Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph · 15-08-2017 12:22PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how would the eu stop the UK from having access to the eu internal market?

The EU could not prevent the UK operating under WTO rules (but first of all the quotas have to be decided...the UK currently has no quotas of its own) but this ONLY covers a small fraction of the UK economy, ie manufactured goods. The beating heart of the UK economy is services, which are not covered by the WTO at all and the EU can prevent all access to the single market for these (and will if there is no deal. It's the default position).

I still think far too many Brits are unaware of how much their economy depends on services and that services are not covered by the "no deal" scenario at all.

solodeogloria · 15-08-2017 12:27PM

Good afternoon!

Why do we need to go back to this perverse fantasy some people have about punishing Britain again?

The UK Government and the EU are negotiating a future partnership that I think both parties want to work.

The obsession that some posters have with punishing the UK isn't healthy. At all. Both parties would suffer badly. This is why nobody in the UK side is proposing this as a reasonable option for either side.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 12:27PM

murphaph wrote: »

The EU could not prevent the UK operating under WTO rules (but first of all the quotas have to be decided...the UK currently has no quotas of its own) but this ONLY covers a small fraction of the UK economy, ie manufactured goods. The beating heart of the UK economy is services, which are not covered by the WTO at all and the EU can prevent all access to the single market for these (and will if there is no deal. It's the default position).

I still think far too many Brits are unaware of how much their economy depends on services and that services are not covered by the "no deal" scenario at all.

so the eu will stop people in Ireland watching the premiership, or listening to Cold Play?

Good luck with that one.

swampgas · 15-08-2017 12:29PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Farage is irrelevant, but personally i would like to see the eu destroyed, at least in its current form.

The principles behind it, the values it stands for and its long term goals are admirable and this is why i am against the UK leaving it, but the actual eu itself (and don't give me any of the crap that "We" are the EU) is broken, it has just become an added layer of bloated bureaucratic gravy train that seems to do little to move europe forward but is very good at patting itself on the back and telling everyone what a great job it is doing

The eu needs reform, it needs to be more accountable (what is the travel policy, for example, do they really need to fly business class when none of their flights are for more than two hours?) and personally i would much rather see the UK inside the eu driving reform, but then it just wouldn't be a team player, would it?

Nobody voted for Brexit because they didn't like the travel policy for Eurocrats. Most people voted out because they thought they would have more money in the UK afterwards, perhaps to fund the NHS, or because they thought it would mean less immigration.

To get back to my original point, consider immigration. Statistically it has been shown that it's a win win - immigrants get a better life, UK gets more workers and tax revenue. But many people think every extra immigrant means one more disadvantaged Brit. That's zero sum thinking.

Peter Flynt · 15-08-2017 12:30PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how would the eu stop the UK from having access to the eu internal market?

UK would not be prevented from access to the EU internal market. Business goes on.

The cost and disruption to business would be far reaching and considerable resulting in many job losses, massive inconvenience, long tailbacks at ports & airports, huge WTO tariffs . .

Now 40% of brexiteers are satisfied to see a relative lose their job for brexit.

So be it.

UK won't be having its cake and eating it.

Peter Flynt · 15-08-2017 12:36PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Why do we need to go back to this perverse fantasy some people have about punishing Britain again?

The UK Government and the EU are negotiating a future partnership that I think both parties want to work.

The obsession that some posters have with punishing the UK isn't healthy. At all. Both parties would suffer badly. This is why nobody in the UK side is proposing this as a reasonable option for either side.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This victimhood of "we're getting punished" is childish and beyond juvenile.

Problem is that there is no "future partnership" for the UK which they can have which is better than what they've got now, which is membership of the European Union.

Both parties would not suffer badly. Only the UK would as 44% of exports go to EU countries whereas only 7% of EU exports, among the other 27, go to the UK.

If the UK wants brexit then there is a massive cost to this. This is a simple fact that the brexiteers understand but are in denial about.

oppenheimer1 · 15-08-2017 12:39PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Why do we need to go back to this perverse fantasy some people have about punishing Britain again?

The UK Government and the EU are negotiating a future partnership that I think both parties want to work.

The obsession that some posters have with punishing the UK isn't healthy. At all. Both parties would suffer badly. This is why nobody in the UK side is proposing this as a reasonable option for either side.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's not about punishing Britain, it's about pointing out the way the UK government is carrying on is going to punish Britain. If anyone is acting out a perverse fantasy it's the hardline brexiteers.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 12:45PM

swampgas wrote: »

Nobody voted for Brexit because they didn't like the travel policy for Eurocrats. Most people voted out because they thought they would have more money in the UK afterwards, perhaps to fund the NHS, or because they thought it would mean less immigration.

I didn't say that they did. you are misrepresenting what I said.

swampgas wrote: »

To get back to my original point, consider immigration. Statistically it has been shown that it's a win win - immigrants get a better life, UK gets more workers and tax revenue. But many people think every extra immigrant means one more disadvantaged Brit. That's zero sum thinking.

unless you are one of the Brits that have seen your earning potential decrease thanks to a never ending supply of cheap labour.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

UK would not be prevented from access to the EU internal market. Business goes on.

The cost and disruption to business would be far reaching and considerable resulting in many job losses, massive inconvenience, long tailbacks at ports & airports, huge WTO tariffs

or to put it another way, the same arrangements that the other 170 countries in the world currently have.

There is a whole big world out there outside of the eu

jm08 · 15-08-2017 12:47PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the eu will stop people in Ireland watching the premiership, or listening to Cold Play?

Good luck with that one.

Done quite easily actually, recind Sky/BTs broadcasting licence.

Peter Flynt · 15-08-2017 12:50PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or to put it another way, the same arrangements that the other 170 countries in the world currently have.

There is a whole big world out there outside of the eu

Of course all the other countries in the world have access to the EU. It's the terms of access. If UK wants to pay punitive tariffs . . Off they go. No one is stopping them.

Big world out there . . . Yeah, and who do you think has more leverage in negotiations. . . The EU or oul blightly?

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 12:50PM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

This victimhood of "we're getting punished" is childish and beyond juvenile.

who mentioned anything about victimhood.

There are people on here calling for the UK to be punished, not people claiming the eu is punishing the UK.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Problem is that there is no "future partnership" for the UK which they can have which is better than what they've got now, which is membership of the European Union.

you mean better partnership with the eu, remember, there is a big world out there that isn't currently in the eu

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Both parties would not suffer badly. Only the UK would as 44% of exports go to EU countries whereas only 7% of EU exports, among the other 27, go to the UK.

or to put another way, the UK is the eu's biggest export customer.

swampgas · 15-08-2017 12:52PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I didn't say that they did. you are misrepresenting what I said.

Sorry if I gave that impression. What I meant was that the "EU needs reform" issue didn't seem to be a big deal for most Brexiters.

unless you are one of the Brits that have seen your earning potential decrease thanks to a never ending supply of cheap labour.

True. How about getting the government to reduce immigration from outside the EU? Or to reduce EU immigration legally? Or to increase minimum wage?

The British government don't care about Brits getting paid less, in fact many of them are delighted as they see it as making the UK more competitive.

Peter Flynt · 15-08-2017 12:55PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or to put another way, the UK is the eu's biggest export customer.

You're a fool if you think the leaders of the European Union are going to put the interests of the UK ahead of the EU.

It ain't gonna happen.

UKs 60 billion deficit with EU puts them in a position of weakness not strength because the vast majority of the raw materials for their economy come from the EU.

I haven't even mentioned that the UK simply is not in a position to feed its entire population without imports from countries like Ireland & Denmark.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 12:56PM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Of course all the other countries in the world have access to the EU. It's the terms of access. If UK wants to pay punitive tariffs . . Off they go. No one is stopping them.

the eu can't charge punitive tariffs, that would be against WTO rules.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Big world out there . . . Yeah, and who do you think has more leverage in negotiations. . . The EU or oul blightly?

with regards what?

Professor Moriarty · 15-08-2017 12:58PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the eu can't charge punitive tariffs, that would be against WTO rules.

with regards what?

The UK has conceded to every demand that the EU has made to date.

steddyeddy · 15-08-2017 12:58PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and Ireland?

because the eu is made up of a union of equals, is it not?

Ireland will be hit most by Brexit so it makes sense to capitalise where it can.

Yes equals but each has a veto. I can see France being the most active in this.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 01:01PM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

You're a fool if you think the leaders of the European Union are going to put the interests of the UK ahead of the EU.

The interests of the UK and the EU aren't necessarily different. The eu is slowly declining in terms of overall global GDP and is still recovering from a rather nasty recession. The last thing it needs is to stop trading with its largest export market.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

UKs 60 billion deficit with EU puts them in a position of weakness not strength because the vast majority of the raw materials for their economy come from the EU.

because importing from outside the eu is very expensive. If the UK can negotiate its own trade deals, then that may no longer be the case.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

I haven't even mentioned that the UK simply is not in a position to feed its entire population without imports from countries like Ireland & Denmark.

So the UK is going to starve now?

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 01:02PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ireland will be hit most by Brexit so it makes sense to capitalise where it can.

Yes equals but each has a veto. I can see France being the most active in this.

remembering of course, that a french veto could mean the hardest of Brexits and the hardest of borders.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 01:03PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The UK has conceded to every demand that the EU has made to date.

please explain the relevance of this statement?

Peter Flynt · 15-08-2017 01:06PM

The EU could bring brexit to an end tomorrow by making one simple announcement . . . That citizens of the UK will not be allowed access to the European Union from March 2019 until a comprehensive agreement is in place, which coud take years.

Brexit would collapse overnight.

Look, the British government themselves are not taking Brexit seriously. This is the most serious situation for the UK since WW2 and they're all on holidays for the month. They're spending more time negotiating among themselves than with the EU after wasting 9 months by not issuing article 50. There is also NO PLAN and May, Fox & Davis haven't a clue what they're doing. . . not my words but the words of the former Chief of Staff at the Department for Exiting the EU, James Chapman, who tweeted this information this morning. Davis has even been accused of only putting in three day working weeks FFS whlst Fox has a job title but no job as UK cannot legally initiate trade deals with other countries until brexit occurs.

As time goes on the pressure will just become intense and it'll all go belly up with tory resignations and splits

Calina · 15-08-2017 01:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu needs reform, it needs to be more accountable (what is the travel policy, for example, do they really need to fly business class when none of their flights are for more than two hours?) and personally i would much rather see the UK inside the eu driving reform, but then it just wouldn't be a team player, would it?

Seriously, the underlined bit is incorrect. Certainly point to point capital flights are sub two hours in some cases but quite a few routes from Brussels back to the capitals of Europe are over two hours and many people flying on behalf of the EU are not actually point to point between AN EU capital and Brussels. So to state none of the flights are for more than two hours is demonstrated ignorance. IIRC the EU has sent people to the Ukraine, people work on the EU's behalf in the US, and of course, not every single person travelling to Brussels is from whatever the handiest city to Brussels is in a given member state. The flight from Athens to Brussels, for example, is more than 3 hours and no one would sensibly assume that all travel is within the EU. Trade agreements tend to be with countries outside the EU and the discussions aren't always in the EU - the locations can be shared from time to time between countries.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or to put it another way, the same arrangements that the other 170 countries in the world currently have.

There is a whole big world out there outside of the eu

This again is not attached to reality. Because of things like FTA agreements of which there are circa 57 I think, the other 170 countries don't all have the same arrangements. This is true also for things like immigration policy and visa requirements which are actually the business of the member states where non-EU countries are involved.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or to put another way, the UK is the eu's biggest export customer.

There are 120 plus countries which the EU can grow trade with if it loses the UK, to be honest not including the ones it has trade agreements with already. After all, that's UK logic about losses from leaving the EU, isn't it? Loads of other countries to trade with.

Maybe not North Korea at the moment but still...

__________________

On the recurrence of this concept of punishment, it seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that anything negative that happens to the UK as a result of Brexit is punishment. This is incorrect. Anything negative which happens to the UK has a result of Brexit is a consequence of choosing to leave the EU, a British decision, not an EU decision.

In no world is it the case that the UK will have better trading conditions with the EU than it had as a member of the EU. People screaming about being punished by the EU need to understand this. It is pretty much the way you don't have electricity any more if someone cuts the line into your house. You're not punished, it is just a fact of life that if the line has been cut, there is no more electricity.

Calina · 15-08-2017 01:13PM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

To this extent it is most unlikely that Brexit will occur, or if it does reach March 2019 without collapsing, the terms of the final deal will go to a referendum and will be comprehensively defeated with the UK staying in the EU. I expect this to happen before the end of 2018 or very early 2019.

As matters stand, unless there is some discussion on the withdrawal of the Article 50 notification and the EU is prepared to accept this, your scenario will not happen because in the referendum, the options will be deal or crash out with no deal. The current legal status is that the UK leaves in March 2019 deal or no deal. Rejecting the deal all other things remaining equal still results in Brexit.

The UK has fought court cases on the premise that Article 50 cannot be reversed. What is known is the period can be extended but it requires unanimous support from the other members. It worries me deeply that the asssumption at present is that the referendum will be between accepting the deal or staying in the EU because legally that cannot be put on the table at all barring a withdrawal of article 50.

joeysoap · 15-08-2017 01:15PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've only got an Irish passport because I'm Irish. I also question the relevance of this question.

EDIT: can you please tell us why you asked this question?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thank you for your reply and Fratton Fred also.

I was curious to know if either of you remained EU citizens after Brexit. Nothing else

Peter Flynt · 15-08-2017 01:16PM

Calina wrote: »

As matters stand, unless there is some discussion on the withdrawal of the Article 50 notification and the EU is prepared to accept this, your scenario will not happen because in the referendum, the options will be deal or crash out with no deal. The current legal status is that the UK leaves in March 2019 deal or no deal. Rejecting the deal all other things remaining equal still results in Brexit.

The UK has fought court cases on the premise that Article 50 cannot be reversed. What is known is the period can be extended but it requires unanimous support from the other members. It worries me deeply that the asssumption at present is that the referendum will be between accepting the deal or staying in the EU because legally that cannot be put on the table at all barring a withdrawal of article 50.

All true and agreed with.

However if the UK choose to change its mind the EU would accommodate this as 'where there's a will there's a way'. . either through treaty changes or other mechanistic legal changes.

It would be national humiliation for the UK but I couldn't see it dragging on further.

steddyeddy · 15-08-2017 01:16PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

remembering of course, that a french veto could mean the hardest of Brexits and the hardest of borders.

I think varadkar is much more realistic about Brexit than any Tory politician. In other words we'll prepare the best we can but I imagine the UK (particularly the North) will be devastated by Brexit.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 01:17PM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The EU could bring brexit to an end tomorrow by making one simple announcement . . . That citizens of the UK will not be allowed access to the European Union from March 2019 until a comprehensive agreement is in place, which coud take years.

ouoch. You might ant to ask a few of the posters on here how they would feel about that one.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Look, the British government themselves are not taking Brexit seriously. This is the most serious situation for the UK since WW2 and they're all on holidays for the month. They're spending more time negotiating among themselves than with the EU after wasting 9 months of negotiating time by not issuing article 50. There is also NO PLAN and May, Fox & Davis haven't a clue what they're doing. . . not my words but the words of the Chief of Staff at the Depeartment for Exiting the EU, James Chapman, who tweeted this information this morning. Davis has even been accused of only putting in three day working weeks FFS whlst Fox has a job title but no job as UK cannot legally initiate trade deals with other countries until brexit occurs.

As time goes on the pressure will just become intense and it'll all go belly up with tory resignations and splits

the current government has been left with a heap of **** they are trying to sort out. There is no precedent for this, it is completely uncharted territory.

Peter Flynt · 15-08-2017 01:21PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the current government has been left with a heap of **** they are trying to sort out. There is no precedent for this, it is completely uncharted territory.

A heap of **** of their own creation.

The politicians be working 16 hour days.
Instead they're on holidays for an entire month. Davis, when he is at "work", puts in a three day week.

Remarkably blasé considering the "uncharted territory" you refer to . . . As the countdown clock keeps ticking away.

Calina · 15-08-2017 01:23PM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The EU could bring brexit to an end tomorrow by making one simple announcement . . . That citizens of the UK will not be allowed access to the European Union from March 2019 until a comprehensive agreement is in place, which coud take years.

Strictly speaking, immigration and visa policy remains with the member states so I think this would require a council decision. Not saying it's impossible but I really can't see it being either simple or likely.

In any case, I think it would be a deeply unfair policy and the EU has already made it clear in negotiations that they have a citizens focus largely absent from the UK efforts at present.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Brexit would collapse overnight.

Look, the British government themselves are not taking Brexit seriously. This is the most serious situation for the UK since WW2 and they're all on holidays for the month. They're spending more time negotiating among themselves than with the EU after wasting 9 months by not issuing article 50. There is also NO PLAN and May, Fox & Davis haven't a clue what they're doing. . . not my words but the words of the former Chief of Staff at the Department for Exiting the EU, James Chapman, who tweeted this information this morning. Davis has even been accused of only putting in three day working weeks FFS whlst Fox has a job title but no job as UK cannot legally initiate trade deals with other countries until brexit occurs.

As time goes on the pressure will just become intense and it'll all go belly up with tory resignations and splits

I'm inclined not to try and predict the future in too much detail - after all, David Cameron promised to implement the people's decision because he assumed they would vote to stay in the EU.

But.

The UK Independent suggests there are about 50 reports lying around government departments regarding the impact of Brexit on various sectors which the government does not under any circumstances want to publish as it could damage the UK's negotiating position. This actually strikes me as reasonable because on the face of it, the UK's position is weak and weakening. I would not be surprised were the EU to make a reasonable guess at the contents of those reports, but what is important about them is that civil servants are doing work at least in the UK. And it is civil servants who in general do the most part of practical work of any government.

I remain uncertain that Brexit will happen. But whether it does or not, one of the key issues is that politically, the UK is very deeply divided and increasingly polarised. Regardless of the outcome, this needs to be addressed by the political class in the country. Otherwise ultimately, the UK is likely to break apart.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 01:24PM

Calina wrote: »

Seriously, the underlined bit is incorrect. Certainly point to point capital flights are sub two hours in some cases but quite a few routes from Brussels back to the capitals of Europe are over two hours and many people flying on behalf of the EU are not actually point to point between AN EU capital and Brussels. So to state none of the flights are for more than two hours is demonstrated ignorance. IIRC the EU has sent people to the Ukraine, people work on the EU's behalf in the US, and of course, not every single person travelling to Brussels is from whatever the handiest city to Brussels is in a given member state. The flight from Athens to Brussels, for example, is more than 3 hours and no one would sensibly assume that all travel is within the EU. Trade agreements tend to be with countries outside the EU and the discussions aren't always in the EU - the locations can be shared from time to time between countries.

oh come on, that is splitting hairs to the nth degree. The vast majority of the travel they do is to and from Brussels and Strasbourg (Bizarrely)

Calina wrote: »

This again is not attached to reality. Because of things like FTA agreements of which there are circa 57 I think, the other 170 countries don't all have the same arrangements. This is true also for things like immigration policy and visa requirements which are actually the business of the member states where non-EU countries are involved.

Again, you are splitting hairs.

Calina wrote: »

There are 120 plus countries which the EU can grow trade with if it loses the UK, to be honest not including the ones it has trade agreements with already. After all, that's UK logic about losses from leaving the EU, isn't it? Loads of other countries to trade with.

true, but it takes the eu an excessively long time to negotiate trade deals, because a deal that benefits Germany or France, may not benefit Belgium, so it gets ripped up and started again.

the eu's best bet is to protect what it currently has, whilst tring to gain new deals

Calina wrote: »

Maybe not North Korea at the moment but still...

but still what?

__________________

Calina wrote: »

On the recurrence of this concept of punishment, it seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that anything negative that happens to the UK as a result of Brexit is punishment. This is incorrect. Anything negative which happens to the UK has a result of Brexit is a consequence of choosing to leave the EU, a British decision, not an EU decision.

In no world is it the case that the UK will have better trading conditions with the EU than it had as a member of the EU. People screaming about being punished by the EU need to understand this. It is pretty much the way you don't have electricity any more if someone cuts the line into your house. You're not punished, it is just a fact of life that if the line has been cut, there is no more electricity.

Who is claiming this?

It is the same old double speak again. People calling for the UK to be punished with punitive tariffs or whatever and then trying to make out people are complaining about this?

Punitive measures against the UK are in no one;s best interests.

jm08 · 15-08-2017 01:25PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The interests of the UK and the EU aren't necessarily different. The eu is slowly declining in terms of overall global GDP and is still recovering from a rather nasty recession. The last thing it needs is to stop trading with its largest export market.

Its just signed deals with South Korea, Japan & Canada which should address that. Now that the UK won't be blocking the deal with India, I'd expect that to come on stream fairly quickly.

So the UK is going to starve now?

The UK probably won't starve, but food will get more expensive.

On traditional foods produced in the UK, this is where it stands:

Pork (produces 55% of its own pork)
Beef - 75%
Lamb - 92%
Poultry - 74%
Butter - 75%
Yogurt - 75%
Cheese - 55%

Milk (powdered milk) is at 200% (which it exports the excess).

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments