Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

This video here is interesting from two points of view: one is the response of the audience, which, if the Question Time audience is in any way representative, indicates that people in Britain (England) believe, in increasing numbers, that Brexit is a disaster, and two is to watch what Rees-Smug does when he's caught out:

For what it's worth, in Australia the wine exporters association guidance to its members is not presenting Brexit as advantageous. The main consequence of Brexit for Australian producers is that the EU and the UK are now two separate markets with similar but not identical regulatory regimes. The regimes are different enough that wine has to be separately labelled for either the GB market or the EU+NI market - a bottle cannot be labelled in a way that satisfies the requirements of both markets. The certification requirements for the two markets also differ.

This isn't a huge deal, since most Australian wine exported to Europe is exported in bulk and bottled in Europe. Still, it's a complication; from the point of bottling onwards wine destined for the GB market has to be segregated from wine destined for the EU+NI market, which wasn't previously necessary.

One respect in which the UK regime is ostensibly better for Australian exporters is that the UK no longer requires certain certification documents which are required by the EU. But these documents are generated before the wine is exported from Australian, and practice in the industry is to generate them for all wine exported, so that consignments can be directed to the EU market if and as required. And this illustrates one of the points about Brexit that is not always understood, especially in the UK. The UK is simply too small a market for most of the world to care very much about it. Australian wine exports are certified to EU standards even if they are not, in fact, going to the EU. The notional advantage of not having to certify wine for the GB market is offset by the trouble and cost of identifying, and separately handling, wine for the GB market at the point of export from Australia.

The UK Australia FTA does abolish UK tariffs on Australian wines and this could be real benefit, except that it is more than offset by a restructuring of UK excise on alcoholic drinks. The estimated £26 million saving in import duties is more than cancelled by the estimated £70 million increase in excise duties.

The idea that Britain is equal to or greater than the EU as a trading partner is of course one of the two big lies behind Brexit.

And I think it is a reality many have yet to come to terms with.

Brexit would stop all immigrants and the UK would do better without them.

Many EU countries, including quite soon Ireland, have specific alcohol labelling rules that means there isn't really an EU-wide bottle label on virtually any alcohol products anyway.

You do seem some mergers, e.g. a lot of Irish craft beers use the same label here and various Nordic countries, meaning they have multiple different warnings and multiple bottle return scheme logos.

Most producers are not going to be willing to have our cancer warning on bottles sold anywhere else.

Higher duty, except on strong beer where its lower. Also neoprohibitionist rules against discounting and a high minimum unit price

One phenomenon of the post soviet era was the dramatic rise in alcohol abuse. There was tacit government support for keeping the masses sozzled, and I can imagine Britain will go that way too rather than acknowledging decline.

Another point on oz wine is that aside from certs a declining gbp has producers chasing other markets to compensate.

Ahhhh so the red tape is "on their (EU) side"... Still with the EU causing all the issues...

Mark Spencer, the farming minister, has been giving interviews and he told Times Radio this morning he claimed the government did want to reduce “red tape” for exporters to the EU. He said:

There’s always more that we can do to try and ease the way and the passage of trade. We’re very keen to do that. We’re a free and open trading nation, we want to work closely with our EU colleagues, and we want to try and reduce that red tape, if there is any red tape, on their side of the Channel. So, of course, we want to keep those channels of trade open in both directions.

Of course Brexit could have happened without any increase in 'red tape' for exporters - or importers - at all, but the Tories insisted "Brexit means Brexit" etc 🙄 well suck it up.

In fairness to the article it does state the following:

[emphasis mine]

Doing something that harms 56% of exports is definitely a big deal. Any government who are "relaxed" are not fit to do their jobs.

"Only 56% of exporters will have problems"

Don't remember seeing that on the side of any buses.

"Britain is getting on just fine..."

Seriously you believe that?