Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

theological

And there was a general election to elect a government. There will be other general elections to elect future governments which will stand on policy platforms in all of these areas.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

As I said before, the democratic will of the people would be for free beer on Sundays. Should that be respected

If parliament passes legislation to hold a referendum for free beer in a Sunday, holds the referendum and then passes legislation to provide free beer in Sundays then yes, it should be respected.

Leroy42

And if it turns out that it isn't free, but will costs loads, should people be expected to simply now pay for the beer?

First Up

Aegir wrote:

If parliament passes legislation to hold a referendum for free beer in a Sunday, holds the referendum and then passes legislation to provide free beer in Sundays then yes, it should be respected.

Why involve parliament? Surely the will of the people is all that counts?

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Why involve parliament? Surely the will of the people is all that counts?

this thread gets more and more bizarre by the day

Junkyard Tom

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why not. The EU is full of tin pot nations, UK could do what they liked. Nations of chumps. Do they have a catapult between them?

If Britain stopped Irish freight using its landbridge the EU could stop Britain using its landbridge and Britain would be destroyed.

Don't mess with us in the EU.

Bit cynical

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If Britain stopped Irish freight using its landbridge the EU could stop Britain using its landbridge and Britain would be destroyed.

I don't think the problem would be Britain preventing Ireland using the landbridge but rather that in case of a bad or no deal outcome, Irish goods at the far end would not be able to enter France from Britain as the EU would regard those goods as originating in the UK.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think the problem would be Britain preventing Ireland using the landbridge but rather that in case of a bad or no deal outcome, Irish goods at the far end would not be able to enter France from Britain as the EU would regard those goods as originating in the UK.

No. There'd be no reason to regard Irish-originating goods as originating in the UK.

There would be two different problems in a no-deal/minimal deal scenario. The first is general chaos and congestion at the Channel port, in which Irish goods would be caught up not because they are Irish goods but because they have to pass through the Channel ports. While it would actually make sense for the UK to establish a fast-track channel for Irish goods, sense is not something which has characterised the UK's implementation of Brexit at any point, and the political difficulties in being seen to prioritise Irish goods are obvious. So I don't think it will happen.

The second is that it would be necessary to document that Irish goods are, indeed, Irish goods, and this would involve a layer of paperwork and checking that they don't currently face. This isn't rocket science - internationally recognised procedures exist and could readily be implemented in this context - but nevertheless it represents a layer of bureaucracy and processing that the landbridge trade does not currently face.

Hamsterchops

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If Britain stopped Irish freight using its landbridge the EU could stop Britain using its landbridge and Britain would be destroyed.

Don't mess with us in the EU.

If Britain stopped Irish freight using .....

Britain has no intention of stopping Irish freight or closing itself off post Brexit, indeed the whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers.

Whatever happens, the UK certainly won't be pulling down the shutters on freight within these islands or with the EU continent.

New trade horizons 'outside EU bureaucracy is the 'Holy Grail' that Brexiteers seek to enhance the UK's trade around the globe.

UK > Irish > UK trade predates any EU structures, and the UK is not going to stop Irish freight traveling across Britain on the way to Europe...

Trade was never the point of Brexit. That was a late addition.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Trade was never the point of Brexit. That was a late addition.

I don't think this is right. The trading opportunities (supposedly) presented by Brexit were a core plank of the Vote Leave campaign right from the get-go (along with immigration control, national sovereignty and the fiscal benefit (supposedly) resulting from not having to pay EU budget contributions any more).

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think this is right. The trading opportunities (supposedly) presented by Brexit were a core plank of the Vote Leave campaign right from the get-go (along with immigration control, national sovereignty and the fiscal benefit (supposedly) resulting from not having to pay EU budget contributions any more).

I don't agree that "whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers." like Hamsterchops said. None of the Brexit supporters I knew in 2016 were talking about it. They were talking about the other three things you mentioned and that's where the votes came from imo.

I think it started becoming a core part of the Brexiteer chant when it started to become apparent during the WA negotiations that staying in the CU would hamper their potential deals with the US etc. Or maybe my memory is just crap.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't agree that "whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers." like Hamsterchops said. None of the Brexit supporters I knew in 2016 were talking about it. They were talking about the other three things you mentioned and that's where the votes came from.

I think it started becoming a core part of the Brexiteer chant when it started to become apparent during the WA negotiations that staying in the CU would hamper their potential deals with the US etc. Or maybe my memory is just crap.

Staying in the CU would completely put the kibosh on any UK deal at all with the US, or indeed with anyone else; CU members can't make meaningful trade deals on their own.

But if it's true that Brexiteers wanted to leave the CU in order to do a trade deal with the US, that very thing tells you that one of the attractions of Brexit for them was that it would open the way to a UK-US trade deal. And, therefore, Brexit was about trade for them. If it weren't, the inability to make a UK/US trade deal wouldn't have bothered them.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Staying in the CU would completely put the kibosh on any UK deal at all with the US, or indeed with anyone else; CU members can't make meaningful trade deals on their own.

But if it's true that Brexiteers wanted to leave the CU in order to do a trade deal with the US, that very thing tells you that one of the attractions of Brexit for them was that it would open the way to a UK-US trade deal. And, therefore, Brexit was about trade for them. If it weren't, the inability to make a UK/US trade deal wouldn't have bothered them.

That's a pretty big If at the start of that paragraph, though.

The media and public discourse in the UK has been anti-EU, not pro-US. I think that in a hypothetical world where the UK could either strike a perfect "bespoke" deal with the US / China and stay in the EU, or they could leave the EU but also get no trade deals with those countries, most Brexit supporters would choose the latter, because of the other reasons you mentioned previously.

The economics of it don't matter. The only financial thing that matters is not sending money to the EU.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a pretty big If at the start of that paragraph, though.

But I think it's implied ini what you yourself said:

Deleted User wrote: »

. . . I think [trade] started becoming a core part of the Brexiteer chant when it started to become apparent during the WA negotiations that staying in the CU would hamper their potential deals with the US etc.

This only makes sense if "potential deals with the US etc" were a core part of the reason for brexiting in the first place. If they weren't, hampering those deals would not be a problem, and would not be a factor that would steer the UK towards a painful, damaging hard Brexit.

Deleted User wrote: »

The media and public discourse in the UK has been anti-EU, not pro-US. I think that in a hypothetical world where the UK could either strike a perfect "bespoke" deal with the US / China and stay in the EU, or they could leave the EU but also get no trade deals with those countries, most Brexit supporters would choose the latter, because of the other reasons you mentioned previously.

The economics of it don't matter. The only financial thing that matters is not sending money to the EU.

It may be the case that, for some Brexiters, a professed desire for an independent trade policy is simply a rationalisation of an instinctive dislike of EU membership. One one level this makes sense, since a desire for an independent trade policy is very hard to justify in terms of benefitting the UK's trade. But it remains the case that, even if so, it wasn't a new or late-arriving rationalisation; it has been an explicit part of the case for Brexit right from the start of the referendum campaign.

(And of course the other arguments for Brexit may also be rationalisations. A lot of people's concern about controlling immigration, for example, was actually about controlling non-EU immigration, and the Leave campaigning played up to this. But the UK was always in control of non-EU immigration; it didn't need to Brexit in order to do this. And you point out yourself that the economic case for saving budget contributions doesn't stand up very well.)

All I know is I've seen the reasons being given my English friends change many times over the years, but they didn't land on trade until 2018-2019 or so. Their reasons basically followed what was the hot topic at the time, and now, that's trade.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/



Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”


So while as usual, your points are convincing, I'm gonna stick with my belief that trade is now the most important thing as it's simply the only potential tangible benefit of the whole thing. And all of this was just my response to a poster saying Brexit was about breaking down trade barriers.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

All I know is I've seen the reasons being given my English friends change many times over the years, but they didn't land on trade until 2018-2019 or so . . . I'm gonna stick with my belief that trade is now the most important thing as it's simply the only potential tangible benefit of the whole thing. And all of this was just my response to a poster saying Brexit was about breaking down trade barriers.

Well, fair enough. But I think we could cut to the chase by pointing out that the effect of Brexit is quite clearly to erect trade barriers, not to break them down.

(Which of course lends support to your view that concerns about trade are simply a rationalisation. If rational people were motivated by a desire to reduce or avoid trade barriers, they would not be Brexit supporters.)

First Up

Hamsterchops wrote:

Britain has no intention of stopping Irish freight or closing itself off post Brexit, indeed the whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers.

Now THAT's what I call bizarre.

ancapailldorcha

Trade in 2016 was a meaningless counterfoil to the economic argument to prevent arch-Brexiters looking stupid in debates. It also gave people facile talking points to parrot without thinking too much about the actual complexity of aligning towards Washington or Bejing. Very few people actually care about trade.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Trade in 2016 was a meaningless counterfoil to the economic argument to prevent arch-Brexiters looking stupid in debates. It also gave people facile talking points to parrot without thinking too much about the actual complexity of aligning towards Washington or Bejing. Very few people actually care about trade.

Even fewer seem to understand it. Some seem to think it happens automatically as a result of trade "deals". The reality is that every transaction is the result of negotiation between private companies who have a choice in who to do business with.

Brexit makes it harder to do business with companies in the UK.

timetogo1

US wants the EU to accept chemical washed chickens.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-27/chicken-chemicals-eu-trade

I presume the EU will resist. They say in the article that it's not chlorine anymore.
It doesn't mention that it wasn't the chlorine itself that the EU has a problem with but the poor practices that it allows for the animal.

So good luck to the UK in their trade deals. If the US are pushing the EU I'd imagine they have more leverage over the UK.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

Even fewer seem to understand it. Some seem to think it happens automatically as a result of trade "deals". The reality is that every transaction is the result of negotiation between private companies who have a choice in who to do business with.

Brexit makes it harder to do business with companies in the UK.

I've a friend in London working in the area and... yes. Trade is hugely complicated. Even maintaining the status quo is a huge struggle once you discount Brexit.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, fair enough. But I think we could cut to the chase by pointing out that the effect of Brexit is quite clearly to erect trade barriers, not to break them down.

(Which of course lends support to your view that concerns about trade are simply a rationalisation. If rational people were motivated by a desire to reduce or avoid trade barriers, they would not be Brexit supporters.)

it does within the EU members states, but there is an argument that it opens up trade with the rest of the world as the eu has, by its nature, become fairly protectionist.

For people like Steve Baker, Brexit has only ever been about free trade and little else.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

it does within the EU members states, but there is an argument that it opens up trade with the rest of the world as the eu has, by its nature, become fairly protectionist.

For people like Steve Baker, Brexit has only ever been about free trade and little else.

Why does the EU have so many trade deals then?

First Up

Aegir wrote:

it does within the EU members states, but there is an argument that it opens up trade with the rest of the world as the eu has, by its nature, become fairly protectionist.

The EU has, by its nature, become a formidable trade negotiator due to the size of its market, unified approach and the skills and experience of its negotiating team.

It will be interesting to see how many of the EU's trade agreements the UK can improve on when it negotiates on its own.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't agree that "whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers." like Hamsterchops said. None of the Brexit supporters I knew in 2016 were talking about it. They were talking about the other three things you mentioned and that's where the votes came from imo.

I think it started becoming a core part of the Brexiteer chant when it started to become apparent during the WA negotiations that staying in the CU would hamper their potential deals with the US etc. Or maybe my memory is just crap.

The point of Brexit was to get away from trade regulations that are part of the agreement that countries sign up to when they choose to deal with other countries in the EU, because the rich business classes who want to push it, wish to be free of such irritating things like controls on food quality.

To get it over the line, however, it was pushed on other bogus issues, like "sovereignty" and "immigration" that got the smaller minds so riled up.

Right now, it can anything to anyone in their own heads.

First Up

Tony EH wrote:

The point of Brexit was to get away from trade regulations that are part of the agreement that countries sign up to when they choose to deal with other countries in the EU, because the rich business classes who want to push it, wish to be free of such irritating things like controls on food quality.

Except that they will still have to comply with those regulations if they want to keep the half of their export business they do in/with the EU.

In my experience, the "rich business classes" (like the CBI) understand that perfectly well. Its the Sun readers who don't.

Tony EH

First Up wrote: »

Except that they will still have to comply with those regulations if they want to keep the half of their export business they do in/with the EU.

Yeh, but I think their the original position was just to leave and "deal with other countries", like Farage and Reece Mogg were peddling.

Over the course of time, it became clearer that actually leaving the EU customs area was a lot more complicated than they first thought and getting "deals" elsewhere not so handy.

First Up

Tony EH wrote:

Yeh, but I think their the original position was just to leave and "deal with other countries", like Farage and Reece Mogg were peddling.

They will do well to find enough "other countries" to replace the 46% they sell to the EU. I wonder what concessions they will need to make to strike deals. I know India is putting visas on the table.

Boredstiff666

First Up wrote: »

Even fewer seem to understand it. Some seem to think it happens automatically as a result of trade "deals". The reality is that every transaction is the result of negotiation between private companies who have a choice in who to do business with.

Brexit makes it harder to do business with companies in the UK.

No it doesnt. Thats where you prove with your comment you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

If I was making something simple like wooden boxes for anything. If I am in UK I can make boxes which are fit for purpose and as long as they are then they are a saleable item to anybody around the world who wants that product and deems it suitable.

If I was governed by for example regs which state wooden boxes have to be out of a certain wood of a certain grade of a certain etc etc etc. All may be fine but obviously make the product harder and more expensive to produce and may be overkill for the buyer. Then my boxes may have a problem competing with the UK boxes.

Just a very simple example but there you go.

Also the tax system. The UK can drop and abolish vat or any tax to suit now without having to worry or be breaking any rules from Brussels. The same with other things.