Brexit discussion thread III

Sethanon wrote: »

0.4% is a small hit to take over 5 years tbh. Leaving will always cause issues, but as I say it won't be England that suffers, it will push that onto the rest of the UK because it can.

Its 0.4% each year, cumulative. At that is predicated on a soft Brexit. Davies won't release want the actual effects might be.

Sethanon wrote: »

3bn is small in the scheme of the UKs affairs, as a once of expenditure this is completely irrelevant to them.

Ask your company to invest significant amounts of money to replace a system that isn't broken and for which you can't guarantee the outcome ans see how you get on.

But what are you spending the money on?

Sethanon wrote: »

Realistically this is a non issue, easily resolved. Remember all main hubs in the UK have customs facilities as they actually have imports from outside of the EU!

Its not about the tariffs, they need to be checked and that causes delays. You need somewhere to park all the trucks etc.
And the delay costs money. One area that has been talked about is rerouting Irish>Continent exports via France rather than across the UK. That in itself would cause hardship for certain hauliers.

Sethanon wrote: »

I dont think the UK see the NI border as an issue, They will happily put it in the sea. A hard border on land is their last resort.

So basically agreeing to split up the UK! I am sure Scotland will feel very welcome based on how quickly London will dump NI.

Sethanon wrote: »

This is not the case at all, when it comes to goods, there is no delay in moving them through the EU. Only a tariff. As all UK companies already comply with the regulations and ISO they will have an even easier time moving products.
We do not have trade deals with most Asian countries yet we have their products here in abundance. its simply a tariff implied.

As above, regs are maintained throughout the EU by various bodies that can sign off before the goods even leave teh farm/factory. That won't be the case anymore and as such the goods will have to be checked => increase in travel time and costs.

Sethanon wrote: »

Some will be lost, but if they are it will be to cheaper non EU countries most likely. I deal with companies like Jaguar and Ford on a weekly basis and they will not leave. They will huff and puff until they convince the government to give them money, thats all they are after.

Ok so how much will leave and how much will these companies that will stay need to stay? You need to add that to the costs. And who is going to pay for this? Are you going to pay higher taxes? Are you prepared to pay higher prices for your goods?

Sethanon wrote: »

Simply put, the logistics of a car manufacturer are finely tuned and take years, they do not hold stock, items arrive constantly to be delivered directly to the live line. This is the logistical precision they use. The only way these companies would leave england is if the EU puts a massive tariff on UK exports. (which is unlikely for the car industry especially as they are lobbying hard in germany for a soft brexit. and car manufacturers have a massive pull, they are the forefront of all manufacturing advancement after all.)

I didn't say they will up and leave, but why would they continue to reinvest when they can have everything they currently have in France and not have to worry about the potential customs issues.

Sethanon wrote: »

So yeah its not going to be perfect at all. but England will be fine in the long run. its all of us on the fringe that will suffer because like it or not, we rely on those bollaxs

Again, nobody is saying that UK will not be fine, it is not going to collapse. But we have already some indicators as to the likely negatives effects and this is with the bonus of exchange rate while still in the EU. I have pointed out some of the costs, you have simply waved them away as nothing.

But what are the benefits to Brexit. So far all you have provided is a mitigation on the negatives

lawred2 wrote: »

They are also too busy to actually fulfill their democratic responsibilities in the Northern Assembly.

naw, its the usual. make them sweat a bit before you see them tactic

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

very true. It's going to get a whole lot worse for the UK from here on in. :rolleyes:

And thats the truth. In effect Phase 1 should have been pretty straight forward. The EU set out their red lines right from the off. In effect this has been a negotiation of the UK with itself.

The real problems will come from the trade negotiations when the actual real world effects will start to become clearer. Can you imagine if the EU demand and end to passporting rights? Easy for the like of people living in the UK to say that we can afford to lose on NI, but trade talks will mean that certain parts (sectors of the economy etc) will lose out more than others whilst other win.

Just joined up today, followed the thread yesterday and found it interesting to get the ROI views on things. I'm from the UK and never took much in interest Politics before. Looking forward to expressing my views here.

A bit of a messy situation overall, but i really do not see why the ROI and the UK cannot sort this border out between themselves. Both sides have stated they do not want a hard border, and the only people who will put a hard border in place is the EU themselves.
For certain now, at some point in the future, ROI goods going into NI will attract tariffs, likewise with the UK and vice a versa. With goods being exported to the EU, if going through the UK they will attract tariffs also.

 I do not see any problem with ROI people visiting the UK or working here, same with any EU resident which is probably the same for you guys. Naturally, we do detest having to accept people to come here, bring the family and live happily ever after on benefits.

Surely there was no need to involve a third party in all of this.

The brexit vote was basically done on the basis of stopping EU citizens have the freedom to come and work in the UK.

Ireland is a member of the EU, there is no third party. Just the UK and EU. Luckily for Ireland we are a member of a bigger club as it is clear that the UK would take little head our Ireland if they weren't being forced to. Ireland and the UK had already sorted out the border, but then the UK decided it didn't matter too much so wants to change the plan.

The border is not only an EU issue. Another of the main points in the Brexit campaign was securing the borders and taking back control. It is simply not feasible to then leave a 300 mile stretch of open border into your country.

Peregrinus wrote: »

David Davis seems to have bought into the Scottish Conservatives idea of regulatory alignment for the whole of the UK, on the basis that "regulatory alignment" doesn't mean the UK mirroring the EU rules; it means the UK adopting rules which produce outcomes that mirror the outcomes of the EU rules.

We could live with that.

Outcomes, but not tarrifs.

on the basis that "regulatory alignment" doesn't mean the UK mirroring the EU rules; it means the UK adopting rules which produce outcomes that mirror the outcomes of the EU rules.

which in most cases is realistically the same thing, Today for example EU directives are enshrined in national law, but each countries law is not identical , only that the outcome has a base level of implementing the directive

in effect it would mean the UK would continue to have to implement EU directives in a very similar fashion , but would EU regulations ( which are different ) as EU directives

There will also have to be an agreed oversight mechanism to resolve disputes , That in effect means the ECJ , another issue

Truthfully this is an easy issue to solve... if not for the DUP

its not the first time , that phase has been uttered

swampgas wrote: »

I don't think the danger feels real enough or near enough for many of the MPs yet. Too many of them are hoping somebody else will fix it so they don't have to make any embarrasing U-turns. And some of them really don't understand what Brexit really means.

If this chaos drags into next year, I expect businesses will ramp up the pressure considerably. I'm surprised they haven't been more vocal to be honest.

My money is still on chaotic hard Brexit though.

They're still in bet-hedging mode about the Phase II start date, with fingers poised above the big red relocate button, until next week when May goes to Brussels with the revised copy.

If that gets shanghaied again, whence the Phase II can gets kicked into the March 2018 long grass by the EU, that's when you (and Theresa, David, Liam and the whole merry band of UK policymakers and opponents, including Corbyn) will get to see business pressure. The sort they haven't even begun to glimpse yet.

Enzokk wrote: »

Maybe someone can let me know, but if the UK decides that they will mirror the rules of the single market and customs union, does that mean that bespoke trade deals with other countries will be essentially ruled out? I mean the UK will need to adopt different rules that will have the same outcome as EU rules, so they cannot have different rules than the EU. So a trade deal with the US is out as they will not be allowed to import food at lower standards than is allowed in the EU.

Do I have this right?

I don't think that rules out bespoke trade deals as such, but it would certainly restrict their margin of trade manoeuvring and thus, negotiating.

TBH, if I was in the EU's shoes, I'd be more worried about the pragmatics of the thing, rather than the mission statement-level currently being discussed: these are all pretty meaningless for now, if they're not followed through in practice, and the thing is that UK is still after getting its sectoral approach to a trade deal/arrangement with the EU (which the EU has nixed quite categorically from day one, and steadfastly since).

Enzokk wrote: »

Maybe someone can let me know, but if the UK decides that they will mirror the rules of the single market and customs union, does that mean that bespoke trade deals with other countries will be essentially ruled out? I mean the UK will need to adopt different rules that will have the same outcome as EU rules, so they cannot have different rules than the EU. So a trade deal with the US is out as they will not be allowed to import food at lower standards than is allowed in the EU.

Do I have this right?

Yes basically, regulatory alignment is in essence the Norway solution. it would limit the UK to trade deals that did not infringe its own regulations , and such regulations would be in alignment with the EU regulations
However the prospect of a trade deal between the UK and USA will take years and years and has potential for great damage to the UK economy

This whole dash for trade agreements is another Brexit lie, the EU canadian one , ( both willing partners ) took 10 years to get over the table

If that gets shanghaied again, whence the Phase II can gets kicked into the March 2018 long grass by the EU, that's when you (and Theresa, David, Liam and the whole merry band of UK policymakers and opponents, including Corbyn) will get to see business pressure. The sort they haven't even begun to glimpse yet.

oh I think Mays desperation for a deal , is a very clear indication that she is under tremendous pressure from Business.

The crazy thing is the solution is the Customs Union , The channels islands seems to have got on fine with it and its not in the EU

BoatMad wrote: »

The crazy thing is the deadlines, The UK should ask the EU to extend deadlines by two years and simply tale the heat out of the issues . The biggest issue around Brexit is  the Tory party , it simply isnt rational

The deadlines are enshrined in Article 50. The UK has triggered said article with no plan or positions and only started half-baking them way into after the negotiating period started. Then May decided to trigger a GE after triggering said article. They knew what they were getting into before triggering Article 50 with no plan. They knew they were delayed and needed to do a lot of work but they said, "hey, you know what sounds like a great idea right now? A GE," instead of "hey, you know what sounds like a great idea right now? Actually figuring out how to calculate the exit bill and how to solve the border issue." The deadline shouldn't be extended because this has been all their fault.

Besides that, I really don't want the UK to get MEPs in the next election, a lot of EU Citizens probably feel the same way.

brickster69 wrote: »

Maybe that is part of the problem. We consider the UK border our border, not an EU border.

Do you consider the border between Ireland/ UK a UK border?

devnull wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Maybe that is part of the problem. We consider the UK border our border, not an EU border.

Thing is though whether you like it or not, when one country is in the European Union and the one next to it is not than it is an European Union border plain and simple.

You've been taken in too much by the Brexiteer rhetoric it seems that is far too commonplace in the UK press.

No, i dont read the papers to be honest. When i say "We consider the UK border our border, not an EU border " i mean the majority of people. For me it is just a border which belongs to nobody.

Bar_Prop wrote: »

Was enacted during The Emergency/WWII.   I'm not disagreeing with the general point that you're making but pointing out that you can never say never.

actually postwar there was in effect immigration control in the irish sea at british sea ports for NI travellers

Im not aware even in the emergency there was any formal imposition on people movement along the border, it would have been physically impossible anyway.

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

Even if they stamp their feet and hold their breath?

In Jacob Reese Mogg's case maybe he can quote an appropriate Latin phrase, and Boris Johnson can make a racist remark towards the Irish. Maybe then the EU will let them have the cake and nibble at it.

Its really is a sorry state of affairs that we find ourselves in. We in Ireland are at the mercy of the DUP and the likes of Johnson and JRM to get a good deal for everyone that will minimize the damage this will cause.

somefeen wrote: »

Its amusing and infuriating that the DUP keep blaming the Irish government for any breakdown of negotiations.
They've accused the Irish government of being aggressive today. Yet the language from Leo and Simon has generally been firm but positive and they've done nothing more than hold their ground.
Its becoming more and more obvious that the DUP aren't interested in a good deal for anyone, even themselves. Theyre more concerned with blind ideology and stirring up some anti Irish sentiment, probably to get more of the bigot vote next time around.

If I was May I'd let them pull out of government, if a remain minded government takes the next election, let the blame rest at the DUP's feet, take a nice long holiday and let some other poor bastard deal with the issue.

A proper GE in the UK would definitely clear the air

BoatMad wrote: »

A proper GE in the UK would definitely clear the air

Or result in more of the same.

Enzokk wrote: »

So it seems that once again we are on a path of either EU lite or no deal. There is no middle ground for the UK in this and those pretending that there is I would call deluded.

https://twitter.com/DanielBoffey/status/938047748603043840


Either the UK allows NI to be part of the EU if they want to keep their red lines or all of them follow the same regulations. Its amazing how there was so much hope yesterday of a breakthrough that seemed to be perfect for everyone, except one party in NI.

The beauty of the sort of wording adopted by the EU is that - in Humpty Dumpty's immortal phrase - to some extent it "means whatever you choose it to mean, neither more nor less".

If the UK wants regulatory equivalence for some goods, on a mutual basis, with the EU recognizing the UK authorities judgement and vice versa, for the purposes of free trade, then what is wrong with that ?

From the point of view of the UK, it has gained it's independence from the EU, and is simply acting as a Sovereign nation can - mutual recognition as part of a limited agreement. I can understand why Europhiles might think it a pointless move, economically irrational (or whatever) and that - one assumes - is why nobody here is ever likely to want Ireland to leave the EU.

From the point of view of Europe, the equivalence is assured, and officials in Brussels can run around pretending that the UK has somehow voted to become "a protectorate of the EU". So be it, if the wording gives him sufficient justification to express things that way then everybody is happy.

Although if the EU sees the UK as a 'protectorate' after Brexit we might reasonably wonder how it sees Ireland.