Brexit Referendum Superthread

First Up

whatstherush wrote:

This is a prime example of the simple thinking the runs through every brexiters/nativist thinking. The big bad EU forbids countries from make third party trade deals for the hell of it.

I think more accurately it reflects ignorance of how trade works.

murphaph

Can we put to bed the myth that the German car industry is going to come running to the Brexit rescue?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-germany-business-warns-theresa-may-protect-single-market-trade-deal-uk-a7831401.html

It was never going to happen. German car makers have a more long term outlook than the Brexiteers in the Tory party. They know the single market must be preserved with its 4 pillars remaining indivisible. They know that if they start chipping away at it then in 30 years there will be no single market and trade will diminish.

German car makers are also aware that it would be politically unacceptable for companies which existed (even if only in name) during and supplied the Third Reich to now be seen to do anything to destabilise the EU, which has always been Germany's way of returning to the civilised world.

Enzokk

Owen Paterson was just on Sunday Politics and his message was basically that any FTA will be easy to negotiate. Seeing that the UK already has zero tariffs trade with the EU and there is a trade surplus, its basically just signing the documents to continue this arrangement but with the UK not party to any EU agreements.

Now I will say that is sounds so reasonable. The UK trades with the other EU countries and they want to continue this trade. Why would there not be a continuation of this trade? But it seems that when the EU talks about UK politicians being disillusioned he would be first in line.

You cannot pull out of EU agreements and keep the benefits that those agreements bring. Even now, after all this time there are still politicians that don't understand this. And with the precarious position Theresa May finds herself in people like this will hold a loud voice*. Let the chaos reign.



*The opposite view has the same power as well, but I don't know how loud those voices are in the ruling party. The DUP has tied themselves to what the UK government will deliver and if it ends where it seems to be heading they may have just sold their souls for £1.5bn. They received their payment but what was the price though for the people of Northern Ireland?

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

Can we put to bed the myth that the German car industry is going to come running to the Brexit rescue?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-germany-business-warns-theresa-may-protect-single-market-trade-deal-uk-a7831401.html

It was never going to happen. German car makers have a more long term outlook than the Brexiteers in the Tory party. They know the single market must be preserved with its 4 pillars remaining indivisible. They know that if they start chipping away at it then in 30 years there will be no single market and trade will diminish.

The German industry is upset at the loss of the UK market but as they said shortly after the vote that if the EU splits then they'd have to deal with lots more regulatory authorities.

It's only the UK that has entertained this fantasy. The Germans have warned about this even before the vote.


And they know the UK will still be importing premium cars like BMW's and Mercs and Audis. Maybe fewer VWs but still they command a small premium over the generic UK production.



IIRC the nett value to the German car makers is about a billion, its only a fraction of the recent emissions fines.


Back in Jan 2016 the VDA warned http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-autos-idUKKCN0Z915W

"If there were a trade conflict between Britain and the European Union, the damage would be enormous for everybody," Wissmann explained, saying he hoped for a "remain" vote.

"It would be a serious setback for the industry and would surely result in some production sites relocating."

relocating

On 29/09/2016 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/29/german-business-leader-warning-brexit-trade-uk

“I have read a lot of articles in the British press saying Germany would be a relatively soft negotiator because 7.5% of German exports go to Britain,” Kerber told BBC Radio 4’s today programme. “Well, 7.5% is a big number – but 92.5% goes somewhere else.”

And to hammer down the point, the new EU-Japan free trade deal means Japanese car imports will get cheaper. The positions of car exporters into the EU from UK and Japan will literally reverse unless the UK gets a golden ticket.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

The DUP has tied themselves to what the UK government will deliver and if it ends where it seems to be heading they may have just sold their souls for £1.5bn. They received their payment but what was the price though for the people of Northern Ireland?

"A fresh stash of cash to wash the ash off the sash" according to a letter writer in today's Irish Times.

recedite

Enzokk wrote: »

Owen Paterson was just on Sunday Politics and his message was basically that any FTA will be easy to negotiate. Seeing that the UK already has zero tariffs trade with the EU and there is a trade surplus, its basically just signing the documents to continue this arrangement but with the UK not party to any EU agreements....

...You cannot pull out of EU agreements and keep the benefits that those agreements bring.

Both of the above are true, hence the dilemma for the EU. There will be free trade (as in zero tariffs) with the UK, but the EU will also insist on introducing a certain amount of unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy into that trade, just to prove to other EU states that there are in fact some downsides to leaving.
Hence the more recent EU talk of "frictionless" trade, or the lack thereof. And the recent "sympathetic" photocall visits by various EU dignitaries to the border counties of Ireland, where the local inhabitants will be among the worst affected by this EU-imposed "friction".

Calina

The friction is imposed not by the EU but by the UK decision to leave. It is wrong to keep blaming the EU for changes brought about by a UK decision. In fact I would suggest it is dishonest. The catalyst for these changes is a UK decision. Particularly as the UK wants out of the single market and the customs union (at the moment at least - they may crawl back that decision). UK has caused this mess.

Enzokk

recedite wrote: »

Both of the above are true, hence the dilemma for the EU. There will be free trade (as in zero tariffs) with the UK, but the EU will also insist on introducing a certain amount of unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy into that trade, just to prove to other EU states that there are in fact some downsides to leaving.
Hence the more recent EU talk of "frictionless" trade, or the lack thereof. And the recent "sympathetic" photocall visits by various EU dignitaries to the border counties of Ireland, where the local inhabitants will be among the worst affected by this EU-imposed "friction".

Who will be worse affected by a hard Brexit, WTO trade rules? The EU or the UK? Then ask yourself again who the dilemma is for and who is under pressure to get the best deal possible.

The only reason the EU has been talking about frictionless trade is because of the talk of it from the UK. They are just stating their position. The only problem the EU has is that the Ireland border is a very complicated issue and the EU needs to work to ensure that the fallout isn't a return to the troubles. The UK seems to have washed their hands of it and is only really looking after the mainland.

Nate--IRL--

recedite wrote: »

...........by this EU-imposed "friction".

That is just nonsense, the UK is imposing friction by leaving the Customs union and Single market.

Nate

recedite

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

the UK is imposing friction by leaving the Customs union and Single market.

True, but the amount of friction is up for negotiation. Some of it will be the necessary minimum, and some of it will be unnecessary. The less of it there is, the more the UK will be seen as the winners. And vice versa of course.
It will all depend on what other pros and cons are on offer by both sides.
And in this respect the German car industry will be just one of many considerations.

Nate--IRL--

Yeah I'd agree - it's just time is of the essence to negotiate, but the UK seem to be prevaricating, trying to decide what it actually wants to achieve.

I would hope for something like EEA membership as a transition to full exit, so they can get their **** together. Politically I don't see this as being possible for the UK though.

Nate

steddyeddy

recedite wrote: »

True, but the amount of friction is up for negotiation. Some of it will be the necessary minimum, and some of it will be unnecessary. The less of it there is, the more the UK will be seen as the winners. And vice versa of course.
It will all depend on what other pros and cons are on offer by both sides.
And in this respect the German car industry will be just one of many considerations.

If Scotland left the UK should it be offered the same trade deal it had prior to independence? The exact same perks and trade wouldn't be likely I suspect.

Capt'n Midnight

recedite wrote: »

True, but the amount of friction is up for negotiation. Some of it will be the necessary minimum, and some of it will be unnecessary. The less of it there is, the more the UK will be seen as the winners. And vice versa of course.
It will all depend on what other pros and cons are on offer by both sides.
And in this respect the German car industry will be just one of many considerations.

In the grand scheme of things the changes in the UK imports of German cars is a minor consideration.

Even the German car makers gave up on that ages ago, accepting the realpolitik . Mon Oct 17, 2016 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-autos-idUKKBN12H0NW

Parts of Britain's car industry could move to southeast Europe if it loses access to the EU's single market in its divorce negotiations, the president of Germany's VDA auto industry association said.
...
Earlier, Wissmann named Slovakia and Poland as attractive alternative production locations in an interview with the Financial Times.
...
However, Wissmann, a former transport minister and powerful lobbyist, emphasised that the VDA's priority was to keep the EU's 27 remaining members together.

"The UK is an important market for the German car industry, but the cohesion of the EU27 and with it the single market is more important for this industry," he said.

It's as if the UK is starting to realise that bluffing in this poker game won't go as well when Jokers aren't wild, this isn't a flush and there differences between Texas hold 'em and Seven Card Stud.

ancapailldorcha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's as if the UK is starting to realise that bluffing in this poker game won't go as well when Jokers aren't wild, this isn't a flush and there differences between Texas hold 'em and Seven Card Stud.

In poker, you're meant to bluff before you show your hand, not after. It's sad because this could have made the EU better. David Cameron could have pushed for greater reform in the EU, especially in contentious sectors such as fisheries. In his defence, he did secure opt outs from Eurozone bailouts and "Ever closer union" but it's far too late now. The EU's remit has changed from keeping Britain in with even more goodies if necessary to getting the best deal for itself.

View

Enzokk wrote: »

Owen Paterson was just on Sunday Politics and his message was basically that any FTA will be easy to negotiate.

FTAs typically just cover trade in goods and do not cover trade in services. The EU would stand to benefit with a "standard" FTA, as it runs a large surplus with the UK for goods, whereas - in the excluded services area - the UK runs a surplus with the EU. Still if that is what they want, why should the EU complain? :-)

View

recedite wrote: »

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

the UK is imposing friction by leaving the Customs union and Single market.

True, but the amount of friction is up for negotiation.

No it is not. "Third countries" - non-EU ones in this case - have to be treated in accordance with WTO rules.

The EU can't decide that one third country gets some sort of "free pass" so that it can skip the paperwork that other third countries must comply with. Doing so would clearly be discriminatory against the other third countries and a clear violation of WTO rules.

RDM_83 again

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The German industry is upset at the loss of the UK market but as they said shortly after the vote that if the EU splits then they'd have to deal with lots more regulatory authorities.

It's only the UK that has entertained this fantasy. The Germans have warned about this even before the vote.

There is often large differences between public facings comments and a private facing ones.*

I could link to probably hundreds of statements of solidarty by German groups with the Eastern European states and to follow broader European interests when it comes down to it though stuff like Nord-Stream 2 still gets built, words are cheap and German is just as guilty of making statements they have no interest in acting on as any other country.

For the German automakers a reduction in sales to the UK is not going to put them at serious risk, however this is ignoring the fact that Trump appears likely to put a large import tax on German imports, this means loosing two of their biggest markets, this will hit them very hard


*German car makers are not ethical in the slightest, why would you take their word on this when they have a track record of dishonesty long before dieselgate (google the prostitution and bribery scandels)

whatstherush

RDM_83 again wrote: »

For the German automakers a reduction in sales to the UK is not going to put them at serious risk, however this is ignoring the fact that Trump appears likely to put a large import tax on German imports, this means loosing two of their biggest markets, this will hit them very hard

As per usual Trump is talking through his hole, what's he going to do stick tarrifs on south Carolina and Alabama. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_US_Manufacturing_Company

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_U.S._International

Our you can explain how they will be "loosing" two of their biggest markets?

RDM_83 again

whatstherush wrote: »

As per usual Trump is talking through his hole, what's he going to do stick tarrifs on south Carolina and Alabama. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_US_Manufacturing_Company

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_U.S._International

Our you can explain how they will be "loosing" two of their biggest markets?

This article is highlighting the issue your talking about, of the sales German brands made in the USA account for 28-33% so a large majority are imported.
If he targets imported vehicles (thus excluding those produced in the US) it will still be a major blow.

They may not completely loose the markets but high tariffs will reduce the market share significantly, the standard response to this is that German cars are luxury items so the pricing doesn't matter, I am not convinced of this as most sold are sub $100,000.

As I have answered your question can you reply about why public statements from an industry/companies with a history of serious criminal dishonesty should be taken at face value.

Additionally take a look at Volkswagen, BMW, and Daimler stock prices on a multi year level, all of them are in fairly significant decline from a year to two years ago, most being now at their 2014 level and appear to be on a general downward trend

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/05/cars-german-auto-brands-sell-build-united-states-america/

whatstherush

RDM_83 again wrote: »

If he targets imported vehicles (thus excluding those produced in the US) it will still be a major blow.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

As I have answered your question can you reply about why public statements from an industry/companies with a history of serious criminal dishonesty should be taken at face value.

You want me answer about the dishonesty of German car makers when the whole basis of your post, is statements by Trump, you are a having fúcking laugh :rolleyes:

murphaph

RDM_83 again wrote: »

There is often large differences between public facings comments and a private facing ones.*

I could link to probably hundreds of statements of solidarty by German groups with the Eastern European states and to follow broader European interests when it comes down to it though stuff like Nord-Stream 2 still gets built, words are cheap and German is just as guilty of making statements they have no interest in acting on as any other country.

For the German automakers a reduction in sales to the UK is not going to put them at serious risk, however this is ignoring the fact that Trump appears likely to put a large import tax on German imports, this means loosing two of their biggest markets, this will hit them very hard


*German car makers are not ethical in the slightest, why would you take their word on this when they have a track record of dishonesty long before dieselgate (google the prostitution and bribery scandels)

Trump can't single out Germany. Germany is not a member of the WTO in its own right. Any action taken against Germany would have to be taken against the EU as a whole.

The EU can respond in kind and the EU is big enough to make any other country or trading bloc take notice.

Fratton Fred

View wrote: »

FTAs typically just cover trade in goods and do not cover trade in services. The EU would stand to benefit with a "standard" FTA, as it runs a large surplus with the UK for goods, whereas - in the excluded services area - the UK runs a surplus with the EU. Still if that is what they want, why should the EU complain? :-)

That depends on what those services include.

Will Germans stop listening to Ed Sheeran? Will the Greeks stop watching doctor who?

RDM_83 again

whatstherush wrote: »

You want me answer about the dishonesty of German car makers when the whole basis of your post, is statements by Trump, you are a having fúcking laugh :rolleyes:

Ignoring the question then? this is response is exactly what I mean about low quality posting being tolerated if it fits the narrative here.

murphaph wrote: »

Trump can't single out Germany. Germany is not a member of the WTO in its own right. Any action taken against Germany would have to be taken against the EU as a whole.

The EU can respond in kind and the EU is big enough to make any other country or trading bloc take notice.

The EU is an important trading block alright but the sales are overwhelmingly from German companies (and apart from volvo and Fiat both of which export relatively small numbers the rest are made up of extremely high end brands which are not price dependent).

See link here

https://www.statista.com/statistics/243596/vehicle-sales-of-european-car-brands-in-the-united-states/

My view is that at the minute with resentment against Germany's dominant position high in Italy, Greece, Portugal and the Visegrád Group (as well as countries like Ireland and the Netherlands which are wary of loosing American companies) the idea that they would risk an escalated trade war to protect German interests is by no means certain.
Particularly with the current talk of sanctioning Visegrád countries.

edit: additionally any talk of how we must have EU solidarity in relation to the USA will be met by cynicism in such countries as Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania due to the fact that the EU commission has not implemented any measures in relation to the USA visa issue. The double standards would be immediately obvious that some countries interests are more important than others.

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That depends on what those services include.

Will Germans stop listening to Ed Sheeran? Will the Greeks stop watching doctor who?

Enough of the sarcasm. You've had enough warnings.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

View wrote: »

FTAs typically just cover trade in goods and do not cover trade in services. The EU would stand to benefit with a "standard" FTA, as it runs a large surplus with the UK for goods, whereas - in the excluded services area - the UK runs a surplus with the EU. Still if that is what they want, why should the EU complain? :-)

That depends on what those services include.

Will Germans stop listening to Ed Sheeran? Will the Greeks stop watching doctor who?

Well a quick look-up of the ONS breaks the top-three down as follows:
A) Professional Scientific & Technical Activities
Information & Communication
C) Financial & Insurance Activities

In 2015, they were worth £35 billion, £30 billion & £19 billion to the UK economy. Even minor damage to any of those, due to them facing tariffs on exporting to Europe -
which is where a clear majority of those exports go - is rapidly going to cost the UK more than any "savings" the UK makes on its contributions to the EU.

whatstherush

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ignoring the question then? this is response is exactly what I mean about low quality posting being tolerated if it fits the narrative here.

I'm not ignoring anything, it's called being incredulous. I'm not engaging in your subjective view that public statements by German car markers can't be taken at face value, when you want to question their truthfulness based on the statements of a proven repeated liar.

But it's all the quality of the posting. It's not nativist/brexiters that post logical inconsistencies day after day here!

Look at the language you used in your first post, German car makers "loosing" their biggest 2 markets, totally over playing what tarrifs do and ignoring locally produced cars and again you want to complain about posting standards.

RDM_83 again

whatstherush wrote: »

I'm not ignoring anything, it's called being incredulous. I'm not engaging in your subjective view that public statements by German car markers can't be taken at face value, when you want to question their truthfulness based on the statements of a proven repeated liar.

But it's all the quality of the posting. It's not nativist/brexiters that post logical inconsistencies day after day here!

Whether or not Trump is consistent is not the matter up for the debate, the fact is he has attempted to implement at least some of his controversial policies. Their truthfulness does not relate in anyway to Trump and I never stated it as such.

My view about the German car makers statements is subjective, however I can objectively say that in the past on a number of occasions over a number of years they have carried out criminal activities to protect their profits.
Making a public statement in relation to EU unity while having a different behind the scenes view is a far less serious thing yet you are incredulous that I doubt their statements



Whats with the Nativist/Brexiter rhetoric?

PeadarCo

RDM_83 again wrote:

Whether or not Trump is consistent is not the matter up for the debate, the fact is he has attempted to implement at least some of his controversial policies. Their truthfulness does not relate in anyway to Trump and I never stated it as such.

The problem is Trump can't selectively target Germany without starting a trade war with the EU. It's one of the advantages of the EU safety in numbers. In terms of trade there is no Ireland/Germany/Italy etc. There's only the EU common market. It's this what the UK has to deal with not just a car industry in one country out of 27 with decision making power.

That's not to say Trump wouldn't be crazy enough to do something like that. But what he says has to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Here's a person who doesn't understand how the EU works. Remember he previously had to be reminded that he couldn't deal with German directly but has to deal with the EU.

whatstherush

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whether or not Trump is consistent is not the matter up for the debate, the fact is he has attempted to implement at least some of his controversial policies. Their truthfulness does not relate in anyway to Trump and I never stated it as such.

My view about the German car makers statements is subjective, however I can objectively say that in the past on a number of occasions over a number of years they have carried out criminal activities to protect their profits.

Making a public statement in relation to EU unity while having a different behind the scenes view is a far less serious thing yet you are incredulous that I doubt their statements



Whats with the Nativist/Brexiter rhetoric?

Why isn't his lies up for debate, German car makers seemingly are.

Making public statements and while having different private view is far less than previous dishonesty to "protect profits" is again your subjective view, but tell me why that if protecting profits is their motivation for lying then why are they willing to do exact opposite here, which is to lie to lose the profits that UK tarrifs would naturally entail.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That depends on what those services include.

Will Germans stop listening to Ed Sheeran? Will the Greeks stop watching doctor who?

No but the Germans can just as easily get a credit card from a German or French bank than from a UK one. The vast bulk of services are generic and not like the examples you cite.