Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do people think is the endgame that the UK is working towards? . . .

As I see it, the UK have painted themselves into an awkward corner, as regards the NI Protocol:

They have basically three options:

Option 1: Try to make the NIP work

Pro: Would improve relations with the EU, rebuild trust, improve international perceptions of the UK as a reliable partner. Probably would be some mutterings from the looney wing of the Tory backbenches, but not really a lot they could or would want to do about it.

Con: Loyalists in NI would be pissed; might feel let down (again) by HMG if they feel HMG has encouraged then to expect renegotiation or repudiation of NIP. Also requires Johnson to backtrack, but he’s good at doing that and getting away with it. Might require Lord Frost to be pushed over a steep precipice on a dark night, metaphorically speaking (although maybe that’s a pro rather than a con).

Option 2: Try to renegotiate the NIP

Pro: At least in the short term, Loyalists and Tory parliamentary party would be pleased, and so reduction in tension in NI.

Con: Even the request contributes to general impression that UK is not a reliable negotiating party, given that the ink is barely dry on a deal that Johnson hailed as a triumph. EU very likely to reject request, which could be humiliating, and still leaves Johnson with dilemma of what to do - he’d have to pick option 1 or option 3. If EU does agree to renegotiate then very unlikely to agree sweeping changes favourable to UK. Would take many months and keeps Brexit (which is supposed to be “done”) high on the political agenda. Outcome of renegotiation might be unpopular with Tory backbench, loyalists, or renegotiation could fail (in which case current NIP continues in force, and Johnson still has dilemma of what to do).

Option 3: Unilaterally terminate application of NIP

Pro: Immediately popular with loyalists and Tory looneys (but likely consequences of unilateral termination could be rather less popular).

Con: Highly negative reaction from EU is certain; legal proceedings; enforcement measures. Very bad reaction from Republican/Nationalist community in NI; very destabilising. Makes Brexit the central political issue in UK for quite some time, and sidelines other political agenda of government. Serious reputational damage to UK. Probably puts the kibosh on a US trade deal. Hard for Johnson to avoid political ownership of these consequences, though no doubt he would seek to blame EU.

Seth Brundle

Apparently the British cabinet is divided over the Australian trade deal, their first non-rollover deal since leaving the EU. Truss and Frost want to have the deal signed off but given that it serves no real benefit for the UK agri-sector Michael Gove and george Eustace are against it...
UK government split over Australia trade deal

Cabinet worried about political fallout and backlash from agriculture sector if UK grants tariff-free access to farming produce
The British government is locked in a “ferocious” internal battle over whether to sign off a trade deal with Australia after a split between the department of agriculture and the department of international trade over the terms of the agreement.

The government estimates that a free trade agreement with Australia would be worth an additional 0.01-0.02 per cent of GDP over 15 years — or £200m-£500m more than 2018 levels. “Basically we’re talking about signing off the slow death of British farming so Liz Truss can score a quick political point,” said one insider opposed to the deal.

Truss is adamant that Britain should trade with Australia on similar “zero tariff, zero quota” terms to the deal the UK struck with the EU.

The Raging Bile Duct

I thought they'd got the upper hand with the Aussies after making them sit in uncomfortable seats for the trade talks. Gah, this negotiation thing is hard...

fash

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Apparently the British cabinet is divided over the Australian trade deal, their first non-rollover deal since leaving the EU. Truss and Frost want to have the deal signed off but given that it serves no real benefit for the UK agri-sector Michael Gove and george Eustace are against it...

I would imagine the SNP would be generally in favour (i.e. as a stick to then beat Westminster over the head with). My money is on the UK accepting

ancapailldorcha

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

I thought they'd got the upper hand with the Aussies after making them sit in uncomfortable seats for the trade talks. Gah, this negotiation thing is hard...

I think it stinks of Imperialism to be honest. There was the tacit idea that the Commonwealth and former Dominions would just meekly fall into line for Global Britain. A poor substitute for the reality where said nations are used to negotiating trade deals while the Tories are recruiting a brand new team with a minister selected for loyalty as opposed to competence.

Joe_ Public

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Apparently the British cabinet is divided over the Australian trade deal, their first non-rollover deal since leaving the EU. Truss and Frost want to have the deal signed off but given that it serves no real benefit for the UK agri-sector Michael Gove and george Eustace are against it...
UK government split over Australia trade deal

"...worth an additional 0.01-0.02 per cent of GDP over 15 years"

Just doing some very rudimentary maths here, but if reports that brexit would entail a 2 to 2.5% drop in gdp were accurate, they would compensate for it with 150 Australian free trade deals or thereabouts. Have to start somewhere, i suppose.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

"...worth an additional 0.01-0.02 per cent of GDP over 15 years"

Just doing some very rudimentary maths here, but if reports that brexit would entail a 2 to 2.5% drop in gdp were accurate, they would compensate for it with 150 Australian free trade deals or thereabouts. Have to start somewhere, i suppose.

On that basis, they will quickly run out of countries, since most countries are already in deals with the EU, or they have vanishingly small GDP figures, except for USA, China and Russia.

They could of course start with those three.

Nody

fash wrote: »

I would imagine the SNP would be generally in favour (i.e. as a stick to then beat Westminster over the head with). My money is on the UK accepting

Boris getting a chance to show of "global Britain" and receive praise with the only cost being throwing small farms under the red buss? That's not even a debate to be had there; if anything it's a double bonus because his mates can they buy up the land on the cheap.

Joe_ Public

Sam Russell wrote: »

On that basis, they will quickly run out of countries, since most countries are already in deals with the EU, or they have vanishingly small GDP figures, except for USA, China and Russia.

They could of course start with those three.

There was talk of a £1bn boost in trade with india recently so that'd be another 0.05% or so if it happens. They seem to be investing quite some energy in that direction anyway, given their apparent reluctance to add india to the travel red list initially. The other side of all this is what kind of add ons come with these deals in terms of immigration opportunities etc.

The Raging Bile Duct

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Back in January, the UK formed the Taskforce for Innovation and Growth through Regulatory Reform (TIGER... rarrrr!), led by Iain Duncan Smith, to find ways to take advantage of their new found freedom from the shackles of the EU. They can't seem to come up with any benefits yet so now they're looking outwards for anyone to tell them that what they've done wasn't completely moronic.



https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/u-k-to-hire-external-advisor-to-find-post-brexit-opportunities

Michael Gove's Red Tape Initiative also effectively a predecessor to this too

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/22/government-backed-red-tape-group-eu-fire-safety-rules-grenfell-fire

https://www.wikicorporates.org/wiki/Red_Tape_Initiative

Igotadose

Joe_ Public wrote: »

There was talk of a £1bn boost in trade with india recently so that'd be another 0.05% or so if it happens. They seem to be investing quite some energy in that direction anyway, given their apparent reluctance to add india to the travel red list initially. The other side of all this is what kind of add ons come with these deals in terms of immigration opportunities etc.

If the UK GDP shrinks dramatically, a billion here, a billion there, before you know it you're talking serious money. So what if you need to provide a bunch more visas to India and Australia....

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

A) EU capitulate and allow the UK to rip up the agreement and get free access
EU stand firm and demand the agreement is implemented and the UK walk off and cancel the deal (No Deal)
C) Compromise position is reached which in effect gives the UK much of what they wanted and effectively renegotiates major parts of the deal.

You missed what has happened at every other point in negotiations:

D) The UK shout, bang the table, threaten to tear up everything until a deadline approaches, then at the last minute accept whatever the EU offered months ago and claim victory.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

There was talk of a £1bn boost in trade with india recently so that'd be another 0.05% or so if it happens. They seem to be investing quite some energy in that direction anyway, given their apparent reluctance to add india to the travel red list initially. The other side of all this is what kind of add ons come with these deals in terms of immigration opportunities etc.

Igotadose wrote: »

If the UK GDP shrinks dramatically, a billion here, a billion there, before you know it you're talking serious money. So what if you need to provide a bunch more visas to India and Australia....

I had forgotten about India.

I think they would accept more Indian immigration because a lot of the Indian people tend to vote Tory anyway. However, other Tory voters might not like it, but who would those voters transfer to - hardly Labour, or Lord Buckethead - but you never know.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

I had forgotten about India.

I think they would accept more Indian immigration because a lot of the Indian people tend to vote Tory anyway. However, other Tory voters might not like it, but who would those voters transfer to - hardly Labour, or Lord Buckethead - but you never know.

Given that this is a Tory Brexit, increased immigration from India might not be the best optics. A third of Brexit voters said that their primary reason for voting Leave was to control immigration.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given that this is a Tory Brexit, increased immigration from India might not be the best optics. A third of Brexit voters said that their primary reason for voting Leave was to control immigration.

Yeah, it's just the optics. It'd obviously be limited numbers and maybe something they'd be able to keep buried down among the smallprint, but still. I'd wager there are quite a large number of brexiteers who remain blissfully unaware of the reality that accepting a certain level of immigration is a basic price of doing trade deals.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given that this is a Tory Brexit, increased immigration from India might not be the best optics. A third of Brexit voters said that their primary reason for voting Leave was to control immigration.

I think they can sell that though; Tories will state "We got enhanced possibilities to deport people staying over and have increased deportation with 30% (who's going to fact check them after all, or reverse it and say decreased overstays because more people now get a visa to stay instead) while at the same time ensuring we get highly skilled workers to fill specific gaps for our companies to let them grow faster". It's all about framing the deal and focus on the parts you want in it (i.e. increase in people leaving rather than arriving) and provide the relevant sound bits that will form the headlines that people see. The facts on the ground will be that Indians are likely to remain in the areas with Indians now anyway; hence London etc. that will not vote Tories anyway and hence the impact on the wider Tory base of voters is very limited.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given that this is a Tory Brexit, increased immigration from India might not be the best optics. A third of Brexit voters said that their primary reason for voting Leave was to control immigration.

So who are they going to vote for? Ukip?

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

I think they can sell that though; Tories will state "We got enhanced possibilities to deport people staying over and have increased deportation with 30% (who's going to fact check them after all, or reverse it and say decreased overstays because more people now get a visa to stay instead) while at the same time ensuring we get highly skilled workers to fill specific gaps for our companies to let them grow faster". It's all about framing the deal and focus on the parts you want in it (i.e. increase in people leaving rather than arriving) and provide the relevant sound bits that will form the headlines that people see. The facts on the ground will be that Indians are likely to remain in the areas with Indians now anyway; hence London etc. that will not vote Tories anyway and hence the impact on the wider Tory base of voters is very limited.

Very possibly. But if you are a White English Brexiteer who voted for immigration control, and some Indian families move into your street, you are going to be one unhappy bunny no matter what the spin.

ambro25

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given that this is a Tory Brexit, increased immigration from India might not be the best optics. A third of Brexit voters said that their primary reason for voting Leave was to control immigration.

...but much of the Asian vote for Brexit belied an intention to substitute EU27 immigration for Indian subcontinent immigration, and you may e.g. refer to numerous interviews of curry house owners believing that Brexit would facilitate the immigration of Indian curry chefs (many similar vox pops at the time).

I remember this well, likewise my initial thoughts of the time, that they were going to get just as rolled as the other Brexit voters (-with an even semi-coherent plan/logic). Well, Johnson Modi might give them their Brexit benefit after all.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Given that this is a Tory Brexit, increased immigration from India might not be the best optics. A third of Brexit voters said that their primary reason for voting Leave was to control immigration.

True but the press here hate the EU specifically. I doubt they'll be stirring up rage about Indian migration to be honest. At best, it would weaken Johnson and risk a Labour government.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

I think they can sell that though; Tories will state "We got enhanced possibilities to deport people staying over and have increased deportation with 30% (who's going to fact check them after all, or reverse it and say decreased overstays because more people now get a visa to stay instead) while at the same time ensuring we get highly skilled workers to fill specific gaps for our companies to let them grow faster". It's all about framing the deal and focus on the parts you want in it (i.e. increase in people leaving rather than arriving) and provide the relevant sound bits that will form the headlines that people see. The facts on the ground will be that Indians are likely to remain in the areas with Indians now anyway; hence London etc. that will not vote Tories anyway and hence the impact on the wider Tory base of voters is very limited.

But Cummins is no longer the spin doctor so no-one can think of a three word slogan that will convey the magic message to cover the obvious hidden lies.

With Truss cheer leading it, she is likely to depict the thick end of the wedge as an advantage and try to hide her otherwise incompetence at trade negotiations - that is for anyone who is not already well aware of her shortcomings.

Shouting about the lack of cowboys will not cut it.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So who are they going to vote for? Ukip?

They could if, as happened before, there is a migration to a UKIP/Brexit type party. In the past, dissatisfaction with immigration control is what saw the formation of the Brexit and UKIP parties and is why Leave won.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True but the press here hate the EU specifically. I doubt they'll be stirring up rage about Indian migration to be honest. At best, it would weaken Johnson and risk a Labour government.

Indeed, but realities on the ground might wake people up to the truth. Then all it would take is another Farage to start sniping from the sidelines.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They could if, as happened before, there is a migration to a UKIP/Brexit type party. In the past, dissatisfaction with immigration control is what saw the formation of the Brexit and UKIP parties and is why Leave won.

But Brexit is done. What do they have as a policy? Leave the Commonwealth, or stop immigration and ditch the trade deals that have immigration as a quid pro quo?

They have nowhere to go - except the Labour party.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

But Brexit is done. What do they have as a policy? Leave the Commonwealth, or stop immigration and ditch the trade deals that have immigration as a quid pro quo?

They have nowhere to go - except the Labour party.

That's my point . Snipe away at every policy that increases immigration. It's a populist tactic that works wonderfully in England.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed, but realities on the ground might wake people up to the truth. Then all it would take is another Farage to start sniping from the sidelines.

What realities? People stopped fretting about immigration once the newspapers stopped bleating about it.

Another Farage would only split the Tory vote and it's not clear what he would even do or aspire to do.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What realities? People stopped fretting about immigration once the newspapers stopped bleating about it.

Another Farage would only split the Tory vote and it's not clear what he would even do or aspire to do.

The realities of increased immigration from India due to trade deals for instance. If UKIP wants to make a come back, they can start right there. It is not possible that increased immigration from outside Europe won't have an impact on Brexit voters' opinion of the Tories - especially those who were told that immigration would be controlled by Brexit and voted Leave for that very reason.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The realities of increased immigration from India due to trade deals for instance. If UKIP wants to make a come back, they can start right there. It is not possible that increased immigration from outside Europe won't have an impact on Brexit voters' opinion of the Tories - especially those who were told that immigration would be controlled by Brexit and voted Leave for that very reason.

But Brexit has controlled immigration - from the EU. There was always plenty of immigration from outside the EU - particularly from the sub-continent.

What is there to dislike about such immigration from the former Empire?

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

But Brexit has controlled immigration - from the EU. There was always plenty of immigration from outside the EU - particularly from the sub-continent.

What is there to dislike about such immigration from the former Empire?

That immigration will increase. For example, India has made it very clear that a trade deal will depend on increased access to the UK by Indians. Regarding your question, you would have to ask the anti-immigration Brexiteer voters.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True but the press here hate the EU specifically. I doubt they'll be stirring up rage about Indian migration to be honest. At best, it would weaken Johnson and risk a Labour government.

Indeed, a seething paranoia and inferiority complex.

It's an interesting glimpse into the Brexiteer mindset. The Indians are "inferior" and therefore don't pose a threat.