Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 13-11-2017 08:07PM

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't think any of these 3 options are possible.

1. Staying in the UK by the back door - my understanding is all 27 member states would have to vote yes for the UK to stay. Thants not going to happen. Anything else is a deal which is below as item 4.

2. Leaving and staying ??? - do you think the UK can leave and stay in the single market, thats what I think this option is saying. This is never going to happen, again see option 4

3. Hard brexit - is this also workable, the UK has ZERO trade deals with ANY country. It will have to setup deals, how long do you think that will take ? Also doesn't WTO only cover goods, I don't think it covers services, what happens to the UK'f financial service sector, how long can it wait for deals with countries, 7 to 8 years ?

4. Hard brexit - it's now looking like the most likely option, unless an extension is given but I doubt all 27 member states would agree. SO under this hard brexit the UK will renege on its financial commitments, that just my opinion. No trade deal and the start of the collapse of the UK service sector, mass leave of multinations bar the low skill like T-shirt manufacturing. Within 1yr a new govt, followed by a new referendum, followed by the UK applying for EU membership, ditching of Stg.

Good evening!

Forgive me - staying in by the back door is referring to the Norwegian model. Out but really in with no say.

The centre option is a free trade agreement whilst being outside of the single market and customs union. My preferred option. The ideal as I see it. Negotiated with a transitional arrangement with obvious benefits to both parties (irrespective of those who say no deal wouldn't be bad for the EU).

And no deal in the last column.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub · 13-11-2017 08:12PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Forgive me - staying in by the back door is referring to the Norwegian model. Out but really in with no say.

The centre option is a free trade agreement whilst being outside of the single market and customs union. My preferred option. The ideal as I see it. Negotiated with a transitional arrangement with obvious benefits to both parties (irrespective of those who say no deal wouldn't be bad for the EU).

And no deal in the last column.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Would this free trade deal cover banking or farming? Services of other sorts. What about airline and other regulatory bodies?

What do you mean by free trade agreements?

Water John · 13-11-2017 08:12PM

I haven't ever replied to you Solo, I think but your preferred option is delusional. Has not nor never will be, on the table.

Nody · 13-11-2017 08:17PM

Gerry T wrote: »

4. Hard brexit - it's now looking like the most likely option, unless an extension is given but I doubt all 27 member states would agree. SO under this hard brexit the UK will renege on its financial commitments, that just my opinion. No trade deal and the start of the collapse of the UK service sector, mass leave of multinations bar the low skill like T-shirt manufacturing. Within 1yr a new govt, followed by a new referendum, followed by the UK applying for EU membership, ditching of Stg.

Few things I'll disagree with here; I know you said it was in your opinion but I'd say it would more likely end up in a court case in Hague or similar. It would also not resolve the WTO trade deal issue (the split of the current allotments) which would block any new trade deal being signed until resolved but that's in both EU and UK's interest to resolve so I expect that to be sorted somehow but could drag on if the other countries take their lead from the orange orangutang in a suit.

The second part is once again where I think you're overestimating the speed of change. A hard brexit will be painful don't get me wrong but the real long term effects will take years to kick in (and decades to reverse) and the economy will start growing again eventually (only at a slower trajectory and from lower numbers) which will put to halt the idea of rejoining. That is why I expect it to take at least 10 if not 20 years before UK will be ready to apply to rejoin the EU. They need to lose the current set of politicians in all parties, have the pensioners cheering Brexit on due to nostalgia either die off or get badly hit by cut pensions/inflation to get to a point of considering rejoining again.

Now there's a chance this could be greatly accelerated if May's predecessor will continue the three stooges show of incompetence in the days and months after Brexit leading to food shortages, stopped flights etc. not being resolved. However I expect those issues with someone who's slightly more competent than a chimp (i.e. Boris disqualified) can get those things sorted (painful but doable) and get the ball rolling. The people will be stringed along about all these new trade deals to come which will make things great again (they will not) to keep them going. Add in the fixes in the first months ("Look at me, I get stuff done") by the PM and you have my above scenario why it will take at least a decade if not more. By the first decade the decline will have set in (lower food standards, less jobs, more automation, less investments, less money from London etc. with brain drain to EU and more non EU immigration than while in EU) setting the ground for a new brave party leader to lead the charge against the old guard on a "We want to rejoin EU and bring back prosperity" as slogan. The leader can be from any of the major parties at the time (inc. Tories) as the driver for it will be more about the charisma of the new leader than anything else.

A Little Pony · 13-11-2017 08:22PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is because a deal is as likely as Liverpool winning the league this year, zero.

Good evening!

I'm a touch more optimistic than you. If I was to draw a line with extremes I'd probably have something like this.

Staying in the EU by the back door|Ideal scenario - regaining control and maintaining trade with the EU|No deal
Terrible outcome, no benefit on today. A loss of decision making over regulations. Paying fees. Free movement continuing. No point in having left the EU. Government can honour basically nothing from the referendum. Less risk for basically no improvement on current terms. |Allows the Government to be faithful to electorate. Controls on immigration can be put in place. A good deal with the both parties to import a substantial amount of goods and potentially services in and out without tariffs and potentially reduced non-tariff barriers. Government can expand trade with other countries. Much much harder work than no deal or EU-by-the-backdoor. Financial settlement will need to be paid but not indefinitely. Honours the referendum campaign. | Government can trade freely with other countries but faces tariffs and non-tariff barriers in terms of goods and services. Controls on immigration can be out in place. Impact on existing useful areas of cooperation gone overnight. This isn't desirable.

Given that structure of how I see it the course of travel my hope is a harder path. It's at risk of the Prime Minister caving in and not really delivering Brexit by giving a terrible deal, it's also at risk of harder core people saying chuck in the towel and go home. But let's be honest this isn't honouring the vote either.

If there is a deal the UK needs to take back real tangible control from the EU. The alternative is a bad deal. I agree broadly that a deal should be aimed for.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's going to be no deal and on WTO rules. The negotiations are a smokescreen as I have said before. The British government knows a deal is not possible with 27 other member states voting on it but it's to give Parliament a "say" on it when ultimately it won't be possible for a deal to even get to Parliament to be voted on in the first place.

Water John · 13-11-2017 08:27PM

The 27 other Countries can be far more relied on to reach a common conclusion than the present UK Cabinet.

solodeogloria · 13-11-2017 08:32PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Would this free trade deal cover banking or farming? Services of other sorts. What about airline and other regulatory bodies?

What do you mean by free trade agreements?

Good evening!

A free trade agreement would need to be negotiated. It could include services including financial services. As I've said a number of times MiFID II allows for third country equivalence. It goes live on January 3rd 2018.

Much of the posts have overstated the impact on banks. UBS have been assured by regulators that it will be able to continue booking trades back to back in London and another EU location irrespective of what happens.

Everyone knows that London will still be a major centre for international finance. EU member states rely on capital markets and debt markets in London.

Other types of goods would need to be specifically negotiated for.

I've already answered on airlines. The Israel model is the way to go. Continued flights from the UK into the EU without ECJ involvement.

The middle option is much much looser than the Norwegian option. There will be a cost for that. It is better than no deal but worse than full single market membership. The benefits of new trading arrangements with other countries will more than compensate for this cost.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A Little Pony · 13-11-2017 08:32PM

Water John wrote: »

The 27 other Countries can be far more relied on to reach a common conclusion than the present UK Cabinet.

For themselves, yes. They certainly will never vote for any deal which keeps the UK out of the single market.

Nody · 13-11-2017 08:36PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've already answered on airlines. The Israel model is the way to go. Continued flights from the UK into the EU without ECJ involvement.

You are aware that it takes 30 days for a non EU airline to apply to get permission to land in EU countries and that only if EU recognise the quality of their country for checking the planes maintenance etc. right? That means on a no deal brexit not planes based out of UK can land in EU for a minimum of 30 days (longer if the function is not set up and working by the time of exiting) as they can only apply once they are outside EU (as until that point they are governed as part of EU regulation).

Gerry T · 13-11-2017 08:37PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Forgive me - staying in by the back door is referring to the Norwegian model. Out but really in with no say.

The centre option is a free trade agreement whilst being outside of the single market and customs union. My preferred option. The ideal as I see it. Negotiated with a transitional arrangement with obvious benefits to both parties (irrespective of those who say no deal wouldn't be bad for the EU).

And no deal in the last column.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But in all honesty I don't see any of these options agreeable to the EU. The Norway style deal EFTA won't be an option for the UK as the current EFTA countries wouldn't want a powerful country like the UK coming in. Plus EFTA has its own court, the UK public won't swap the EU court for an EFTA court.
The free trade will be contingent on free movement of people and EU courts. So that's out.

Barnier gave a 2 week ultimatum to the UK on money and EU nationals in UK. If after that time the UK hasn't agreed with the EU, Barnier says he will recommend in the Dec meeting that not enough progress has been made and that pushes the possible start of trade talks to March next yr. So in 2 weeks UK businesses will probably guess that to start talks in March and finish by say Oct to allow the EU to ratify before March leaves no time for a trade agreement.

Personally I hope an extension of 5 but more likely 2 yrs is given, but I guess the EU will want agreement by Oct next yr on the 3 ticket Items, not a verbal one but a contractual one. With payment of the 20-50bn, border issue and EU nationals. Plus payments for the extension and no say in EU matters during the extension. Just my take on things.

solodeogloria · 13-11-2017 08:39PM

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that it takes 30 days for a non EU airline to apply to get permission to land in EU countries and that only if EU recognise the quality of their country for checking the planes maintenance etc. right? That means on a no deal brexit not planes based out of UK can land in EU for a minimum of 30 days (longer if the function is not set up and working by the time of exiting).

Good evening!

My preferred option is a negotiated Brexit. However, I do think it's an outlandish scenario to think the EU would think that grounding flights was beneficial to either party come what may.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John · 13-11-2017 08:42PM

EU won't be making any decision if UK leave with no agreement on March 19th 2019. It simply, the rules will be implemented by each civil service as per the rule book.

Nody · 13-11-2017 08:44PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My preferred option is a negotiated Brexit. However, I do think it's an outlandish scenario to think the EU would think that grounding flights was beneficial to either party come what may.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You may call it outlandish but that is what the EU regulation require from a airline from a third party country and the minimum application period is 30 days. That's not something EU can ignore for UK because doing so would put it in breach with every other WTO country out there. Same applies for things such as recognising fresh produce (meat & veggies) which has a minimum 6 month period applied to it. This is part of what being a third country means and any thumbing on such rules would apply to every other third party country under WTO rules as well which is simply a no go. That is why we're saying that a hard brexit is beyond stupid and it will be very painful (because the issues can be overcome with time but that does not help on day 1 when they kick in) and this appears to be something that's flying right over the UK politicians heads atm (even though Davis did admit the planes could theoretically be grounded except it is far beyond theoretical scenario).

Gerry T · 13-11-2017 08:55PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My preferred option is a negotiated Brexit. However, I do think it's an outlandish scenario to think the EU would think that grounding flights was beneficial to either party come what may.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU wouldn't be grounding the flights. The UK is grounding the flights by leaving the EU without putting in place a plan. Totally and fully the UK's responsibility.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-11-2017 08:57PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK subsidy for NI is about 60% of their GDP - will that be affected by Brexit? Much of the rest comes as a gift from the EU in the form of regional funds and CAP farm payments - how much of that will be paid by the UK Gov?

It is worth noting that the UK subsidy to NI is greater than their net payments to the EU.

Grove has already said the UK would replace the €3Bn that UK farmers get, but weasel words about linking to the environment. http://biblehub.com/psalms/146-3.htm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/gove-tells-north-s-farmers-subsidies-will-have-to-be-earned-after-brexit-1.3164498

Mr Gove has said post-Brexit subsidies will have to be earned rather than being handed out and that farmers must prove they are committed to environmental issues.

solodeogloria · 13-11-2017 09:07PM

Nody wrote: »

You may call it outlandish but that is what the EU regulation require from a airline from a third party country and the minimum application period is 30 days. That's not something EU can ignore for UK because doing so would put it in breach with every other WTO country out there. Same applies for things such as recognising fresh produce (meat & veggies) which has a minimum 6 month period applied to it. This is part of what being a third country means and any thumbing on such rules would apply to every other third party country under WTO rules as well which is simply a no go. That is why we're saying that a hard brexit is beyond stupid and it will be very painful (because the issues can be overcome with time but that does not help on day 1 when they kick in) and this appears to be something that's flying right over the UK politicians heads atm (even though Davis did admit the planes could theoretically be grounded except it is far beyond theoretical scenario).

Gerry T wrote: »

The EU wouldn't be grounding the flights. The UK is grounding the flights by leaving the EU without putting in place a plan. Totally and fully the UK's responsibility.

Good evening!

The scenario I'm presenting is for a negotiated Brexit. Not a no deal Brexit at the time of writing. If the deal presented is extremely bad, it is an option. (A deal that doesn't honour the referendum result is bad in my book also)

Even in the worst case scenario if the period was 30 days I'm sure this could be arranged for once the direction of travel is clear.

It's pretty possible to come to an Israel style agreement before Brexit is concluded if not certainly by the time the transitional period ends.

We need to put the bogeymen away. It's perfectly possible for a constructive arrangement to be agreed in respect to the three issues, this and transitional terms leading to a good free trade agreement if all parties are willing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight · 13-11-2017 09:15PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

In a sense stating that currency / forex risk affects any asset held in a currency is unremarkable. It also works both ways. If someone receives payment in currencies that have strengthened to sterling it will also be beneficial.

This is why FTSE250 companies appear to be doing well.

Is there any evidence of any of the extra dosh getting to the workers or is it all profit taking, and how much of that profit is exported.

The public isn't seeing a Brexit Dividend and they aren't spending it either. Black Friday is two days after the Budget which may be a good barometer in how optimistic or cash strapped people really are.

The truth is that the British economy has slowed but is still growing despite a huge amount of uncertainty. The British economy is proving itself to be remarkably resilient. I think clarity at the end of the Brexit process will be good rather than bad for Britain.

Spin it any way you want, but it's not growing anything like the EU27 or other OECD countries. (with the exception of South Africa).

And wage growth has been completely wiped out by inflation.

Roughly 10% of companies will be implementing their Brexit plans , each month, until May. In most cases this means spending some money elsewhere in the EU.

Sand · 13-11-2017 09:18PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The scenario I'm presenting is for a negotiated Brexit. Not a no deal Brexit at the time of writing. If the deal presented is extremely bad, it is an option. (A deal that doesn't honour the referendum result is bad in my book also)

Even in the worst case scenario if the period was 30 days I'm sure this could be arranged for once the direction of travel is clear.

It's pretty possible to come to an Israel style agreement before Brexit is concluded if not certainly by the time the transitional period ends.

We need to put the bogeymen away. It's perfectly possible for a constructive arrangement to be agreed in respect to the three issues, this and transitional terms leading to a good free trade agreement if all parties are willing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But, in the worst case scenario, why wouldn't the EU use the prospect of grounded UK airlines as leverage to force the UK to honour its commitments to the EU and its citizens? Why would it surrender that leverage when it could leave the UK twisting in the wind for a few weeks/months?

solodeogloria · 13-11-2017 09:24PM

Good evening!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Grove has already said the UK would replace the €3Bn that UK farmers get, but weasel words about linking to the environment. http://biblehub.com/psalms/146-3.htm

Not a bad passage to choose to be fair. So, the conclusion is that only God can get us through Brexit?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is why FTSE250 companies appear to be doing well.

Is there any evidence of any of the extra dosh getting to the workers or is it all profit taking, and how much of that profit is exported.

The public isn't seeing a Brexit Dividend and they aren't spending it either. Black Friday is two days after the Budget which may be a good barometer in how optimistic or cash strapped people really are.

Spin it any way you want, but it's not growing anything like the EU27 or other OECD countries. (with the exception of South Africa).

And wage growth has been completely wiped out by inflation.

Roughly 10% of companies will be implementing their Brexit plans , each month, until May. In most cases this means spending some money elsewhere in the EU.

Firstly - Brexit isn't concluded yet. Meaning that none of the benefits of Brexit will come to pass until the UK has left the European Union.

Secondly - I don't know why you are claiming that there is a link between illiquid stock prices held by shareholders and "extra dosh for workers". It's not quite how it works.

Thirdly - the UK is doing extremely well despite the uncertainty of Brexit. The doomsday prophets of last year were predicting a recession. The truth is record numbers of people are in work, and the economy is growing. If it is growing in the middle of such uncertainty there is no reason why it won't continue to do so when the direction of travel is clear.

As I say, I'm hopeful, and there's not really a good reason not to be at present.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 13-11-2017 09:32PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My preferred option is a negotiated Brexit. However, I do think it's an outlandish scenario to think the EU would think that grounding flights was beneficial to either party come what may.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's not an EU problem for the UK. It's a worldwide problem.

If the UK has no internationally accredited replacement for EASA to inspect UK airlines then they will not be allowed to land or even overfly anywhere.

How quickly do you think the CAA can set up and get their EASA replacement accredited around the world?

flatty · 13-11-2017 09:35PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is because a deal is as likely as Liverpool winning the league this year, zero.

Good evening!

I'm a touch more optimistic than you. If I was to draw a line with extremes I'd probably have something like this.

Staying in the EU by the back door|Ideal scenario - regaining control and maintaining trade with the EU|No deal
Terrible outcome, no benefit on today. A loss of decision making over regulations. Paying fees. Free movement continuing. No point in having left the EU. Government can honour basically nothing from the referendum. Less risk for basically no improvement on current terms. |Allows the Government to be faithful to electorate. Controls on immigration can be put in place. A good deal with the both parties to import a substantial amount of goods and potentially services in and out without tariffs and potentially reduced non-tariff barriers. Government can expand trade with other countries. Much much harder work than no deal or EU-by-the-backdoor. Financial settlement will need to be paid but not indefinitely. Honours the referendum campaign. | Government can trade freely with other countries but faces tariffs and non-tariff barriers in terms of goods and services. Controls on immigration can be out in place. Impact on existing useful areas of cooperation gone overnight. This isn't desirable.

Given that structure of how I see it the course of travel my hope is a harder path. It's at risk of the Prime Minister caving in and not really delivering Brexit by giving a terrible deal, it's also at risk of harder core people saying chuck in the towel and go home. But let's be honest this isn't honouring the vote either.

If there is a deal the UK needs to take back real tangible control from the EU. The alternative is a bad deal. I agree broadly that a deal should be aimed for.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's going to be no deal and on WTO rules. The negotiations are a smokescreen as I have said before. The British government knows a deal is not possible with 27 other member states voting on it but it's to give Parliament a "say" on it when ultimately it won't be possible for a deal to even get to Parliament to be voted on in the first place.

I don't think the remain faction in parliament are dim enough to fall for this ruse, which it clearly is, and is there merely to buy may another few months in the prime ministerial jag.
This has a way to go yet, but I'm pretty certain brexit will be hard, and fully hard, and will make the UK both poorer, and more dangerous (crime will increase across the spectrum). I just don't think that the other factions and parties are stupid enough to fall for a blatant attempt at blame shifting by a prime minister and govt devoid of motive bar clinging to "power".
The yanks will be quietly delighted and will stick the boot into the prone man laid low in the first place by the eu.
Capital flight, well I honestly don't think it will have been seen on such a scale in recent history.

blanch152 · 13-11-2017 09:36PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

But a sea border is certainly better for the republic. We're already going to suffer because of Brexit. Better to apply pressure that will work out better for us. Northern Ireland's economy is 70% services. It won't survive being out of the single market and it certainly won't grow during Brexit.

There is a certain viewpoint that is wishing for a sea border in order to crush the Northern Irish economy forcing Northern Ireland to look towards the South and to deliver their dream of a united Ireland.

It is sad to see them looking to the suffering of others to deliver what they want.

FrancieBrady · 13-11-2017 09:46PM

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a certain viewpoint that is wishing for a sea border in order to crush the Northern Irish economy forcing Northern Ireland to look towards the South and to deliver their dream of a united Ireland.

It is sad to see them looking to the suffering of others to deliver what they want.

I want a sea border because a land border could cause untold suffering again.
Certain viewpoints refuse to see the dangers of that.

murphaph · 13-11-2017 09:46PM

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a certain viewpoint that is wishing for a sea border in order to crush the Northern Irish economy forcing Northern Ireland to look towards the South and to deliver their dream of a united Ireland.

It is sad to see them looking to the suffering of others to deliver what they want.

To me NI is part of the UK and 45% of the NI electorate even voted for Brexit. The UK (including NI) has brought this upon itself. The RoI is entirely correct in looking after its interests first and foremost.

A sea border definitely does less damage to us.

Thargor · 13-11-2017 10:12PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Stop with the "Good Evening!" and "Much Thanks" crap, nobody wants to read that sh1t over and over again, are you doing it to annoy people?

steddyeddy · 13-11-2017 10:29PM

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a certain viewpoint that is wishing for a sea border in order to crush the Northern Irish economy forcing Northern Ireland to look towards the South and to deliver their dream of a united Ireland.

It is sad to see them looking to the suffering of others to deliver what they want.

Actually I was thinking about the republic. Our trade would be much less affected by a sea border as we would see relatively little transport costs compared to with a land border.

The question is why do you think we should suffer more economically than a part of the UK?

steddyeddy · 13-11-2017 10:34PM

murphaph wrote: »

To me NI is part of the UK and 45% of the NI electorate even voted for Brexit. The UK (including NI) has brought this upon itself. The RoI is entirely correct in looking after its interests first and foremost.

A sea border definitely does less damage to us.

Indeed. I'm missing why Blanch intends for us to prioritise a part of the UK.

listermint · 13-11-2017 10:35PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed. I'm missing why Blanch intends for us to prioritise a part of the UK.

Stick it to the 'shinners'

steddyeddy · 13-11-2017 10:38PM

listermint wrote: »

Stick it to the 'shinners'

I think that's it, but I fail to see how someone who wants to shield the republic from economic ruin is a "shinner".

FrancieBrady · 13-11-2017 10:54PM

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments