspect in 30 years time it will be packaged up in history books with the madness that was the Trump administration.

RobMc59

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The question you should be asking is why UK has been so bad with trade over last 2 decades with China compared to other EU countries and given that UK had an incredible advantage of having a foothold in China called Hong Kong.

I then recommend you read this https://www.economist.com/china/2021/07/03/xi-warns-against-western-bullies-to-argue-for-one-party-rule
Where Britain was one of the countries singled out by Xi in his speech few days ago from Tiananmen Square, when he pledged that any foreigner who tried to bully China would “dash their heads against a Great Wall of steel, forged from the flesh and blood of over 1.4bn Chinese people”.

Britain has consistently criticised issues of human rights(treatment of the Uighers,suppression of democracy in Hong Kong for example) which has soured relations somewhat.
The EU doesn’t appear to have any problems with these issues.

ClosedAccountFuzzy

RobMc59 wrote: »

Britain has consistently criticised issues of human rights(treatment of the Uighers,suppression of democracy in Hong Kong for example) which has soured relations somewhat.
The EU doesn’t appear to have any problems with these issues.

Well that’s just not true.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-sanctions-china-over-mass-internment-camps-1.4517206

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/03/11/hong-kong-declaration-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-eu-the-electoral-system/

[url] https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-china-biden-economy-climate-europe/[/url]

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

Just to clarify,I didn't bring up the subject of the Falklands..

As I recall,the French were pleased with the performance of the excellent exorcist missile at the time.
The British learned hard lessons from that conflict which has helped military readiness in the event of future conflict.
I'm surprised you chose to completely overlook the financial benefits of oil to the Falkland islands.

I’m aware. I replied to your post as it was the last in the thread at the time, and was sustaining that discussion best left in the 1980s, when there is much more important Brexit-related issues actually befalling the Falklands right now, and nobody’s even looking. Far less than Gibraltar at any rate, and that’s been quite the afterthought for 5 years.

It’s flow of discussion stuff, don’t take it as a slight

Now then, what are those oil-related financial benefits for Falklanders?

Because so far as I know (and I just rechecked WiKi for changes), save for a little exploring on-off since the 2010s, currently those ONG ‘benefits’ still look as unicorny as Brexit ‘benefits’.

McGiver

RobMc59 wrote: »

Capitalism doesn't sit well with me but neither does over protectionism in a cartel.

All custom unions are "protectionist" by default. It's their whole purpose - they protect their own existence. The same goes to the higher level i.e. common markets, such as the EEA or the MERCOSUR.

If the poster meant protectionist as in "high tariffs", then by tariffs only, the EU is not really protectionist at all. Look at Indian or Brazillian average tariff rate, please.

If the poster meant protectionist as in "its high non-trade barriers", then yes obvooiusly, the higher the standards of the said common market, the higher are the non-trade barriers. The EU has the highest/strictest food safety globally so no surprise there.

All in all, "EU is a protectionist cartel" is a Brexiter/Trumpist cliché and a lie - a simple black-and-white slogan type of a reply to a very complex question, which is guarantted to get traction in the uninformed, ignorant or angry populace.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/08/14/the-eu-isnt-protectionist-its-one-of-the-most-open-economies-in-the-world/
But I've heard the UK's had enough of the experts, so...:pac:

Strazdas

McGiver wrote: »

All custom unions are "protectionist" by default. It's their whole purpose - they protect their own existence. The same goes to the higher level i.e. common markets, such as the EEA or the MERCOSUR.

If the poster meant protectinist as in "high tariffs", then by tariffs only, the EU is not really protectionist at all. Look at Indian or Brazillian average tariff rate, please.

If the poster meant protectionist as in "its high non-trade barriers", then yes obvooiusly, the higher the standards of the said common market, the higher are the non-trade barriers. The EU has the highest/strictest food safety globally so no surprise there.

All in all, "EU is a protectionist cartel" is a Brexiter/Trumpist cliché and a lie - a simple black-and-white slogan type of a reply to a very complex question, which is guarantted to get traction in the uninformed, ignorant or angry populace.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/08/14/the-eu-isnt-protectionist-its-one-of-the-most-open-economies-in-the-world/
But I've heard the UK's had enough of the experts, so...:pac:

Indeed, wouldn't any type of club be protectionist in fact i.e. strongly favour the members and give them access to better conditions and facilities than anyone outside the club.

That is the whole appeal of the club and why there would be a queue trying to join. The ex-club member sniping from the sidelines can be ignored.