Brexit Referendum Superthread

recedite

View wrote: »

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.

If you mean WTO tariffs, those are only the default tariffs; to be used in the absence of a trade agreement.

RDM_83 again

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

I feel I already dealt with this in the previous post, yes the USA would be applying tariffs to the EU as a whole but apart from to a small extent Sweden (volvo) the impact would be 90% felt by Germany. See link on US car sales posted previously this isn't me me making stuff up look at the figures yourself.

As such this is why I feel that what I posted before is relevant, the US tariffs being talked about would only be seriously harmful to Germany

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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.

tldr: why would multiple EU countries risk their own economies in a trade war to protect a Germany thats put its own interests ahead of theirs at multiple times. Under qualified majority voting I think its likely their is a large enough block to prevent any EU retaliation (certainly if it happens while the UK still has voting rights)

Nate--IRL--

If they saw the ability to punitively add tariffs to individual EU states, who would be next? Ireland perhaps?

That is why the EU is stronger when acting in unison.

Nate

RDM_83 again

whatstherush wrote: »

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

Because while Trump lies often he might carry this out, he is very erratic. Also it doesn't matter

whatstherush wrote: »

Making public statements and while having different private view is far less than previous dishonesty to "protect profits" is again your subjective view,

This is why I am complaining about low quality posting!. Your telling me making a statement that has no legal or financial cost is equivalent to actions that have led to jail terms and/or multi-billion to million dollar fines is subjective! Seriously , and yet no other posters will call out this stuff because its pro-EU

whatstherush wrote: »

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.

Because a stable EU and a UK with tariff free access is in their best interests, public statements like they have made keep consumer confidence within EU countries up, privately they can tell German ministers that the UK stuff is very important to them as well making these statements publicly puts nothing at risk for them.

whatstherush

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats with the Nativist/Brexiter rhetoric?

What exactly is the rhetoric here, is it not accurate to describe posters like recedite and 123shooter as of a nativist thinking, brexiters are simply a UK subset. As you are concerned about the posting standards maybe look at the emotive(forbids), incorrect (and drive by nature when called on it) posting or is it only the standard of opposing views you have a problem with?

whatstherush

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Because while Trump lies often he might carry this out, he is very erratic. Also it doesn't matter




This is why I am complaining about low quality posting!. Your telling me making a statement that has no legal or financial cost is equivalent to actions that have led to jail terms and/or multi-billion to million dollar fines is subjective! Seriously , and yet no other posters will call out this stuff because its pro-EU



Because a stable EU and a UK with tariff free access is in their best interests, public statements like they have made keep consumer confidence within EU countries up, privately they can tell German ministers that the UK stuff is very important to them as well making these statements publicly puts nothing at risk for them.

This exactly what you posted re trump in your first post "ignoring the fact that Trump appears likely to put a large import tax on German imports," so we are take this as "likely" because Trump said so and we have to ignore all his previous lies and also because he has "attempted" to implement some of his other policies.

Your next statement is as follows "this means loosing two of their biggest markets, this will hit them very hard" besides the fact they are not "loosing" their biggest markets, you want to draw that conclusion based on the statements of a known liar that has so far only been able to attempt some of stuff he has promised. Why does your believe in Trump(likely) get to go unquestioned but I have to explain why the German industry isn't lying?

Again to subjectivity and stability of the EU, first of all, a UK cake and eat it deal is not going to add to the stability of the EU(all the perks of EU membership and none of the costs it going sit well with every other member alright) , secondly how much is the break up of the single market going to cost the German car makers, maybe they have assed to be than more than your fines but there's no way they could be honest in this assessment according to you, and anyone who draws that conclusion is posting in a substandard manner.

Oh and on this "This is why I am complaining about low quality posting!. Your telling me making a statement that has no legal or financial cost is equivalent to actions that have led to jail terms and/or multi-billion to million dollar fines is subjective! Seriously , and yet no other posters will call out this stuff because its pro-EU "get of your high horse, if you have a problem with the post report it otherwise stop moaning on the thread. Second their public statements carry political weight and if their statements makes the UK public realize they are no going to ride to their rescue which in turn leads to watering down brexit to Norway style deal it will be worth a darn sight more than some trifling fines or individuals going to jail.

Lastly all this posting on standards, when at the heart of your initial post is a massive hypocrisy. The only reason you believe trump and don't believe the German car industry is down to your political beliefs, it's as simple and hypocritical as that. Neither of us can tell what will happen in the future regarding both of the positions but I'll tell you one thing, I will bet my life (and I'm going through chemo for NHL, so this is not a trivial thing for me to say) that the US will not implement penalty tarrifs against the EU/Germany in the lifetime of a trump administration. This is my last post to you regarding any of the above.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

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.

The Germans don't and never have, got a credit card from a British bank.

They would get a credit card from a German bank, which may in turn be owned by a British bank.

The German subsidiary will then pay service charges to its head office.

How do you put a tariff on that?

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Germans don't and never have, got a credit card from a British bank.

They would get a credit card from a German bank, which may in turn be owned by a British bank.

Wrong Fred. Barclaycard operate in Germany, regulated in London.

www.barclaycard.de/index.php?page=Impressum&b=barc6728_k__barclaycard%20deutschland--m__e--n__g--c__189099353673--p__--u__7447173301200623313--d__m--&sc=421393.1562924.15870469&gclid=Cj0KEQjwy4zLBRCOg6-4h6vs3cUBEiQAN-yzfo3aKBHPhT_8TyrDcpw4IsvfsUXmCA4brpUuHnlm2PIaApA88P8HAQ

Nody

Well there came some interesting news out of Brussels today:

It also makes clear that there can be no extension to the 31 March 2019 deadline, as European parliamentary elections are due to take place in May of that year, by which point the UK must be out.

So there goes any plans on extending the negotiation out the window.

As for May's proposal of rights; well let's say it sank faster than her popularity figures:

"In the EU proposal, British people and Europeans keep the same rights and the same level of protection they currently enjoy under European law,” he said. “The UK response to our proposal came three weeks later. It was a damp squib. The British Government proposes that – the day after Brexit – Europeans obtain the status of ‘third country nationals’. These nationals would get fewer rights in the UK than British citizens are offered throughout the EU"

The articles, which are jointly penned by Mr Verhofstadt and the leaders of key groupings in the European Parliament, also say that the UK offer risks creating “a second class of citizenship” and that the offer contradicts even “the ‘Vote Leave’ manifesto”, which, it says, “promised it would treat EU citizens no less favourably than at present”.

In strongly worded comments that will be read across the continent, Mr Verhofstadt said: “The European Union has a common mission to extend, enhance and expand rights, not to reduce them. We will never endorse the retroactive removal of acquired rights.”

Full article is here but yea; hard brexit ahoy but the looks of it as that trade deal is not going to be started any time soon...

seamus

Nody wrote: »

Well there came some interesting news out of Brussels today:
So there goes any plans on extending the negotiation out the window.

Well, to be fair, they can't do an Ian Paisley on it. Any formal request to extend the deadline would still have to be voted on. Requiring unanimous approval though, I can't see that happening unless something exceptional happens like war.

In strongly worded comments that will be read across the continent, Mr Verhofstadt said: “The European Union has a common mission to extend, enhance and expand rights, not to reduce them. We will never endorse the retroactive removal of acquired rights.”

This statement is good news for British people. It's fairly directly saying that any Brits living abroad won't have their current rights removed because their country has pulled out of the EU.

There's long been talk of, and a concept of, "EU citizenship" that's functionally just a concept - one is an EU citizen by virtue of being a citizen of an EU member.

I wonder if Brexit will require the creation of a more formal definition of EU citizenship, backed up with documentation, so that British expats can claim their EU citizenship.

flatty

There was talk of Brits being able to purchase EU citizenship at roughly a thousand euro. If ten million took it up, that's a net outflow from Britain to the EU of 10 billion straight away.
A win, win one would have thought.

Water John

I see Hard Brexiteer David Jones, wanting a full follow through on the clear and unequivical choice of the British people to leave the EU. No common trade or customs, just full leave.

At the end of this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/09/may-to-invite-labour-to-help-create-policies-amid-tory-plot-to-oust-her

I think his name is appropriate, because that's where the UK will end up, if they follow his path.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

Wrong Fred. Barclaycard operate in Germany, regulated in London.

www.barclaycard.de/index.php?page=Impressum&b=barc6728_k__barclaycard%20deutschland--m__e--n__g--c__189099353673--p__--u__7447173301200623313--d__m--&sc=421393.1562924.15870469&gclid=Cj0KEQjwy4zLBRCOg6-4h6vs3cUBEiQAN-yzfo3aKBHPhT_8TyrDcpw4IsvfsUXmCA4brpUuHnlm2PIaApA88P8HAQ

Sigh.

I despair at times.

Barclaycard
Barclays Bank PLC
Gasstraße 4c
22761 Hamburg, Germany
E-mail: service@barclaycard.de
Phone: +49 40 890 99-866

Authorized representative: Carsten Höltkemeyer
Hamburg HRB: 47374
VAT identification number according to § 27 a
Sales tax legislation: DE 11 8513 525

Zubeneschamali

In strongly worded comments that will be read across the continent, Mr Verhofstadt said: “The European Union has a common mission to extend, enhance and expand rights, not to reduce them. We will never endorse the retroactive removal of acquired rights.”

Once the UK is out, they can treat EU citizens any way they like.

The only way the EU could do anything about it would be to retaliate and hope that UK citizens would force their government to backtrack, but that would involve retroactive removal of UK citizens rights, something he claims he will never endorse.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Once the UK is out, they can treat EU citizens any way they like.

The only way the EU could do anything about it would be to retaliate and hope that UK citizens would force their government to backtrack, but that would involve retroactive removal of UK citizens rights, something he claims he will never endorse.

​The elephant in that particular room, which I still haven't seen the UK mainstream media mention much yet, is how the UK is currently throwing Brits established within the EU under the wheels of the Brexit bus.

Never less so than with the UK asking the EU to 'reciprocate' its offer (which simply means, for the EU to retrograde current rights of UK emigrants).

It's not a bad attempt at trying to line up the EU for demonization down the line ("see how they treat our Brits in there?"), and as usual it's down to Barnier and Co. to voice the situation in plain and clear terms to try and cut through the fog of UK government and media misrepresentations.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sigh.

I despair at times.

That gentleman is only responsible for the website content, a legal requirement in Germany. He is not a bank! The banking activities are quite clearly carried on by Barclays in London and regulated by the authorities in London, so no need to sigh. You were just wrong. This is a classic service that can easily be substituted by many firms. Most services fall into this category and not the Ed Sheeran category. That was my point and it stands. The UK is making a catastrophic mistake with its service dominated economy in leaving the single market.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

That gentleman is only responsible for the website content, a legal requirement in Germany. He is not a bank! The banking activities are quite clearly carried on by Barclays in London and regulated by the authorities in London, so no need to sigh. You were just wrong. This is a classic service that can easily be substituted by many firms. Most services fall into this category and not the Ed Sheeran category. That was my point and it stands. The UK is making a catastrophic mistake with its service dominated economy in leaving the single market.

https://www.home.barclaycard/about-us/where-you-ll-find-us/germany.html

Headquartered in Hamburg, our German office was our first venture outside the UK back in 1991. Today we are a strong payment and lending provider and a leading card issuer

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Once the UK is out, they can treat EU citizens any way they like.

The only way the EU could do anything about it would be to retaliate and hope that UK citizens would force their government to backtrack, but that would involve retroactive removal of UK citizens rights, something he claims he will never endorse.

Or simply refuse any trade deal with the UK full stop or cancel existing deals if struck in the time if they do so and insist that all EU citizens rights are to be protected by the ECJ. Remember the order of negotiations was to sort out this first before any trade deal would be put on the table.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

That gentleman is only responsible for the website content, a legal requirement in Germany. He is not a bank! The banking activities are quite clearly carried on by Barclays in London and regulated by the authorities in London,

Says so on the site. 'Conditions are governed by English law'.

Sam Russell

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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.

They are not alone in criminal activity and riding rough-shod over customers.

In 1999, GM had to pay $4.9 billion for a petrol tank failure.

$4.9 Billion Jury Verdict In G.M. Fuel Tank Case

In what is believed to be the largest award ever in a personal-injury lawsuit, the General Motors Corporation was ordered today to pay $4.9 billion to six people severely burned when the fuel tank of their 1979 Chevrolet Malibu exploded after a rear-end collision.

The verdict was reached by 12 jurors in state court here after a 10-week trial in which the accident victims had produced some evidence purporting to show that General Motors had known the car's design was unsafe but had not changed it because of the cost.

The verdict, which included $107.6 million in compensatory damages and $4.8 billion in punitive damages, is likely to raise questions once again about whether jury verdicts in personal-injury and product-liability cases have got out of hand.

Mr. Panish said that the gas tank on the 1979 Malibu was only 11 inches from the rear bumper; in some earlier models it had been more than 20 inches away. He said the trial testimony showed that it would have cost General Motors $8.59 per vehicle for a safer design but that the company had decided it would be cheaper to settle any lawsuits that arose.

One critical piece of evidence, he said, was a memorandum written by an Oldsmobile engineer, Edward Ivey, in 1973, in which Mr. Ivey estimated that fuel-tank fires were costing G.M. only $2.40 per vehicle.

So American companies also break the rules, and cause unnecessary deaths.

whatstherush

Canary in the coal mine, big push to roll back euro atom withdrawal, Mays insistence of no ECJ jurisdiction lead to withdrawal.

Here's Dominic Cummings, campaign director for vote leave, take on it.
https://twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/884354037956718593

Here's gorgeous George twisting the knife in the ES
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/884363375274315776


Here's good article explaining what they are losing by withdrawing
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientists-say-brexit-is-a-mess-for-british-nuclear?utm_term=.wgxD2Lrb5#.meopDzoEL


Interesting side issue, euro atom withdrawal was included in A50 letter.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/884361927505444864

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Says so on the site. 'Conditions are governed by English law'.

makes no difference. It could be Irish law, Dutch law or Slovakian law.

Barclaycard Germany, will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays Bank, just like Santandar UK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Banco Santandar SA.

Besides, what difference will tariffs make to a credit card issuer? American Express seem to do ok.

LeinsterDub

whatstherush wrote: »

Interesting side issue, euro atom withdrawal was included in A50 letter.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/884361927505444864

euro atom isn't part of the EU so it's inclusion in the A50 letter is irrelevant. If they want to stay in euro atom they can just say so no?

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

makes no difference. It could be Irish law, Dutch law or Slovakian law.

"English Law" expressions in contract clauses (of wherever, about whatever, between whoever) are commonly interpreted or construed by Courts as 'British law'. Just meant as an FYI.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Barclaycard Germany, will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays Bank, just like Santandar UK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Banco Santandar SA.

Methinks the loss of freedom of capital movement might play an unwelcome role for UK banks in that respect.

Freedom of movement is not just about 'people', it's also (and I daresay, more so-) about goods, capital and services.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Besides, what difference will tariffs make to a credit card issuer? American Express seem to do ok.

None whatsoever.

But (EU-wide) regulatory developments in this field, without the UK's traditional and sizeable (as passporting activity-derived) oar in, may eventually.

CrabRevolution

I'd imagine EURATOM is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, so May will want out because of that.

swampgas

A bit more from Politico on that EU-Japan trade deal.

http://www.politico.eu/article/big-in-japan-how-the-eu-pulled-off-its-largest-trade-deal-negotiations-tokyo-phil-hogan-cecilia-malmstrom-agriculture/

What is interesting is that it was Trump pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) that motivated Japan to get a trade deal done with the EU instead. And Trump pulled out of that deal (TTP) because "USA first"; I can't see the UK getting a trade deal with the US that isn't completely one-sided (and not in favour of the UK, obviously). On top of that the UK is removing themselves from better access to the Japanese market, but they may be deluded enough to think the can get a deal with Japan which is as good as the one the EU are working towards. But they can't start work on that until they have formally left the EU. So maybe in 10-20 years they can have their trade deal with Japan as well.

Nody

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'd imagine EURATOM is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, so May will want out because of that.

We have a winner; indeed it is and since ECJ is what May really wants to get out since they kept slapping her hands for breaking the law she can't allow that to happen.

Don't worry though; once the fuel runs out 2 years later there will be plenty of well paid coal jobs to come out from it all, magically, sort of like Trump's coal promises. It is yet another "politics over reality' decision by May and the three stoogies Brexit department that values Brexit above all else and at any cost. The interesting part is that 8 conservative MPs are also against it which would be enough to swing a vote if it came down to it...

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

"English Law" expressions in contract clauses (of wherever, about whatever, between whoever) are commonly interpreted or construed by Courts as 'British law'. Just meant as an FYI.

Yes, I am aware of that and if you have ever had to decipher a contract in Scottish law, you'll understand why English law is preferred.

ambro25 wrote: »

Methinks the loss of freedom of capital movement might play an unwelcome role for UK banks in that respect.

Freedom of movement is not just about 'people', it's also (and I daresay, more so-) about goods, capital and services.

Indeed, although I would have thought retail banking would be the least likely area to suffer, as most retail banks will be standalone banks owned by a foreign parent company. BNP Paribas, HSBC etc all seem to manage their operations outside of the EU without any trouble.

What I think will be interesting, is whether or not "Services" are performed in the country where the person actually providing the service is based, or wether it is performed where the invoicing is carried out.

Does the Bank of America analyst provide the service in to Germany from their London office, or is it performed from (for example) the Luxembourg office, where the invoicing comes from?

Enzokk

swampgas wrote: »

A bit more from Politico on that EU-Japan trade deal.

http://www.politico.eu/article/big-in-japan-how-the-eu-pulled-off-its-largest-trade-deal-negotiations-tokyo-phil-hogan-cecilia-malmstrom-agriculture/

What is interesting is that it was Trump pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) that motivated Japan to get a trade deal done with the EU instead. And Trump pulled out of that deal (TTP) because "USA first"; I can't see the UK getting a trade deal with the US that isn't completely one-sided (and not in favour of the UK, obviously). On top of that the UK is removing themselves from better access to the Japanese market, but they may be deluded enough to think the can get a deal with Japan which is as good as the one the EU are working towards. But they can't start work on that until they have formally left the EU. So maybe in 10-20 years they can have their trade deal with Japan as well.

Interesting that the EU took advantage of the US pulling out of the TPP as Japan had decided what it can give up in negotiations with the US and just transferred it over to the EU deal. How much room is there for Japan to offer access to their market to the UK? What products can the UK offer Japan that the EU can't? If Japan wants no tariffs on their vehicles in the UK, what could possibly be offered by the UK as something Japan wants from them? In the EU case the EU wanted more agriculture access and the Japanese wanted easier access for their motor manufacturers.

This is the problem the UK will have. They will want to conclude FTA's quickly but may just give up access that will not have a big benefit to them just to have a deal done. This may not be with Japan but other countries that will not want to be generous just because it is the UK. Every country will be out for their own benefit. If this is at the expense of the UK, then so be it.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What I think will be interesting, is whether or not "Services" are performed in the country where the person actually providing the service is based, or wether it is performed where the invoicing is carried out.

Does the Bank of America analyst provide the service in to Germany from their London office, or is it performed from (for example) the Luxembourg office, where the invoicing comes from?

The commission has already stated that "brass plate" operations will not be accepted. The actual leg work will need to be done in the regulating country.

In my Barclaycard example it is being regulated by British authorities as passporting allows this. If passporting goes, all these sorts of services need to be operated out of the EU.