Brexit discussion thread II

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By the way, Irish exports of services to the UK total around €18bn, as opposed to €11bn in imports, so a services trade agreement is very much in Ireland's best interests.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/its/internationaltradeinservices2015/ see table 2a

notes here
http://www.cso.ie/en/methods/balanceofpayments/methodologydocuments/servicesexportsandimportsbackgroundnotes/

the big categories are Transport , Financial services, Insurance and "Trade related services"

If Ryanair move here and Iberia move to Spain then less to the UK also some Financial services are moving here.

Insurance yeah the UK companies have been sooo good to us. :rolleyes:

Other trade-related services consist of commissions earned by resident entities acting as agents for non-residents or paid to non-resident entities acting as agents for residents in connection with imports or exports of goods or services.

So UK services isn't as big an issue as you may think because a lot of UK firms will increase presence here or elsewhere in the UK as a workaround.

Calina

I think a couple of points need to be made clear.

1) the 100 billion figure.

This is not an EU figure. It is a figure calculated by the FT on the basis of items which the EU stated should be taken into consideration. One of the items on the agenda is to discussed how the figure due should be calculated. The EU's position has always been that this should be negotiated. As such, the 100 billion figure is meaningless at the moment and anyone who brings it up probably should stop because it is a media speculation rather than any ballpark issued by either the EU or the UK. The methodology for calculating outstanding liabilities in both directions is a matter for negotiation. Admittedly the UK appears to be somewhat unprepared for negotiations in general although if there is one department which appears to be more in tune with reality in terms of the behaviour of its Cabinet personnel, it is Treasury.

In sort the liability remains to be calculated and both parties have input into how that will be done.

2) the hole in the EU finances after Britain leaves and what will the EU do about the lack of the UK's ten billion or 8 billion or 11 billion depending on your source.

This is none of the UK's business and it has no bearing on the negotiations regardling an orderly exit. How the EU manages its budget, its contributions and its commitments when the UK leaves is not the UK's interest and that many Brexit and UK supporting parties continue to push at it means they have missed the key point: once the UK leaves the EU they have no seat at the table. The fact that the UK was a net contributor up to Brexit does not mean they have any post Brexit rights or input.

3) There seems to be an excessively simplistic view on how easy negotiating a post-Brexit trade agreement will be. Ideas that the UK can piggy back on CETA and use all that work are naive in the extreme. As a useful example of the sorts of things which are involved, I give you this piece on Phil Hogan's contribution to negotiations with Japan (source Politico) where the discussions boiled down to how much cheese would be traded. There are thousands of line items like this to be discussed in trade agreements anyway and then you add to this mix the UK's particular need for services which have not historically been covered by free trade agreements.

I really have no objection to Brexit supporters and UK supporters talk about making the best of it, and bright sunny futures and the opportunities offered by Brexit. What I'd like to see on their side is some remote understanding of the task ahead of them to get the UK even remotely close to a position it enjoys now (even post referendum). The fact is, the work required to achieve Brexit is monumental, the UK lacks the staff and it definitely lacks the political vision at the moment. The trade agreement on its own is huge beyond the imagination of many people given how many of them seem to think piggybacking on CETA is an option. The exit negotiations which come first are a voyage of discovery on both sides. Instead of embracing people with knowledge about how the EU works and knowledge of the corridors in the institutions, the UK has left key personnel leave, with some encouragement it must be said.

I just wish that Brexit supporters and UK supporters actually demonstrated some knowledge of the reality of the journey which is before them. The answer to almost every problem they are encountering at the moment is "staying in would be easier and more productive". Euratom is a case in point. The risks linked with leaving Euratom have been known about since June last year, and still, the UK did not move to mitigate them probably because no one at political level wanted to listen to specialists in the area and now they are frantically dancing on fire to try and sort out that matter.

In other words, there's a lot to be learned from listening to other voices when it comes to things like this. Theresa May does not deal with the day to day reality of buying radioactive material for cancer care but she should listen to people who do when it comes to changes in how that market will operate before she imposes those changes.

Cameron famously prevented contingency planning pre-referendum. It does not look like May has learned from that error.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/its/internationaltradeinservices2015/ see table 2a

notes here
http://www.cso.ie/en/methods/balanceofpayments/methodologydocuments/servicesexportsandimportsbackgroundnotes/

the big categories are Transport , Financial services, Insurance and "Trade related services"

If Ryanair move here and Iberia move to Spain then less to the UK also some Financial services are moving here.

Insurance yeah the UK companies have been sooo good to us. :rolleyes:

Other trade-related services consist of commissions earned by resident entities acting as agents for non-residents or paid to non-resident entities acting as agents for residents in connection with imports or exports of goods or services.

So UK services isn't as big an issue as you may think because a lot of UK firms will increase presence here or elsewhere in the UK as a workaround.

Or companies based in Ireland to supply services in the UK in order to exploit questionable tax loopholes, may just decide to up sticks and move to the UK.

DaniilKharms

Calina wrote: »

I think a couple of points need to be made clear.

1) the 100 billion figure.

This is not an EU figure. It is a figure calculated by the FT on the basis of items which the EU stated should be taken into consideration. One of the items on the agenda is to discussed how the figure due should be calculated. The EU's position has always been that this should be negotiated. As such, the 100 billion figure is meaningless at the moment and anyone who brings it up probably should stop because it is a media speculation rather than any ballpark issued by either the EU or the UK. The methodology for calculating outstanding liabilities in both directions is a matter for negotiation. Admittedly the UK appears to be somewhat unprepared for negotiations in general although if there is one department which appears to be more in tune with reality in terms of the behaviour of its Cabinet personnel, it is Treasury.

In sort the liability remains to be calculated and both parties have input into how that will be done.

2) the hole in the EU finances after Britain leaves and what will the EU do about the lack of the UK's ten billion or 8 billion or 11 billion depending on your source.

This is none of the UK's business and it has no bearing on the negotiations regardling an orderly exit. How the EU manages its budget, its contributions and its commitments when the UK leaves is not the UK's interest and that many Brexit and UK supporting parties continue to push at it means they have missed the key point: once the UK leaves the EU they have no seat at the table. The fact that the UK was a net contributor up to Brexit does not mean they have any post Brexit rights or input.

3) There seems to be an excessively simplistic view on how easy negotiating a post-Brexit trade agreement will be. Ideas that the UK can piggy back on CETA and use all that work are naive in the extreme. As a useful example of the sorts of things which are involved, I give you this piece on Phil Hogan's contribution to negotiations with Japan (source Politico) where the discussions boiled down to how much cheese would be traded. There are thousands of line items like this to be discussed in trade agreements anyway and then you add to this mix the UK's particular need for services which have not historically been covered by free trade agreements.

I really have no objection to Brexit supporters and UK supporters talk about making the best of it, and bright sunny futures and the opportunities offered by Brexit. What I'd like to see on their side is some remote understanding of the task ahead of them to get the UK even remotely close to a position it enjoys now (even post referendum). The fact is, the work required to achieve Brexit is monumental, the UK lacks the staff and it definitely lacks the political vision at the moment. The trade agreement on its own is huge beyond the imagination of many people given how many of them seem to think piggybacking on CETA is an option. The exit negotiations which come first are a voyage of discovery on both sides. Instead of embracing people with knowledge about how the EU works and knowledge of the corridors in the institutions, the UK has left key personnel leave, with some encouragement it must be said.

I just wish that Brexit supporters and UK supporters actually demonstrated some knowledge of the reality of the journey which is before them. The answer to almost every problem they are encountering at the moment is "staying in would be easier and more productive". Euratom is a case in point. The risks linked with leaving Euratom have been known about since June last year, and still, the UK did not move to mitigate them probably because no one at political level wanted to listen to specialists in the area and now they are frantically dancing on fire to try and sort out that matter.

In other words, there's a lot to be learned from listening to other voices when it comes to things like this. Theresa May does not deal with the day to day reality of buying radioactive material for cancer care but she should listen to people who do when it comes to changes in how that market will operate before she imposes those changes.

Cameron famously prevented contingency planning pre-referendum. It does not look like May has learned from that error.

The lead EU Brexit negotiator told Der Spiegel a while back that the divorce bill would be "high double figures".

So while the 100M is a guesstimate it's not miles from what the EU is going to expect. I can find that quote, for a link, but I can guarantee it's what he said. 100%.

Calina

DaniilKharms wrote: »

The lead EU Brexit negotiator told Der Spiegel a while back that the divorce bill would be "high double figures".

So while the 100M is a guesstimate it's not miles from what the EU is going to expect. I can find that quote, for a link, but I can guarantee it's what he said. 100%.

The point that needs to be made clearly is that the UK has input into how that is calculated, not what the figure ends up being per se.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Labour in the UK want the customs union and access to the single market.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/16/labour-rebecca-long-bailey-brexit-cake-and-eat-it

This is very diff to some of the views being put forward here. Lots of diff interpretations of the Brexit vote.

If LB are of this view, then it seems to me the majority of the House of Commons, hold to those views too.

The LB, SNP, PC, Green, even DUP along with some CON. I would think a majority. It would get through Parliament, its a reasonable negotiating position. The ball then is in the EU court.

Oh dear.

Lets suppose they get that through Parliament, how long do you think do it'll take the EU to respond ?

Since the freedoms and ECJ are a package deal the answer will be an instant "NO."


Turkey has to submit to the ECJ for the customs union. And that's against May's religion.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

The point that needs to be made clearly is that the UK has input into how that is calculated, not what the figure ends up being per se.

That's it exactly and whilst "no deal" is in no one's best interests, failure to reach an agreement does not necessarily mean the UK is being unreasonable. It could be that the eu is asking for too much.

If worst comes to worse, then it will end up in the Hague and the court there will have to determine what is reasonable and what isn't.

What interests me, is all the talk of pension figures. If the UK has to pay 8% of pension liabilities then we will all get to see just what these really are.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or companies based in Ireland to supply services in the UK in order to exploit questionable tax loopholes, may just decide to up sticks and move to the UK.

Being based in the UK means they can't use offshore loopholes so it's probably back to the Sark lark or similar.

Also UK corporation tax is higher.

So nah I don't see it as a major risk.


What would be scary would be if the UK opened the service industry to places like India.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Being based in the UK means they can't use offshore loopholes so it's probably back to the Sark lark or similar.

Also UK corporation tax is higher.

So nah I don't see it as a major risk.


What would be scary would be if the UK opened the service industry to places like India.

The eu has stated that it won't accept brass plate companies, are you suggesting the UK does?

mickoneill31

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or companies based in Ireland to supply services in the UK in order to exploit questionable tax loopholes, may just decide to up sticks and move to the UK.

And? What percentage is that likely to be?

DaniilKharms

Calina wrote: »

The point that needs to be made clearly is that the UK has input into how that is calculated, not what the figure ends up being per se.

Sure, and that's a reasonable thing to remember, but the second part of it is the real bottom line. The UK can't negotiate it away like some (Boris, cough) seems to think.

And until the UK starts behaving rationally - no real signs of that yet - these negotiations are will be at an impasse.

Fratton Fred

mickoneill31 wrote: »

And? What percentage is that likely to be?

Percentage of what?

Pretty much every multinational in Ireland sells products and services in the UK through its Irish subsidiary.

mickoneill31

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Percentage of what?

Pretty much every multinational in Ireland sells products and services in the UK through its Irish subsidiary.

You missed the second part of your post.

What percentage of companies are

"based in Ireland to supply services in the UK in order to exploit questionable tax loopholes"

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's it exactly and whilst "no deal" is in no one's best interests, failure to reach an agreement does not necessarily mean the UK is being unreasonable. It could be that the eu is asking for too much.

If worst comes to worse, then it will end up in the Hague and the court there will have to determine what is reasonable and what isn't.

What interests me, is all the talk of pension figures. If the UK has to pay 8% of pension liabilities then we will all get to see just what these really are.

Fred, it is fair to say that the UK's behaviour to date has been utterly unreasonable. Boris Johnson continues to be unreasonable. David Davis is slowly learning reality and he capitulated on the fight of the summer regarding negotiation sequences. If no deal is reached, I would assume it is because the UK does not want to reach a deal and certainly the behaviour of senior politicians - Theresa May's no deal is better than a bad deal comments for example - suggest that this is one direction being followed.

No one can really consider the UK governments' performance both post referendum and post election to be reasonable. The lack of contingency planning in Westminster was also completely unreasonable.

If you think it is reasonable, then I'm sorry, you are heading for reality. As regards the pensions issue, this is the first time I've seen you mention it so you'll forgive me if I say it looks like another bandwagon you've hopped on, in much the same as the 100 million was one, and how the EU will deal with the absence of the UK's contribution.

In short, if no deal happens, it will be happening either because the UK has not done its homework (obvious to date) or is being unreasonable (also clearly happening in the past year or so). The EU is ready with starting points for discussion and has been for months.

I'm waiting for the UK to turn in to a grown up negotiator here. I suspect senior civil servants in key departments are tearing their hair out but the lack of political nous, reality and vision is glaring.

Fratton Fred

mickoneill31 wrote: »

You missed the second part of your post.

What percentage of companies are

"based in Ireland to supply services in the UK in order to exploit questionable tax loopholes"

I put that wrong. But just looking at the company I work for, we have about 40 people in Dublin that support the UK in terms of both tech and sales support and that doesn't include the finance teams that manage the sales.

Then we also charge the UK company service charges on the property that is owned by the Irish company and other fees and charges for HR etc so that basically, the UK arm makes no money at all.

Google dies 25% of its EMEA business in the UK, but again, I believe this is all managed through Dublin. Buy an iPhone from apple direct in the UK and you are invoiced for it through Cork.

It's a minefield and, to go back to my point, it is in Ireland's interests that a free trade deal on services is concluded.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

Fred, it is fair to say that the UK's behaviour to date has been utterly unreasonable. Boris Johnson continues to be unreasonable. David Davis is slowly learning reality and he capitulated on the fight of the summer regarding negotiation sequences. If no deal is reached, I would assume it is because the UK does not want to reach a deal and certainly the behaviour of senior politicians - Theresa May's no deal is better than a bad deal comments for example - suggest that this is one direction being followed.

No one can really consider the UK governments' performance both post referendum and post election to be reasonable. The lack of contingency planning in Westminster was also completely unreasonable.

If you think it is reasonable, then I'm sorry, you are heading for reality. As regards the pensions issue, this is the first time I've seen you mention it so you'll forgive me if I say it looks like another bandwagon you've hopped on, in much the same as the 100 million was one, and how the EU will deal with the absence of the UK's contribution.

In short, if no deal happens, it will be happening either because the UK has not done its homework (obvious to date) or is being unreasonable (also clearly happening in the past year or so). The EU is ready with starting points for discussion and has been for months.

I'm waiting for the UK to turn in to a grown up negotiator here. I suspect senior civil servants in key departments are tearing their hair out but the lack of political nous, reality and vision is glaring.

It would make life a lot easier if you kept your posts shorter.

Boris isn't in the negotiations, so his comments can be pretty much ignored ( on this and most other things to be honest)

Of the actual negotiating team, I haven't heard anyone say that the UK won't pay anything.

And yes, no deal is better than a bad deal, because a bad deal is an open ended thing. We pretty much know what no deal means, it means WTO rules. We have no idea what a bad deal is.

murphaph

Johnson is the Foreign Secretary!

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And yes, no deal is better than a bad deal, because a bad deal is an open ended thing. We pretty much know what no deal means, it means WTO rules. We have no idea what a bad deal is.

Fred, the answer is in front of you. No deal IS a bad deal.

As a point of note, no deal would be the most undesirable of bad deals possible.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

Johnson is the Foreign Secretary!

But nothing to do with the Brexit negotiations.

Fratton Fred

Lemming wrote: »

Fred, the answer is in front of you. No deal IS a bad deal.

As a point of note, no deal would be the most undesirable of bad deals possible.

Would it?

Bad deal is not a defined term, is it, so it can mean anything.

Jim2007

Calina wrote: »

The lack of contingency planning in Westminster was also completely unreasonable.

I get the impression that the plan was to turn up, do a acceptable level of foot stamping to please the whole crowd, then accept whatever was on offer and have a sufficient majority in Westminster to push it through.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But nothing to do with the Brexit negotiations.

I'd disagree there. Good EU relations are essential for good negotiations. Boris being foreign secretary is like the minister for finance being homeless. He's an oaf that's well out of his depth.

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would it?

Fred. Please. Apply some common sense.

Please.

Bad deal is not a defined term, is it, so it can mean anything.

You are right, bad deal is not a defined term. It is safe to say, however, that it would not be intended to refer to sunny uplands with a super-car in every drive-way.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'd disagree there. Good EU relations are essential for good negotiations. Boris being foreign secretary is like the minister for finance being homeless. He's an oaf that's well out of his depth.

So is Junckers to be honest.

That's why neither if them are allowed to play with the grown ups.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So is Junckers to be honest.

That's why neither if them are allowed to play with the grown ups.

I'd agree there.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So is Junckers to be honest.

That's why neither if them are allowed to play with the grown ups.

Once again your lack of knowledge...

As Commission President Junkers gets to decide who the grown ups are.... Michel Barnier was appointed with Junkers approval.

Water John

I really find the lack of reality on the UK side, astounding, and shown here too. I would give good odds that the initial effort at talks will break down.

Without knowing/agreeing what they want, how can the UK negotiate?

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

CETA is just a FTA and does not cover the UK's biggest export... services. They obviously want more than a FTA such as CETA. Correct?

Good evening!

I wouldn't say "more" I would say "different". Canada exports more goods therefore it is going to seek a deal which is primarily for goods. Britain is different. But it is a similar sort of deal albeit more weighted on services than goods.

As for time. I personally don't mind a transition period. It is better to take time to get the best deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

But the transition period is now, until March 2019, unless otherwise agreed with all EU countries and some regions, 30+.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And yes, no deal is better than a bad deal, because a bad deal is an open ended thing. We pretty much know what no deal means, it means WTO rules. We have no idea what a bad deal is.

Why do those in charge then keep repeating a phrase if they have no idea what it means though? You just open yourself up to being shown as a hypocrite or at worst incompetent if the press decides that it is so.

So we know what a no deal means, but is a bad deal just below WTO terms? Halfway between EU membership and WTO terms? Its this kind of rhetoric that I think angers the electorate. They vote for those in power and then they just sprout nonsense there doesn't seem to be any progress. Just ask David Cameron this when he went to negotiate power back from the EU, without defining what powers he wanted to get back.