Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

listermint

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The discussion is about Irish exports primarily. For the vast majority of exporters, Bilbao wouldn't make sense. The idea that a land bridge is just "nice to have" is very wrong in my opinion. Though not for all, for many exporters to the EU, a doubling or tripling of their delivery time is a serious problem for a variety of reasons. If needed next January, are there sufficient ferries ready to replace the land bridge for 150,000 trucks? I doubt that very much.

I started the conversation many posts back by positing that this Tory government is both stupid and fanatical enough to plunge the UK into a WTO chaos next January. If that chaos turns sour, which is probable, we will be used as a hostage. I hope I'm wrong and the UK comes to its senses. If it doesn't and they decide to mess us around, we will take an economic cold shower. That is certain.

But based on all recent posts the conversation was about food being imported. Not Irish exports... Did it switch ?

Gerry T

Professor Moriarty wrote:

The discussion is about Irish exports primarily. For the vast majority of exporters, Bilbao wouldn't make sense. The idea that a land bridge is just "nice to have" is very wrong in my opinion. Though not for all, for many exporters to the EU, a doubling or tripling of their delivery time is a serious problem for a variety of reasons. If needed next January, are there sufficient ferries ready to replace the land bridge for 150,000 trucks? I doubt that very much.

A lot of our exports goto the UK, I presume they would still want that, alot of it is consumables, from memory that accounts for about 10% of our exports, a report i read said the current shipping direct to europe capacity could cater for up to 80% of our exports. With other ships being redirected i do think we can manage. It would difficult, inclement weather im sure would affect that and short life produce would be affected but your talking an extra day tops, that won't affect most consumers.
If we do have JIT industry they only need order a day earlier, using the mv seline or delphine would guarantee delivery times.
There are risks and downside for sure, but there is a way forward.
But there will be upside, IRL can now get string links to large EU suppliers rather than been seen as a subset of the UK, which we have been historically. This will cut out the UK middleman. I can see greater variety and range of product for companies and consumers, lots of opportunity !

Professor Moriarty

listermint wrote: »

But based on all recent posts the conversation was about food being imported. Not Irish exports... Did it switch ?

Not the discussion I was having. Certainly not the posts that responded to me and vice versa. Maybe it switched recently and I didn't notice!

Professor Moriarty

Gerry T wrote: »

A lot of our exports goto the UK, I presume they would still want that, alot of it is consumables, from memory that accounts for about 10% of our exports, a report i read said the current shipping direct to europe capacity could cater for up to 80% of our exports. With other ships being redirected i do think we can manage. It would difficult, inclement weather im sure would affect that and short life produce would be affected but your talking an extra day tops, that won't affect most consumers.
If we do have JIT industry they only need order a day earlier, using the mv seline or delphine would guarantee delivery times.
There are risks and downside for sure, but there is a way forward.
But there will be upside, IRL can now get string links to large EU suppliers rather than been seen as a subset of the UK, which we have been historically. This will cut out the UK middleman. I can see greater variety and range of product for companies and consumers, lots of opportunity !

Couldn't agree more. All change is painful but we have to cut what's left of the apron strings.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Increased travel time from 20 hours to a minimum of 40 hours for RoRo and 60 hours for LoLo with consequential very negative impacts for JIT goods and not just agri-food. The idea that a No Brexit scenario won't hurt us all that much, and sure it'll be grand, makes no sense.

If there is no deal and the projections for delay at the Channel ports prove correct, then hauliers will be waiting an extra 48-72 hours on one side of the Channel or the other, and possibly as much as seven days according to some of the worst-case scenarios. I have seen, with my own eyes, trucks parked up at the France-Switzerland border for 48 hours at the weekend, and that's a border that works smoothly (except when its closed at the weekend) so I would expect any haulier to be looking at their projected future travel times with that frontier as a model. When you add an uncertain 48 to an existing 20 hours (with the possibility of at least another 48), you're now over the 60 hours by an alternative, reliable route.

Remember: the UK does not currently have enough customs officers trained or deployed to deal with the new procedures, nor does the UK currently have enough space to park loaded trailers while their understaffed customs tries to process loads that have never had to have this kind of paperwork before. There is no point arguing timescales based on what's normal for now when they are guaranteed to change for the worse in four months' time.

RobMc59

Gerry T wrote: »

A lot of our exports goto the UK, I presume they would still want that, alot of it is consumables, from memory that accounts for about 10% of our exports, a report i read said the current shipping direct to europe capacity could cater for up to 80% of our exports. With other ships being redirected i do think we can manage. It would difficult, inclement weather im sure would affect that and short life produce would be affected but your talking an extra day tops, that won't affect most consumers.
If we do have JIT industry they only need order a day earlier, using the mv seline or delphine would guarantee delivery times.
There are risks and downside for sure, but there is a way forward.
But there will be upside, IRL can now get string links to large EU suppliers rather than been seen as a subset of the UK, which we have been historically. This will cut out the UK middleman. I can see greater variety and range of product for companies and consumers, lots of opportunity !

That`s if you can avoid all the madmax style British pirates,buccaneers and brigands lurking ready to pounce following the UK becoming a dystopian wasteland (according to the sun..)

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

If there is no deal and the projections for delay at the Channel ports prove correct, then hauliers will be waiting an extra 48-72 hours on one side of the Channel or the other, and possibly as much as seven days according to some of the worst-case scenarios. I have seen, with my own eyes, trucks parked up at the France-Switzerland border for 48 hours at the weekend, and that's a border that works smoothly (except when its closed at the weekend) so I would expect any haulier to be looking at their projected future travel times with that frontier as a model. When you add an uncertain 48 to an existing 20 hours (with the possibility of at least another 48), you're now over the 60 hours by an alternative, reliable route.

Remember: the UK does not currently have enough customs officers trained or deployed to deal with the new procedures, nor does the UK currently have enough space to park loaded trailers while their understaffed customs tries to process loads that have never had to have this kind of paperwork before. There is no point arguing timescales based on what's normal for now when they are guaranteed to change for the worse in four months' time.

Agreed. It will be an absolute clusterfúck for the UK. Which, by extension, means it will have a seriously adverse effect on Ireland. And that will be compounded if they throw the toys out of the pram and start lashing out at the the EU. Current arrangements are what would suit Ireland best but in that scenario, going from 20 to 40 or 60 hours will seem like a godsend. However, it is just the lesser of two evils.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

That`s if you can avoid all the madmax style British pirates,buccaneers and brigands lurking ready to pounce following the UK becoming a dystopian wasteland (according to the sun..)

Not according to the sun.


Don't confuse the sun with the government's own report.


Try according to the government's own disaster assessment.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

Not according to the sun.


Don't confuse the sun with the government's own report.


Try according to the government's own disaster assessment.

Which makes any reasonably sane person think why the hell are`nt the UK government at least asking for a further extension beyond December if they still don`t know what it is they want exactly?Or am I missing something that johnson and co can see?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

Which makes any reasonably sane person think why the hell are`nt the UK government at least asking for a further extension beyond December if they still don`t know what it is they want exactly?Or am I missing something that johnson and co can see?

Majority incompetence small minority malevolent. Like seriously malevolent.

Capt'n Midnight

listermint wrote: »

Majority incompetence small minority malevolent. Like seriously malevolent.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice, or malice and stupidity.

Seth Brundle

Brexit-voting Cornwall demands £700m from the government to make up for lost EU funding
Not really sure what I can say on this

Capt'n Midnight

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Brexit-voting Cornwall demands £700m from the government to make up for lost EU funding
Not really sure what I can say on this

How about ?

This is a disaster for Cornwall. Years of special EU funding for Cornwall are going to end.

"That funding has given us fibre broadband, a university, superb sixth form colleges, dual carriageways, airport investment, rail improvement, support for farmers and all kinds of business."

...
"It's Ok though we can carry on being serfs in a theme park for second home owners and their children."

From 24 June 2016

ancapailldorcha

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Well they are about to learn how little power/influence the have over Westminster

All the Tories have to do is say "no" and in 4-5 years come next election the populace of Cornwall will forget or move onto other issues

I don't see this getting forgotten anytime soon.

£700 is not a small sum of money. Johnson won in 2019 on a "Get Brexit Done" platform combined with repeated messages about "levelling up". As things stand, the UK is heading for an artificial recession and that's without figuring in the economic effects of Covid.

There isn't a wealth of incentive for firms to invest in Cornwall. It's quite far from London and is quite far away from any renowned University or any other significant institution hence why it was so heavily subsidised by the EU.

To be frank, I'm quite fatigued when it comes to the concerns of people voted Brexit and then Conservative twice. The UK can't progress as a country until it reconciles the factors that impelled 52% of the public to choose Brexit in June 2016.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see this getting forgotten anytime soon.

£700 is not a small sum of money. Johnson won in 2019 on a "Get Brexit Done" platform combined with repeated messages about "levelling up". As things stand, the UK is heading for an artificial recession and that's without figuring in the economic effects of Covid.

There isn't a wealth of incentive for firms to invest in Cornwall. It's quite far from London and is quite far away from any renowned University or any other significant institution hence why it was so heavily subsidised by the EU.

To be frank, I'm quite fatigued when it comes to the concerns of people voted Brexit and then Conservative twice. The UK can't progress as a country until it reconciles the factors that impelled 52% of the public to choose Brexit in June 2016.

It is more that the 48% who voted to remain were shouted down and otherwise completely ignored, and not considered at any point by the Bexiteers.

How is that democracy - it is just majority rule, with no room for the minority.

This can only end badly.

An Ciarraioch

This EU-US "mini-deal" was announced today - granted the amounts are tiny compared with what a more comprehensive agreement would offer, but that presumably will have to wait until next year, regardless of who wins:

https://twitter.com/Trade_EU/status/1297798385328685057

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is more that the 48% who voted to remain were shouted down and otherwise completely ignored, and not considered at any point by the Bexiteers.

How is that democracy - it is just majority rule, with no room for the minority.

This can only end badly.

It's democracy in a technical sense of the term. Your criticism only applies if the government is concerned about making British society less divided when in fact the opposite is true when we saw Johnson used the schism in UK society to win the last election.

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The UK electorate has forgotten 10 years of chronic NHS underfunding, which got highlighted so badly during the pandemic.

We're still a ways off from normality and the pandemic has exposed the inequalities that are rampant in this country. I don't think it's fair to say that they've forgotten the 10 years of austerity. I think that it's fallen by the wayside while the pandemic endures.

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Ironically 700 million seems like 2 weeks of Boris driving a red bus around the UK right?

Well, no. It's money that was spent by the EU in a specific area which is deprived. There is a lot of the UK that is deprived, disproportionately so in relation to the rest of northern Europe:



A lot of areas that were erstwhile Labour safe seats flipped which resulted in Johnson's majority. With a competent Labour leader now, he really needs to keep those seats and if the voters in these areas don't see some form of improvement then I can't see him winning in 2024. I think he has overextended himself far too much.

serfboard

Gerry T wrote: »

there will be upside, IRL can now get string links to large EU suppliers rather than been seen as a subset of the UK, which we have been historically. This will cut out the UK middleman. I can see greater variety and range of product for companies and consumers, lots of opportunity !

It's interesting to think about a scenario where an EU-UK deal is done last minute - by that stage Irish companies will have made their new links with EU suppliers and customers. Imagine the UK middlemen now looking to rebuild their business with Irish companies at the end of December.

The response? "Sorry, buddy - too late. We've already made alternative arrangements. Blame your government for that."

Gerry T

serfboard wrote:

The response? "Sorry, buddy - too late. We've already made alternative arrangements. Blame your government for that."

A friend runs a large building contractor company, turnover well in excess of 50m, anyway back on 2016 he would have been directed by manufacturers to the UK "agent". For items such as granite, windows, doors etc... since then they have switched to deal direct, where a manufacturer wouldn't entertain it before they are now. Its saved him a fortune.

swampgas

serfboard wrote: »

It's interesting to think about a scenario where an EU-UK deal is done last minute - by that stage Irish companies will have made their new links with EU suppliers and customers. Imagine the UK middlemen now looking to rebuild their business with Irish companies at the end of December.

The response? "Sorry, buddy - too late. We've already made alternative arrangements. Blame your government for that."

On top of that (and I've no idea how big an issue it is) would not having to worry about the sterling exchange rate be another benefit?

Hermy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A lot of areas that were erstwhile Labour safe seats flipped which resulted in Johnson's majority. With a competent Labour leader now, he really needs to keep those seats and if the voters in these areas don't see some form of improvement then I can't see him winning in 2024. I think he has overextended himself far too much.

Supposing Labour were to win in '24 what could they do in the short to medium term to mitigate for the damage the Tories will have done to the country?

Peregrinus

Hermy wrote: »

Supposing Labour were to win in '24 what could they do in the short to medium term to mitigate for the damage the Tories will have done to the country?

Open accession negotations and seek to move rapidly to an interim agreement under which the UK reconnects with the single market and the customs union.

Politically, I don't think that would be a flier. But if your priority was damage mitigation, that is what you would be aiming for.

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

On top of that (and I've no idea how big an issue it is) would not having to worry about the sterling exchange rate be another benefit?

Not really. If it would be beneficial for an Irish business to deal directly with euroland so as not to have to worry about sterling exchange fluctuations, that business would be dealing directly with euroland already - there are no barriers to them do so.

sandbelter

Hermy wrote: »

Supposing Labour were to win in '24 what could they do in the short to medium term to mitigate for the damage the Tories will have done to the country?

The best they could hope for is an EEA type agreement.

the UK is done in the EU for a generation, and we still have worst part ahead of us. Fishermen clashing in the channel, possible Scottish referendum, UK plant closure's blame for which the Daily mail, Express and Telegraph will lay at Brussels feet. So I don't see it happening for four reasons.

First, the "red wall" won't be as forgiving of the EU as the plants close which will cut Labour's room to move. He'd need a pro-European conservative so he's not out flanked so it's effectively an all party affair.

Secondly, it would more importantly it would require the UK to recognize the "special relationship" with the US is not a substitute, but a compliment to a good Brussels relationship....but do we need to mention Anglosphere?

Thirdly, I'm not sure they is really much appetite in the EU for a British return. The EU works much better without their obstructionism (the recent COVID rescue package would in all likelihood been vetoed by a UK government), in France there's a quiet realization De Gaulle might have been right all along, Italy isn't keen to lose it's new found diplomatic clout as Europe's No 3, Spain has Gibraltar to consider. Did I mention the marbles?

Fourthly, China, without the UK the EU can take a more neutral role in any Sino-American face off. After all, in 2024 we could have Trump in power, and we may all be happy with that opt out.

No, the UK is ready to rejoin the EU is the day is the day English soccer crowds stop singing "ten German bombers".

listermint

'F#+k business'

When someone tells you who they are believe them. They are pushing for no deal. When these words were uttered they meant stop whining about what you want we know what we want.

Often people don't bother listening or seeing what's in front of them. As is what is occurring across the pond.

Going Strong

sandbelter wrote: »

First, the "red wall" won't be as forgiving of the EU as the plants close which will cut Labour's room to move. He'd need a pro-European conservative so he's not out flanked so it's effectively an all party affair.

Not forgetting that the Remainer argument is pretty much "Let's turn the clock back to before the referendum and pretend none of this ever happened."


Which won't solve any of the UK's internal issues that brought about Brexit in the first place.

timetogo1

Going Strong wrote: »

Not forgetting that the Remainer argument is pretty much "Let's turn the clock back to before the referendum and pretend none of this ever happened."


Which won't solve any of the UK's internal issues that brought about Brexit in the first place.

The remainder argument is gone. Brexit is done. Now it's just damage limitation.
The main internal issue I think the UK has is its internal media. Some of the media are anti EU and have been saying anything over the last 20 years to make the EU look bad. The UK government played along as it sorted them. Ready to blame the external foreigners without taking any responsibility.
Certainly if you ask 20 people why they voted for Brexit you won't get one unified answer.
But Brexit is done so they need a new scapegoat now. The EU will still be blamed for a few years (they wouldn't accept our deal) but that'll wear thin after a while.
I think the EU has mostly past caring now.

trellheim

Some of the media are anti EU

some ?

The EU at the recent summit could not give a monkeys about Brexit anymore . Argument re Fishing and LPA are non-negotiable.

Rain Ascending

Peregrinus wrote: »

Open accession negotations and seek to move rapidly to an interim agreement under which the UK reconnects with the single market and the customs union.

Politically, I don't think that would be a flier. But if your priority was damage mitigation, that is what you would be aiming for.

Agreed that accession is a non-starter.

If I were in British political circles, I'd be very worried about what UK-EU relationships are going to do for British political discourse for at least the next decade. Best case scenario for this year's negotiations will result in a very skinny EU-UK treaty, leaving tens of issues to be negotiated over next 5 to 15 years. Every single one of these will headlong into the question of arbitration, i.e. the role of the ECJ. This is why the this Conservative government and the last have given up on Galileo, Erasmus, REACH, EMA, etc., etc. And that's before we get into advanced security corporation, etc.

Given that, the first priority of any sensible policy for the UK-EU relationship would be to negotiate an overarching relationship framework. It would, by necessity, address the thorny question of dispute resolution and the relationship with the ECJ. Possible end point? A light version of the EFTA Court.

Get that sorted (and it wouldn't be easy), then the UK and the EU can more easily agree access to various programs, both in terms of benefits and costs, on a case-by-case basis without half the UK spluttering over breakfast to the inevitable Daily Express hysterical headlines. Set it up right and the framework wouldn't even presuppose a particular level of closeness to the EU -- that could be left to the UK government and European Commission of the day to decide. A sort of EFTA-lite, if you like.

The alternative is for the UK to be stuck for years in this toxic trap of sovereignty maximalism while trying to deny the reality of the EU's importance...

Professor Moriarty

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Agreed that accession is a non-starter.

If I were in British political circles, I'd be very worried about what UK-EU relationships are going to do for British political discourse for at least the next decade. Best case scenario for this year's negotiations will result in a very skinny EU-UK treaty, leaving tens of issues to be negotiated over next 5 to 15 years. Every single one of these will headlong into the question of arbitration, i.e. the role of the ECJ. This is why the this Conservative government and the last have given up on Galileo, Erasmus, REACH, EMA, etc., etc. And that's before we get into advanced security corporation, etc.

Given that, the first priority of any sensible policy for the UK-EU relationship would be to negotiate an overarching relationship framework. It would, by necessity, address the thorny question of dispute resolution and the relationship with the ECJ. Possible end point? A light version of the EFTA Court.

Get that sorted (and it wouldn't be easy), then the UK and the EU can more easily agree access to various programs, both in terms of benefits and costs, on a case-by-case basis without half the UK spluttering over breakfast to the inevitable Daily Express hysterical headlines. Set it up right and the framework wouldn't even presuppose a particular level of closeness to the EU -- that could be left to the UK government and European Commission of the day to decide. A sort of EFTA-lite, if you like.

The alternative is for the UK to be stuck for years in this toxic trap of sovereignty maximalism while trying to deny the reality of the EU's importance...

That's a very sensible proposition that might circumvent the Taking Back Control backlash. However, I think the ERG (they haven't gone away you know) and other Brexiteer MPs are so emboldened now that they will become apoplectic at any hint of compromise. Johnson's Cummings' Brexit narrative and stance means that the Tories have painted themselves into a hard Brexit corner. IDS, Francois, Baker and their chums won't accept anything less and will use Johnson's rhetoric over the past 12 months to hold him to account.