Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Phonehead

RobMc59 wrote: »

The unconditional blind devotion to the EU on this forum can be disturbing sometimes.-If Guinness sells most of its product to ROW and not the EU, isn't it reasonable to think a hard brexit may cause problems which may result in the owners reviewing it's strategy?And why can Guinness only be sold through the EU?-You are misguided and blinded by your inability to see any world beyond the EU.

You are assuming that the UK will have better trade deals with markets than the EU currently has. Im pretty sure that myth has been debunked by now

RobMc59

Igotadose wrote: »

Having a relative that worked at high level in Diageo up until a few years ago, rest assured they're not worrying so much about the UK market. They're expanding as fast as they can where the growth is - China and Africa.

Would that be prior to the brexit referendum?
Isn't the goal of big companies to expand their sales.They don't need to worry about the UK established stout/porter market which is pretty much invincible(all due respect to beamish and Murphys)

Igotadose

RobMc59 wrote: »

Would that be prior to the brexit referendum?
Isn't the goal of big companies to expand their sales.They don't need to worry about the UK established stout/porter market which is pretty much invincible(all due respect to beamish and Murphys)

Yes, Diageo's not been focusing big investment in the UK for some time. . So, if the UK market shrinks, I doubt Diageo'll notice when they're selling like hotcakes in China and Africa

Christy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

Rhineshark wrote: »

*facepalm* No, as is blatantly obvious. I am referring to your completely ignoring that Ireland is part of the EU in your argument. Why is the only part you respond to the bit that you spectacularly misunderstood?

And again now, why is trade of Guinness to the UK more important than to the rest of the world, especially Africa? The UK might think trade with ROW isn't through the EU, but you know better, soo...?

The unconditional blind devotion to the EU on this forum can be disturbing sometimes.-If Guinness sells most of its product to ROW and not the EU, isn't it reasonable to think a hard brexit may cause problems which may result in the owners reviewing it's strategy?And why can Guinness only be sold through the EU?-You are misguided and blinded by your inability to see any world beyond the EU.

The EU is a safer bet to get better trade deals. Sure Guinness largely deals with ROW but moving production to the UK is unlikely to help it sell more in Africa so who cares?

May as well sell from Ireland where it has the infrastructure already set up and continue on as normal. As has been said they may open a brewery for the UK market only but I see little reason to move all production there.

RobMc59

Rhineshark wrote: »

Sigh. Because our external trade is done through the EU.

If there is a hard brexit, what will happen to UK owned companies with facilities in the EU,-taking into account some of these companies may do their biggest business outside the EU?Will they be forced to move?-Because one of those companies is Guinness doesn't make it a "special case"and can stay .In addition ,the UK may not be trading through the EU then.

Muscles Schultz

Methinks this thread needs another troll derinse

RobMc59

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Methinks this thread needs another troll derinse

If you see anyone with a different opinion to yours as a troll that's pretty blinkered if you don't mind me saying.

An Ciarraioch

RobMc59 wrote: »

Rhineshark wrote: »

Sigh. Because our external trade is done through the EU.

If there is a hard brexit, what will happen to UK owned companies with facilities in the EU,-taking into account some of these companies may do their biggest business outside the EU?Will they be forced to move?-Because one of those companies is Guinness doesn't make it a "special case"and can stay .In addition ,the UK may not be trading through the EU then.

They'll do what most banks have already done - set up a European holding company to manage their EU operations and cover their bases in both markets.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you see anyone with a different opinion to yours as a troll that's pretty blinkered if you don't mind me saying.

Different opinions are fine. Tiresome and badly made arguments that are largely nonsense are not.

McGiver

The so called Norway+ is getting some traction. I don't think it's a politically viable option. Also, EFTA would most likely do not want politically unstable and untrustworthy UK in the club:
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146?s=19

While I think EFTA membership would probably suit the UK better than the half-in-half-out EU membership in the sense that it avoids political integration and focuses on trade and economic integration, the price for this "freedom from political integration "is rather large and I think UK wouldn't be able swallow it:
- accept the FOM
- accept payment of SM membership and MFF (aka EU budget) contributions with no way to influence allocation
- accept all EU SM regulations with no way to shape them
- accept the ECJ (albeit via EFTA court) oversight with no representation in the ECJ
- accept other EFTA member vetoes
- accept trade deals agreed by the EFTA members (assuming the UK doesn't form CU with the EU)

"Sovereignty" (i.e. freedom of EU integration) comes at a price of losing political influence. This could be seen as a true vassal state status by rabid Brexiteers. What is getting more evident that in globalised international trade environment real sovereignty doesn't exist. All countries are arranging themselves into the trade blocks and many times also add a political layer on top. Total Sovereignty is possible for some state in Oceania perhaps, but not for a European country which is integrated with, borders and depends on the largest and richest area on Earth.

Rhineshark

RobMc59 wrote: »

If there is a hard brexit, what will happen to UK owned companies with facilities in the EU,-taking into account some of these companies may do their biggest business outside the EU?Will they be forced to move?-Because one of those companies is Guinness doesn't make it a "special case"and can stay .In addition ,the UK may not be trading through the EU then.

The UK might not be but Diageo's Guinness company, resident in Ireland, will be. If Diageo pull up sticks and decamp to the UK they will not be.

The bigger issue for Guinness post-Brexit is that much of the packaging is done in Belfast. Not that the UK pulling out will magically disappear all of Guinness' export destinations.

edit: UK owned companies trading with RoW have been more likely to move to EU countries to keep access to EU and RoW markets so far.

J Mysterio

RobMc59 wrote: »

If there is a hard brexit, what will happen to UK owned companies with facilities in the EU,-taking into account some of these companies may do their biggest business outside the EU?Will they be forced to move?-Because one of those companies is Guinness doesn't make it a "special case"and can stay .In addition ,the UK may not be trading through the EU then.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are talking nonsense, please stop.

Guinness is just one of a wide range of products that Diageo - a giant - have in their portfolio.

Diageo are doing very well with 3 billion profit year on year and strong growth in the EU.

Diageo’s sales rise with Guinness, gin driving European growth.
Organic growth overcomes currency headwinds

Guinness will never cease production in Ireland. It is vital for the brand that they do not as Guinness is synonymous with Ireland and the branding is paramount. The Guinness Storehouse is and has been in the top 5 tourist destinations in Ireland for years and is a huge money spinner, despite not being very interesting.

Your argument is just poor.

J Mysterio

McGiver wrote: »

The so called Norway+ is getting some traction. I don't think it's a politically viable option. Also, EFTA would most likely do not want politically unstable and untrustworthy UK in the club:
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146?s=19

While I think EFTA membership would probably suit the UK better than the half-in-half-out EU membership in the sense that it avoids political integration and focuses on trade and economic integration, the price for this "freedom from political integration "is rather large and I think UK wouldn't be able swallow it:
- accept the FOM
- accept payment of SM membership and MFF (aka EU budget) contributions with no way to influence allocation
- accept all EU SM regulations with no way to shape them
- accept the ECJ (albeit via EFTA court) oversight with no representation in the ECJ
- accept other EFTA member vetoes
- accept trade deals agreed by the EFTA members (assuming the UK doesn't form CU with the EU)

"Sovereignty" (i.e. freedom of EU integration) comes at a price of losing political influence. This could be seen as a true vassal state status by rabid Brexiteers. What is getting more evident that in globalised international trade environment real sovereignty doesn't exist. All countries are arranging themselves into the trade blocks and many times also add a political layer on top. Total Sovereignty is possible for some state in Oceania perhaps, but not for a European country which is integrated with, borders and depends on the largest and richest area on Earth.

Could be wrong, but the other EFTA countries have a say in the UK joining? Its my understanding that Norway are against this.

An Ciarraioch

McGiver wrote: »

The so called Norway+ is getting some traction. I don't think it's a politically viable option. Also, EFTA would most likely do not want politically unstable and untrustworthy UK in the club:
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146?s=19

While I think EFTA membership would probably suit the UK better than the half-in-half-out EU membership in the sense that it avoids political integration and focuses on trade and economic integration, the price for this "freedom from political integration "is rather large and I think UK wouldn't be able swallow it:
- accept the FOM
- accept payment of SM membership and MFF (aka EU budget) contributions with no way to influence allocation
- accept all EU SM regulations with no way to shape them
- accept the ECJ (albeit via EFTA court) oversight with no representation in the ECJ
- accept other EFTA member vetoes
- accept trade deals agreed by the EFTA members (assuming the UK doesn't form CU with the EU)

"Sovereignty" (i.e. freedom of EU integration) comes at a price of losing political influence. This could be seen as a true vassal state status by rabid Brexiteers. What is getting more evident that in globalised international trade environment real sovereignty doesn't exist. All countries are arranging themselves into the trade blocks and many times also add a political layer on top. Total Sovereignty is possible for some state in Oceania perhaps, but not for a European country which is integrated with, borders and depends on the largest and richest area on Earth.

Indeed - Tony Connelly points out that Norway Plus would largely involve meeting the requirements of the WA. Nick Boles, erroneously, suggests that EEA status could simply transfer after Brexit, but in truth, it needs the consent of the 31 members and an interim bespoke status:

http://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1071332541427343361

Anthracite

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you choose to ignore the fact that the EU ISN'T the biggest market for Guinness and somehow think Irelands economy isn't subject to EU rules because it doesn't suit you to say that then fine-there will never be a problem for a British owned company in the EU in the event of a hard brexit because Ireland are exempt from that situation and don't have to follow EU rules.

Still no idea what your point is.

RobMc59

J Mysterio wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are talking nonsense, please stop.

Guinness is just one of a wide range of products that Diageo - a giant - have in their portfolio.

Diageo are doing very well with 3 billion profit year on year and strong growth in the EU.

Diageo’s sales rise with Guinness, gin driving European growth.
Organic growth overcomes currency headwinds

Guinness will never cease production in Ireland. It is vital for the brand that they do not as Guinness is synonymous with Ireland and the branding is paramount. The Guinness Storehouse is and has been in the top 5 tourist destinations in Ireland for years and is a huge money spinner, despite not being very interesting.

Your argument is just poor.

You overestimate the importance of sentimentality and if the EU decrees UK companies will be hobbled or excluded from EU trading then what is traditionally important won't matter.

An Ciarraioch

An interesting contrast between Irish and UK attitudes towards immigration in the context of Brexit arose on another forum - basically Eastern Europeans were regarded as lowering wages and thereby acting as competition for people in the working class, which may well have some merit, but the discussion in this country seems to have more of a community-based focus, such as prioritising language learning, and the impact on schools, sports clubs, local resources, etc.

Hurrache

Based on the last few hours I figure the future of Guinness will feature in the parliament debates next week? FIts in perfect with the narrative of how the UK government has been avoiding the real issues anyway.

First Up

J Mysterio wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

The so called Norway+ is getting some traction. I don't think it's a politically viable option. Also, EFTA would most likely do not want politically unstable and untrustworthy UK in the club:
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146?s=19

While I think EFTA membership would probably suit the UK better than the half-in-half-out EU membership in the sense that it avoids political integration and focuses on trade and economic integration, the price for this "freedom from political integration "is rather large and I think UK wouldn't be able swallow it:
- accept the FOM
- accept payment of SM membership and MFF (aka EU budget) contributions with no way to influence allocation
- accept all EU SM regulations with no way to shape them
- accept the ECJ (albeit via EFTA court) oversight with no representation in the ECJ
- accept other EFTA member vetoes
- accept trade deals agreed by the EFTA members (assuming the UK doesn't form CU with the EU)

"Sovereignty" (i.e. freedom of EU integration) comes at a price of losing political influence. This could be seen as a true vassal state status by rabid Brexiteers. What is getting more evident that in globalised international trade environment real sovereignty doesn't exist. All countries are arranging themselves into the trade blocks and many times also add a political layer on top. Total Sovereignty is possible for some state in Oceania perhaps, but not for a European country which is integrated with, borders and depends on the largest and richest area on Earth.

Could be wrong, but the other EFTA countries have a say in the UK joining? Its my understanding that Norway are against this.

EFTA countries are a leery of the UK joining as a temporary vehicle of convenience while it looks for something better. If they do apply they can expect a cautious response and a fair few hoops to jump through.

Daemonic

RobMc59 wrote: »

If there is a hard brexit, what will happen to UK owned companies with facilities in the EU,-taking into account some of these companies may do their biggest business outside the EU?Will they be forced to move?-Because one of those companies is Guinness doesn't make it a "special case"and can stay .In addition ,the UK may not be trading through the EU then.

If you're asking if a company who is based in the UK but produces one of it's products in a EU country will have problems continuing to do that, then no, they won't.
They'll have a company registered in the manufacturing location and will just continue to use that. Diageo Ireland has it headquarters at St James Gate - https://search.cro.ie/company/CompanyDetails.aspx?id=22876&type=C

EDIT: the CRO website doesn't allow a direct link, but if you put Diageo into the Company search, the second item is Diageo Ireland. I'd suggest a search for the vast majority of UK companies will return a similar Irish registered entity.

Dont be at yourself

I think Diageo will be more concerned about selling their vast array of Scotch whiskys to the rest of the EU (and beyond). Irish Whiskey, of which Diageo has no real market share, is already the fastest growing spirit in the world, and this could be a further tailwind.

Whisky production is a long-term investment, and when the whiskeys on shelves now were being distilled, Brexit wasn't even a likely prospect. I imagine the uncertainty since the vote has made planning along these time horizons a real headache.

Water John

Lots of options still there when TM's Deal is voted down. Here is Prodi giving strong hints to that effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/eu-will-negotiate-after-may-loses-commons-brexit-vote-says-prodi

An Ciarraioch

Water John wrote: »

Lots of options still there when TM's Deal is voted down. Here is Prodi giving strong hints to that effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/eu-will-negotiate-after-may-loses-commons-brexit-vote-says-prodi

One of the better British correspondents in Brussels suggests the exact opposite:

http://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1071371955624906753

Gerry T

Water John wrote: »

Lots of options still there when TM's Deal is voted down. Here is Prodi giving strong hints to that effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/eu-will-negotiate-after-may-loses-commons-brexit-vote-says-prodi

First enough of the guinness nonsense. It's a total non story, the UK guinness market is small and Guinness isn't moving there.

I wouldn't necessarily pay a lot of heed to what Prodi is saying. The EU has nothing to gain by going back to the table, they must know the UK would see that as a victory and the negotiation would move to extending A50 and more concessions, even then a deal would prove elusive. If the UK don't take the transition deal on offer then why delay a hard brexit to Dec2020, just have it Mar2019

Water John

The EU would certainly be up for a Norway + style deal or the Crobyn option of permanent CU, but you'll see no move in the next week/ten days.

EdgeCase

Gerry T wrote: »

First enough of the guinness nonsense. It's a total non story, the UK guinness market is small and Guinness isn't moving there.

I wouldn't necessarily pay a lot of heed to what Prodi is saying. The EU has nothing to gain by going back to the table, they must know the UK would see that as a victory and the negotiation would move to extending A50 and more concessions, even then a deal would prove elusive. If the UK don't take the transition deal on offer then why delay a hard brexit to Dec2020, just have it Mar2019

I agree the Guinness thing is nonsense. It's one beverage in a huge multinational company, Diageo. It's not even a massive product in Britain. All it will mean is the price of Guinness and pretty much every other imported beer, wine and spirit in Britain will go up significantly and if £ takes a significant tumble, they'll become even more expensive relative to UK average income.

Diageo major concern would be UK-produced products notably (as mentioned above) Scotch Whisky which has a major EU market and may be impacted in non-EU markets due to the UK no longer being part of EU global trade deals.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

The EU would certainly be up for a Norway + style deal or the Crobyn option of permanent CU, but you'll see no move in the next week/ten days.

Indeed they would but there are a few problems. Norway don't want the UK in th EEA. Also, the Norway option means that the UK agrees to the four freedoms so if they add a customs union, i.e. Norway +, then they would be far better off remaining. Norway contributes nearly as much per head to the EU as Britain does currently but they have no real decision making powers. If the UK goes for the Norway option it will take up to a year to finalise. Finally, it's true that a lot MPs want a Norway deal but many of them want it as a temporary measure - there is no way the EU would agree to that.

J Mysterio

Met Police bracing for disorder at Brexit 'betrayal' march led by Tommy Robinson as protesters praise France's yellow vests

Police are bracing for potential violence and disorder at a Brexit march led by Tommy Robinson and Ukip, as some demonstrators look to France’s “yellow vests” protesters for inspiration.

Roads in central London are to be closed off for Sunday’s “Brexit betrayal” demonstration and counter-protests, and officers may ask bars and pubs to shut in the surrounding area.

Robinson, the English Defence League (EDL) founder who has been welcomed into the Ukip fold as an adviser to leader Gerard Batten, has praised rioters in Paris on social media.

Sharing footage of violence and vandalism to his more than one million Facebook followers, he characterised the movement as “anger at the corrupt political class”.

RobMc59

Daemonic wrote: »

If you're asking if a company who is based in the UK but produces one of it's products in a EU country will have problems continuing to do that, then no, they won't.
They'll have a company registered in the manufacturing location and will just continue to use that. Diageo Ireland has it headquarters at St James Gate - https://search.cro.ie/company/CompanyDetails.aspx?id=22876&type=C

EDIT: the CRO website doesn't allow a direct link, but if you put Diageo into the Company search, the second item is Diageo Ireland. I'd suggest a search for the vast majority of UK companies will return a similar Irish registered entity.

THANK YOU-finally someone answers my question without the hysterical banshee like wailing of an EU acolyte !:)

flatty

Amber Rudd seems to have been sent out to fly a kite.