Brexit discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha · 07-09-2017 09:45AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Meeting EU guidelines? But but we are taking back control!

There have been no end of warnings about this. Enough with the one-liners please.

ambro25 · 07-09-2017 09:47AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the EIB stated (from your link)

so they aren't "Turning off the tap" they are carrying out extra due dilligence (as any bank would have to in a time of uncertainty).

LOL, bless!

Do you know how to turn taps off without running afoul of anti-discriminatory EU legislation (of which the UK still benefits, as a EU member state)?

By carrying more 'due diligence' over longer time periods (-is merely one example of statutorily-compliant feet-dragging, effectively kicking the investment decision and contract into the long grass).

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a shame about your start ups, but there is also the possibility that they just aren't seen a good investment by the EIF. If they were that good, securing funds through via VC funding shouldn't be an issue. I have friends and relatives working in both VC and PE and both are constantly looking for companies to invest it and often compalin about the lack of "Quality" out there.

They weren't "my" start-ups, and I'll not pass any judgement on their qualitative or competitive merit. What I can certainly say, is that they were clients, with new tech real enough to gain granted patents, and they were sustaining UK jobs over a couple of years at least. Their demise is at least as attributable to Brexit-caused uncertainty, as to any other qualitative factor.

Peregrinus · 07-09-2017 09:49AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the EIB stated (from your link)

so they aren't "Turning off the tap" they are carrying out extra due dilligence (as any bank would have to in a time of uncertainty). That uncertainty could be easily resolved, can it not?

The EIB can be easily ringfenced from the Brexit discussions if both parties are willing to do so. It is a facility that is pretty much independant from the eu, as long as projects meet eu guidelines and there is no reason why this needs to change . . . .

It's not so straightforward.

The first point is that the EIB's own charter requires that its members be Member States. For the UK to remain a member requires a renegotiation of the bank's charter, which is not straightforward (and requires unanimous consent of the EU-28).

The second point is that the stated object of the Bank is to promote European integration and cohesion. The bank "works closely with other EU institutions to implement EU policy". It "provides finance and expertise for sustainable investment projects that contribute to EU policy objectives". Does the UK wish to commit substantial resources to such a project? And, if it does, to the EU-27 want it in there, given that its commitment to the objectives is, um, questionable?

Or does the UK wish to continue to participate in the bank on the basis that its objectives will be modified to be more consistent with the UK's vision? Because, obviously, that's not straightforward at all.

Assuming we somehow get past all this, and the UK remains a member, this doesn't necessarily mean that the UK will continue to benefit from loans from the bank in the way that it does now. The bank has entirely different lending strategies for loans within the EU, and for those outside the EU. Post-Brexit, obviously, UK projects will be evaluated on the basis of the external lending strategies. For this purpose there are a variety of lending mandates which are based on EU external cooperation and development policies, which differ from region to region. Post-Brexit, as a non-candidate state, the UK would fall into the "European neighbourhood" region, and UK projects would be evaluated under criteria developed for former Soviet states, and North African states. This is probably not going to work very well. There'd need to be a new lending mandate developed for the circumstances of the UK, which would have to depend on the EU's external co-operation and devlopment policies with respect to the UK, which are nowhere near being worked out yet.

So, no, its not straightforward. A lot of work would have to be done to develop a basis for the UK's continued membership of the Bank on terms that would be attractive to the UK and acceptable to the EU. As matters stand, there's no such basis.

Chips Lovell · 07-09-2017 09:58AM

EU position paper on Northern Ireland and the border is out today. Looks like the Irish government has had significant input into this one, echoing the Taoiseach's recent remarks that it was up to Britain to fix the problems it had created.

The European Commission’s views in the paper are expected to closely mirror the views of the Irish Government, which have hardened recently as patience with the British government over Brexit wears thin.

It is understood that the document – part of the Brexit negotiation process – will reject recent British suggestions for avoiding a hard Border after the UK leaves the EU.

The main thrust of the commission remains its insistence that it is up to the UK, because it is pulling out of the EU, to set out the specifics of how to mitigate the effects in Ireland of its decision.

“It’s about getting the UK to accept responsibility for its decisions,” was how one EU source put it.

At the moment, the British position could best be described as Schrodinger's Cat diplomacy, attempting to maintain simultaneously opposite states: leaving the EU, but retaining many of the benefits of membership, not wanting a hard border but rejecting all the institutions that make it invisible, and so on.

Thomas__ · 07-09-2017 10:03AM

ambro25 wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

It´s not quite that clear to me what you mean by your question.<...>When you talk about double-standards, it´s not what I support, but it certainly is what I was talking about by the example regarding illegal migration.

That is all just banter between Fred and me, nothing you need to feel concerned about, Thomas

Thomas__ wrote: »

When some of them made it hidden in Lorries or Trains and get caught long after they have entered the UK, it´ll be difficult for the UK administration to track and trace the migrants way into the UK and they´d have a problem to remove him from the UK, cos they can´t determin where to repatriate them.

This a very long-standing problem, on a scale estimated at between 250,000 (The Telegraph, June 2017) and 1.1m (unsurprisingly, The Express, August 2016), with the ONS and LSE putting it at 500,000-ish (2007).

Which Ms May proved wholly incapable of solving during her own, 6-year tenure at the Home Office. Likewise the (100% UK-controllable) larger numbers of non-EU nationals immigrating into the UK and fewer numbers of non-EU nationals departing from the UK, relative to EU nationals.

[rethoric] But hey, it's all the EU/jobs-stealing EU immigrants' fault [/rethoric]

Well, I guess that you´ve been following up the developments at Calais in 2015 and 2016 when the migration crisis was unfolding. The harassment of EU nationals started with Ms May as Home Secretary and much of what was reported in recent months stems from her time and of course more so since she´s become PM. The UKIP propaganda exploiting this crisis has surely turned some voters to vote for leave.

Just to consider to which time priods from the past the many of the UKIPers and Brexiteers cling on in their nostalgia. Some of them love the Victorian era, some the 1930s and even the 1940s, some are "fine" with the 1950s and what all those era have in common is? Less foreigners in GB but before that, the Irish were always "good enough" to be looked down upon. That´s the real backwards orientated thinking of these People and the fact that they chose to hold their "victory gathering" at the IWM in London the day after the BrexitRef is very telling, such as their nostalgia for the aforesaid eras. Well, I´ve been to visit this Museum twice during my Holidays in London and know what this Museum is all about. The Pride and Glory of the past. Some Brits didn´t overcome that era and what they´re missing is the shiny depiction of eras when there was much injustice, prejudice and lesser rights for employees, in short "when everybody knew his place". That´s what they want and that´s also why they like to cut everything loose that bounds them to modern and thus EU standards. It doesn´t goes without taking these aspects into account to get the bigger picture for why they are so keen to have the UK quitting their obligations to the ECJ and get a free hand to curb human rights as well as everything that protects the working people from exploitation by greedy employers.

There´s more to it behind the clumsy propaganda and it is no wonder why the right-wing press in the UK supported the leave camp while pretending to support the "taking back of sovreignty and control". I think that one day when those - I call them the bad and evil forces in the background - have prevailed, those who voted for them and which are not part of the upper classes will have their bad awakening. Latest so when they´ve been stripped off their rights and with this weak Labour Party and an old Marxist nostalgist like Corbyn in charge of the party, the others will have a rather easy play to do as they please, if no Court can stop them from doing so. But as we both know well enough, it´s Parliament that makes the laws. The plans of this present govt are out there, leaked to the media, dismissed by the current PM but I have no doubt that what is in the "drafts" is the core of what they are aiming at. It´s just a matter of whether and how they will be able to push that through the Commons and the majority is of essence for that. With the DUP as their supporters, they might get them through by a tiny margin, unless the Tories get rid of Ms May before she does even more damage and discredit the Tories for a long time, worse than what one has seen during the Thathcher years. I am still wating to see her downfall, cos there´s no-one else than herself who deserves that more than she does, together with her whole cabinet of incompetent losers.

Thomas__ · 07-09-2017 10:08AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

EU position paper on Northern Ireland and the border is out today. Looks like the Irish government has had significant input into this one, echoing the Taoiseach's recent remarks that it was up to Britain to fix the problems it had created.

The European Commission’s views in the paper are expected to closely mirror the views of the Irish Government, which have hardened recently as patience with the British government over Brexit wears thin.

It is understood that the document – part of the Brexit negotiation process – will reject recent British suggestions for avoiding a hard Border after the UK leaves the EU.

The main thrust of the commission remains its insistence that it is up to the UK, because it is pulling out of the EU, to set out the specifics of how to mitigate the effects in Ireland of its decision.

“It’s about getting the UK to accept responsibility for its decisions,” was how one EU source put it.

At the moment, the British position could best be described as Schrodinger's Cat diplomacy, attempting to maintain simultaneously opposite states: leaving the EU, but retaining many of the benefits of membership, not wanting a hard border but rejecting all the institutions that make it invisible, and so on.

One might describe this tactics by the UK govt as being shizophrenic. I can´t help it but that´s the way I see it in regards of their behaviour and their stubbornness to come up with one and the same demands time and again, on and on. I´m sure that this UK govt will do nothing about it until Day-X has arrived and leave that unprepared until they´re forced to act, probably after 2019. In the meantime, they´ll just talk and do nothing.

robindch · 07-09-2017 10:17AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Downing St asks big business in the UK to sign letter backing Britain's Brexit strategy. Business leaders said "they will not be strong armed by ministers." Looks like desperation to me.

The text of that letter seems to be as follows:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4406824/embarrassment-for-theresa-may-as-top-business-leaders-refuse-to-sign-letter-supporting-brexit-transition-strategy-due-to-uncertainty-surrounding-talks/
http://news.sky.com/story/ftse-100-chiefs-fury-at-no-10-letter-backing-ministers-on-brexit-11023229

It's certainly consistent with the Downing Street narrative - a) the UK is abandoning the EU; b) you must support this policy; c) where we're going will be great, though we don't yet know where that is.

Alleged Letter to be Signed By Business Leaders wrote:

We write as leaders of some of the UK's most dynamic businesses operating in sectors as diverse as technology, financial services and advanced manufacturing. Some of us personally supported the remain or leave campaigns at last year's referendum on EU membership, others did not make their positions public. But fifteen months later, we all share an understanding that Brexit is happening, a commitment to ensure that we make a success of the outcome for the whole country, and a confidence that a global Britain has the potential to become one of the most productive economies of the 21st century. This month the Government's Repeal Bill will initiate a programme of legislation that will make Britain ready for life outside the EU. We believe this is a good time for employers to work with Government and Parliament to make a success of Brexit and secure a bright future for our country. We welcome the Government's commitment to negotiating an interim period so that firms can ensure they are ready to adapt to the changing relationships and thrive under the new partnership being created with the EU. And as the UK makes progress towards establishing stronger trading links with markets like the US, India, Japan and Mexico, British businesses who know these markets well should stand ready to use their expertise and networks to cement future relationships. As business leaders, we have a duty to our shareholders and employees to continue to grow our businesses and ensure that they remain strong. As part of this we are also determined to see the UK continue to be a prosperous and united force for good in the world and are ready to play our full part to achieve this as Britain leaves the European Union.

Fratton Fred · 07-09-2017 11:26AM

ambro25 wrote: »

LOL, bless!

easily your most sensible comment on this entire thread. Well done.

ambro25 wrote: »

Do you know how to turn taps off without running afoul of anti-discriminatory EU legislation (of which the UK still benefits, as a EU member state)?

By carrying more 'due diligence' over longer time periods (-is merely one example of statutorily-compliant feet-dragging, effectively kicking the investment decision and contract into the long grass).
They weren't "my" start-ups, and I'll not pass any judgement on their qualitative or competitive merit. What I can certainly say, is that they were clients, with new tech real enough to gain granted patents, and they were sustaining UK jobs over a couple of years at least. Their demise is at least as attributable to Brexit-caused uncertainty, as to any other qualitative factor.

yep, tap turned off

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2016/2016-223-eib-agrees-gbp-60-million-backing-for-new-east-anglia-trains.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2017/2017-039-pound184-million-eib-backing-for-northern-powerhouse-investment-fund.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2017/2017-028-sovereign-secures-european-investment-for-new-homes.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/blog/all/get-smart-meters.htm

Fratton Fred · 07-09-2017 11:30AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not so straightforward.

The first point is that the EIB's own charter requires that its members be Member States. For the UK to remain a member requires a renegotiation of the bank's charter, which is not straightforward (and requires unanimous consent of the EU-28).

The second point is that the stated object of the Bank is to promote European integration and cohesion. The bank "works closely with other EU institutions to implement EU policy". It "provides finance and expertise for sustainable investment projects that contribute to EU policy objectives". Does the UK wish to commit substantial resources to such a project? And, if it does, to the EU-27 want it in there, given that its commitment to the objectives is, um, questionable?

Or does the UK wish to continue to participate in the bank on the basis that its objectives will be modified to be more consistent with the UK's vision? Because, obviously, that's not straightforward at all.

Assuming we somehow get past all this, and the UK remains a member, this doesn't necessarily mean that the UK will continue to benefit from loans from the bank in the way that it does now. The bank has entirely different lending strategies for loans within the EU, and for those outside the EU. Post-Brexit, obviously, UK projects will be evaluated on the basis of the external lending strategies. For this purpose there are a variety of lending mandates which are based on EU external cooperation and development policies, which differ from region to region. Post-Brexit, as a non-candidate state, the UK would fall into the "European neighbourhood" region, and UK projects would be evaluated under criteria developed for former Soviet states, and North African states. This is probably not going to work very well. There'd need to be a new lending mandate developed for the circumstances of the UK, which would have to depend on the EU's external co-operation and devlopment policies with respect to the UK, which are nowhere near being worked out yet.

So, no, its not straightforward. A lot of work would have to be done to develop a basis for the UK's continued membership of the Bank on terms that would be attractive to the UK and acceptable to the EU. As matters stand, there's no such basis.

so in your opinion, which is th more straightforward. The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK, plus the EIB then having to decide how to divt up its remaining shares and the potential of affecting its credit rating and therefore ability to secure low interst loans.

Of do they agree to come up with a strucutre that keeps the UK an active member of the EIB?

Zubeneschamali · 07-09-2017 11:36AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK,

Allow the UK a discount off their exit bill to the value of their equity in EIB, have EIB make no new investments in the UK after Brexit. No need to settle all existing loans.

Nody · 07-09-2017 12:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so in your opinion, which is th more straightforward. The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK, plus the EIB then having to decide how to divt up its remaining shares and the potential of affecting its credit rating and therefore ability to secure low interst loans.

Of do they agree to come up with a strucutre that keeps the UK an active member of the EIB?

Take all UK related loans vs. equity (i.e. let's say 15 billion outstanding loans, 20 billion equity so hand back loan portfolio + 5 billion) and hand it back to the UK state (UK now becomes the loan owner) plus what ever balance (or use to offset other EU related liabilities such as the budget etc.). Seeing how UK has falling investment grade EIB will have no issues sorting out the equity difference with a now stronger investment grade and you avoid a whole shed of legal related issues.

jm08 · 07-09-2017 12:06PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Allow the UK a discount off their exit bill to the value of their equity in EIB, have EIB make no new investments in the UK after Brexit. No need to settle all existing loans.

I saw a study of what to do with the EIB brexit situation where they said that while the UK own 16% of the assets, it also owns 16% of the liabilities which when balanced out worked out that the UK would have to pay 63 bn to buy itself out. That didn't include the loans the UK had (about 35bn) from the EIB.

That may explain why the UK want to remain in the EIB, but it requires that the other 27 EU countries have to agree to it.

murphaph · 07-09-2017 12:16PM

jm08 wrote: »

I saw a study of what to do with the EIB brexit situation where they said that while the UK own 16% of the assets, it also owns 16% of the liabilities which when balanced out worked out that the UK would have to pay 63 bn to buy itself out. That didn't include the loans the UK had (about 35bn) from the EIB.

That may explain why the UK want to remain in the EIB, but it requires that the other 27 EU countries have to agree to it.

That's interesting. Do you have a source for that? I would have assumed that the bank has more on its loan book than it has liabilities, otherwise it's kind of insolvent.

ambro25 · 07-09-2017 12:26PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well done.

Thank you. I aim to please :pac:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yep, tap turned off

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2016/2016-223-eib-agrees-gbp-60-million-backing-for-new-east-anglia-trains.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2017/2017-039-pound184-million-eib-backing-for-northern-powerhouse-investment-fund.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2017/2017-028-sovereign-secures-european-investment-for-new-homes.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/blog/all/get-smart-meters.htm

These were all being negotiated, if not already agreed in principle, at the time of the referendum (noting that one of your links pre-dates it). That was 15 months ago.

On the EIB front,

Earlier this year the EIB did agree to nine projects worth £1.4billion in the UK but nothing has been financed since June.

(source)

On the EIF front, lending support to my earlier posts:

Rory Stirling, a partner in BGF Ventures, told The Times: “While they’re not saying ‘no’ officially, the clear message is that they are closed for business. They are doing eternal due diligence.”
<...>
The Dealroom report showed French venture houses raised £1.7billion during the first six months of 2017, or more than triple what they had raised over the same period last year.

That compares with £1.6 billion for their British-based counterparts during the six months through June 30, whose fundraising efforts declined by around 50 per cent compared to the first half of 2016.

(source)

Trust the Express to consistently report all the negatives attributable to the EU side of things. Then again, it's not the only source (EIB, EIF).

It'll be interesting to see comparative stats for EU funding into the UK in the period April 2017 (Article 50 triggering) to April 2018, and then a historical context pre-April 2017. Methinks what examples you've been posting, shall be seen as the dregs.

johnnyskeleton · 07-09-2017 12:29PM

Mod note:

Ambro and Fred, debate the substance without taking swipes at each other.

jm08 · 07-09-2017 12:53PM

murphaph wrote: »

That's interesting. Do you have a source for that? I would have assumed that the bank has more on its loan book than it has liabilities, otherwise it's kind of insolvent.

Here is a reference to it (though not the one I initially came across).

But Britain is also liable to cover its portion of the bank’s debt, which amounts to 469 billion euros, EIB President Werner Hoyer said in a hearing at the economic affairs committee of the European Parliament.
“Britain has 16 percent of the shares and probably will want to have a countervalue of these shares when they leave. On the other hand, we also have contingency liabilities of (half a trillion) euros in which the United Kingdom participates with 16 percent,” Hoyer told lawmakers.
If the 16.1 percentage rate was simply applied to the liabilities, Britain would end up with a 75.5 billion euro tab, from which its share of the bank’s capital should be deducted, leaving a 65.3 billion euros bill with the EIB.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eib/britain-may-have-big-brexit-bill-to-settle-with-eu-investment-bank-idUKKBN16T259

View · 07-09-2017 03:38PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

EU position paper on Northern Ireland and the border is out today. Looks like the Irish government has had significant input into this one, echoing the Taoiseach's recent remarks that it was up to Britain to fix the problems it had created.

The European Commission’s views in the paper are expected to closely mirror the views of the Irish Government, which have hardened recently as patience with the British government over Brexit wears thin.

It is understood that the document – part of the Brexit negotiation process – will reject recent British suggestions for avoiding a hard Border after the UK leaves the EU.

The main thrust of the commission remains its insistence that it is up to the UK, because it is pulling out of the EU, to set out the specifics of how to mitigate the effects in Ireland of its decision.

“It’s about getting the UK to accept responsibility for its decisions,” was how one EU source put it.

At the moment, the British position could best be described as Schrodinger's Cat diplomacy, attempting to maintain simultaneously opposite states: leaving the EU, but retaining many of the benefits of membership, not wanting a hard border but rejecting all the institutions that make it invisible, and so on.

The problem with that approach is that the UK will just continue to stall about the issue. Brexiters regard us as pushovers who will just roll-over rather than face up to hard decisions. Why therefore should they do any of the work?

It is only when we go out and demonstrate that we are perfectly willing to have a full hard border (by going through surveying, planning etc) and are willing to operate it as a regular EU/non-EU international frontier that Brexiters will stop assuming they can walk all over us.

ambro25 · 07-09-2017 03:49PM

I'm unsure whether they have been posted yet, so here goes regardless.

The link to all the EU position papers ('guiding principles') published by the EU Commission today is HERE.

The Guiding principles transmitted to the EU27 for the Dialogue on Ireland/Northern Ireland, in particular, is HERE.

Zubeneschamali · 07-09-2017 03:59PM

ambro25 wrote: »

The Guiding principles transmitted to the EU27 for the Dialogue on Ireland/Northern Ireland, in particular, is HERE.

Summary:

The UK says it wants to leave the EU, single market and customs union while keeping a frictionless border and common travel area.

It is up to the UK to suggest how this can be done.

[not stated but obviously meant to imply: it cannot be done and the UK are lying]

demfad · 07-09-2017 04:03PM

Excellent thread on twitter by (suprisingly) Brexiter Pete North about what happens in case of hard disorderly Brexit:
https://twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/904708989912567808

We need to understand the impact of a no deal Brexit deal to the UK.
We live in a "computer says no" world. If I go for a mortgage and a database says I'm no good, then that is the last word on it. Trade systems work the same way. Either a transaction is legal and permitted - or it is not. If the UK is wiped from the EU databases then we do not qualify for preferential trade measures. We don't exist.
UK is no longer part of the EU open skies agreement so landing slots are cancelled. Months of scheduling disrupted. We are subject to all the rules applicable to a third country with no formal relations. - Like we just dropped out of the sky.
None of the systems pertaining to "frictionless trade" will have a UK entry in the databases.
We won't even have our own customs and regulatory regime. All of it is keyed to EU systems and institutions.Testing labs and customs offices no longer recognised or authorised. The system simply stops working.
There are those who say this is not insurmountable but what do we do while we sort this all
Once you break a supply chain, EU business will look elsewhere for suppliers and they won't be back in a hurry. It functions on trust.
It will take us years just to design and roll out the replacement software and systems.
But supposing there are workarounds as Tories continue to assert. Ok, let's entertain that for a
This is the same government that has taken 15 months to learn the difference between the single market and the customs union.
And they STILL can't get the basic definitions right. Our MPs don't have the first concept of how customs systems work.
You think they will cope? Even the people who are supposed to know have only half a clue.
Rebuilding the system will require all new facilities built from scratch. We are looking at years
Oh and let's not even get into obscure things like mutual recognition of driving licences and qualifications. What fun that will be!
In short, everything fails, all at once, in ways our government is incapable of adequately responding. Operation Enduring Cluster****.
It would be bad news even if we had a Rolls Royce government. But we don't. We have David Davis - and he's the competent one!
But never you mind. That Rees-Mogg fellow will sort it all out. After all, he has a posh accent so he must be clever. True story!
Addendum - note that this is without even making mention of tariffs!

Now consider what would happen in Ireland's case. The above would apply to ALL our trade with the UK NOT just hard border issues.

A lot of the talk has been about the UK holding a gun to their own head and threatening the EU. Like a mini playing chicken with a juggernaut. The juggernaut wont be happy with the crash but the mini will be written off.

But while the entire EU will easily survive a hard Brexit: the above scenario seems to suggest that Ireland would also be written off by hard disorderly Brexit.

I am starting to wonder if the British are not gambling that when it comes to the crunch the EU will be forced to compromise to save its member state Ireland.

The image should be of the UK holding a gun to Ireland's head ......or holding Ireland and a grenade threatening to take us both out....you get the picture...hostage situation.

ambro25 · 07-09-2017 04:16PM

I just finished my diagonal read of the intellectual property one.

There's much bread-and-butter stuff which is common ground and non-contentious (e.g. maintaining priority rights), but nothing whatsoever about rights of representation (reciprocal or otherwise, and which unsurprisingly is not good news for us in the UK), and a lot of EU statutory demands, which won't be easy to implement, never mind on a year and a half timescale.

It cannot possibly be done by simply "rolling" EU IP law about e.g. GIs or EU unregistered design right into UK IP statutes. There are very fundamental incompatibilities in definitions, terms and more between the UK and the EU versions, in other cases EU aspects which simply don't exist in UK law (e.g. trademark seniority, GIs), which would simply wipe out the UK's body of practice and case law overnight, not to mention the impossibility of scaling up the UKIPO within that time frame to cope with the associated [new] procedures. It would make just about every piece of professional advice I've ever given on UK designs in the past decade redundant.

We knew solving the IP aspects of Brexit was going to be a headache. But reading this, I'll confess I didn't think it was going to take such head-lopping proportions. What a mess.

murphaph · 07-09-2017 04:29PM

demfad wrote: »

Excellent thread on twitter by (suprisingly) Brexiter Pete North about what happens in case of hard disorderly Brexit:
https://twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/904708989912567808

Now consider what would happen in Ireland's case. The above would apply to ALL our trade with the UK NOT just hard border issues.

A lot of the talk has been about the UK holding a gun to their own head and threatening the EU. Like a mini playing chicken with a juggernaut. The juggernaut wont be happy with the crash but the mini will be written off.

But while the entire EU will easily survive a hard Brexit: the above scenario seems to suggest that Ireland would also be written off by hard disorderly Brexit.

I am starting to wonder if the British are not gambling that when it comes to the crunch the EU will be forced to compromise to save its member state Ireland.

The image should be of the UK holding a gun to Ireland's head ......or holding Ireland and a grenade threatening to take us both out....you get the picture...hostage situation.

I think the EU will assist us in other ways with investment in infrastructure etc. to help offset the damage caused by the UK's withdrawal. I believe there is an extraordinary amount of good will towards Ireland in Brussels (despite the tax stuff). I don't expect the EU to put the whole single market on the line for us however, and I agree with that.

Chips Lovell · 07-09-2017 04:36PM

13 per cent of our trade is with the UK. Some of that will go and food is likely to be hardest hit. Indeed some has already gone because of weak sterling. Trade won't stop completely though. The UK is only 60 percent self-sufficient in food. Which means it will have to continue to import food from somewhere.

View · 07-09-2017 04:36PM

Here's what Barnier had to say about the border issue today (according to the Guardian):

What I see in the UK’s paper on Ireland and Northern Ireland worries me.

The UK wants the EU to suspend the application of its laws, its customs union, and its single market at what will be a new external border of the EU.

And the UK wants to use Ireland as a kind of test case for the future EU-UK customs relations.

This will not happen.

Creativity and flexibility cannot be at the expense of the integrity of the single market and the customs union.

This would not be fair for Ireland and it would not be fair for the European Union.

blanch152 · 07-09-2017 05:09PM

demfad wrote: »

Now consider what would happen in Ireland's case. The above would apply to ALL our trade with the UK NOT just hard border issues.

A lot of the talk has been about the UK holding a gun to their own head and threatening the EU. Like a mini playing chicken with a juggernaut. The juggernaut wont be happy with the crash but the mini will be written off.

But while the entire EU will easily survive a hard Brexit: the above scenario seems to suggest that Ireland would also be written off by hard disorderly Brexit.

I am starting to wonder if the British are not gambling that when it comes to the crunch the EU will be forced to compromise to save its member state Ireland.

The image should be of the UK holding a gun to Ireland's head ......or holding Ireland and a grenade threatening to take us both out....you get the picture...hostage situation.

Ireland will have 26 sympathetic fellow EU members who will be anxious to ensure that the EU works without the UK, so we will get practical help from them.

The UK will be on its own.

demfad · 07-09-2017 05:13PM

murphaph wrote: »

I think the EU will assist us in other ways with investment in infrastructure etc. to help offset the damage caused by the UK's withdrawal. I believe there is an extraordinary amount of good will towards Ireland in Brussels (despite the tax stuff). I don't expect the EU to put the whole single market on the line for us however, and I agree with that.

Agreed. But specifically in the case of a disorderly hard Brexit (UK walkout) the situation deteriorates greatly for us:

The UK would not have their own customs and regulatory regime it is currently keyed into EU systems and institutions. This would mean long delays on inbound goods to the UK and a complete freeze on exports clogging up ports and borders. There are currently no customs checks on the Irish border. How would trade and movements of people be checked?
Testing labs and customs offices no longer recognised or authorised. That would mean goods not being able to enter the EU (Ireland) from the UK at all.
This does not include the hit from new tariffs under WTO rules which would be one of the main hits of an orderly hard Brexit.

murphaph · 07-09-2017 05:42PM

I said it before some posts back but if the UK leaves in a disorderly way and customs posts are thrown up overnight, essentially destroying the land bridge to the continent, I would expect massive assistance from our EU partners, chartering ferries and aircraft if it comes to that. The rest of the EU knows we did not ask for Brexit and know we are committed members of our European Union. It would be the modern equivalent of the Berlin Airlift.

We'd still suffer but we have to stay the course and not chain ourselves to the sinking ship HMS May.

oppenheimer1 · 07-09-2017 05:49PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Ireland will have 26 sympathetic fellow EU members who will be anxious to ensure that the EU works without the UK, so we will get practical help from them.

The UK will be on its own.

Other states will only act in the interest of Ireland if it's also in their own interest. While there is lots of goodwill towards Ireland, that is cheap. If Ireland requires assistance in a meaningful way, it way have to make deeper concessions perhaps on tax, refugees, shengen or on any of the other opt outs it has.

marcus001 · 07-09-2017 05:55PM

We need to understand the impact of a no deal Brexit deal to the UK.
We live in a "computer says no" world. If I go for a mortgage and a database says I'm no good, then that is the last word on it. Trade systems work the same way. Either a transaction is legal and permitted - or it is not. If the UK is wiped from the EU databases then we do not qualify for preferential trade measures. We don't exist.
UK is no longer part of the EU open skies agreement so landing slots are cancelled. Months of scheduling disrupted. We are subject to all the rules applicable to a third country with no formal relations. - Like we just dropped out of the sky.
None of the systems pertaining to "frictionless trade" will have a UK entry in the databases.
We won't even have our own customs and regulatory regime. All of it is keyed to EU systems and institutions.Testing labs and customs offices no longer recognised or authorised. The system simply stops working.
There are those who say this is not insurmountable but what do we do while we sort this all
Once you break a supply chain, EU business will look elsewhere for suppliers and they won't be back in a hurry. It functions on trust.
It will take us years just to design and roll out the replacement software and systems.
But supposing there are workarounds as Tories continue to assert. Ok, let's entertain that for a
This is the same government that has taken 15 months to learn the difference between the single market and the customs union.
And they STILL can't get the basic definitions right. Our MPs don't have the first concept of how customs systems work.
You think they will cope? Even the people who are supposed to know have only half a clue.
Rebuilding the system will require all new facilities built from scratch. We are looking at years
Oh and let's not even get into obscure things like mutual recognition of driving licences and qualifications. What fun that will be!
In short, everything fails, all at once, in ways our government is incapable of adequately responding. Operation Enduring Cluster****.
It would be bad news even if we had a Rolls Royce government. But we don't. We have David Davis - and he's the competent one!
But never you mind. That Rees-Mogg fellow will sort it all out. After all, he has a posh accent so he must be clever. True story!
Addendum - note that this is without even making mention of tariffs!

wow

It's almost as if the EU is a stifling bureaucracy.

murphaph · 07-09-2017 05:59PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Other states will only act in the interest of Ireland if it's also in their own interest. While there is lots of goodwill towards Ireland, that is cheap. If Ireland requires assistance in a meaningful way, it way have to make deeper concessions perhaps on tax, refugees, shengen or on any of the other opt outs it has.

I don't necessarily agree. It seems the EU is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ireland over the border. This is an almost impossible thing to solve, yet the EU has insisted that it must be solved before trade talks can begin. That is a demonstration of how much good will there is for us.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments