Brexit discussion thread III

Harika · 16-03-2018 11:59AM

Some lunch time read of the Center of European Reform, basically stating that the reason why the UK has not cracked the unity of the 27 is because of the self imposed UK red lines.

http://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2018/will-unity-27-crack

Conclusion from the PDF

The paper has considered four possible reason why the 27 might diverge over their future relationship with the UK. The most likely instigator of a split would be an offer of significant UK contributions to economic development in the poorer regions of the EU. The Polish prime minister said at the Brussels Forum on March 8th that he would welcome UK contributions to the EU budget, post-Brexit. The politics of the EU budget are going to be especially difficult in the next round, and if the UK offered a significant sum, it might unlock some benefits in the negotiations over a free trade deal. Any benefits that an offer of money might provide will be limited if the UK does not accept the other “ The next EU budget talks will be thornier than usual: a generous UK contribution might yield some benefits.”
...
A stance of complete unity worked in phase one of the talks. The 27 got what they wanted on the sequencing and the withdrawal agreement by acting together. The Commission, Germany and France are in a strong position to persuade the others that continued unity will help them to pursue their interests. And the overwhelming interest among the 27 will remain ensuring the integrity of the single market and the longevity of the European project. And this doesn’t look set to change any time soon, despite Brexit.

I have missed that the Polish prime minister has asked for a contribution to the budget to get a better deal, it seems the EU unity is only cracking in the other way UK wanted. Get a better deal for more contribution.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2018 12:47PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The fact that they are dismissing the, now pretty much accepted point that Brexit will make the country poorer as not really a big deal, shows to me the lengths they are willing to go to over this.

The UK Government warned the electorate that Brexit would make them 3-6% poorer before the vote. (I think this is low, given the kind of Brexit they are going for it is more like 5-15%, but anyhow...) Surveys show that Leave voters don't care, and that even if a family member loses their job as a result, they still want to Brexit.

So saying now that they shouldn't Brexit because it will make them poorer is too late - they know, they don't care. Brexit is not about money.

Seth Brundle · 16-03-2018 12:57PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Brexit is not about money.

But what is it about?
I'm struggling to find one reason that stands up to any simple scrutiny.
The only thing I can think of is in terms of regaining their "Britishness" as if they will become the dominant global force they were a century ago and even that isn't that strong an argument.

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 01:00PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK Government warned the electorate that Brexit would make them 3-6% poorer before the vote. (I think this is low, given the kind of Brexit they are going for it is more like 5-15%, but anyhow...) Surveys show that Leave voters don't care, and that even if a family member loses their job as a result, they still want to Brexit.

So saying now that they shouldn't Brexit because it will make them poorer is too late - they know, they don't care. Brexit is not about money.

Oh I totally agree, I just meant that the fact that you now have the government of the UK are actively following a path, and seemingly intent on going out as hard as possible

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 01:01PM

kbannon wrote: »

But what is it about?
I'm struggling to find one reason that stands up to any simple scrutiny.
The only thing I can think of is in terms of regaining their "Britishness" as if they will become the dominant global force they were a century ago and even that isn't that strong an argument.

You have nailed it. It is about Britishness. It is clear that that idea overrides all the other concerns.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2018 01:01PM

kbannon wrote: »

But what is it about?

Immigration, control, sovereignty, patriotism, the Queen, Rule Britannia.

Two fingers up to Johnny Foreigner.

Two World Wars and One World Cup, Brexit, Brexit!

Wonky veg. The Pound. The Belgrano.

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 01:13PM

Just watched last nights question time. Thought Mairead McGuinness came across very well (not sure about the whole "I'm the only woman" and the love in with Brian Cox) but I thought she did a good job and did her best to try to defuse some of the cries of threat and being intimidated etc.

Chris Grayling stated that the UK would not be checking any trucks at Dover. So we had a government minister stating publicly that the UK will not be undertaking any border checks for trucks leaving the country.

And the UK have asked that the EU trust them that they will abide by regulations!

LeinsterDub · 16-03-2018 02:04PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the UK have asked that the EU trust them that they will abide by regulations!

And trustworthy they surely are I mean it's not like every agreement reached in the negotiations so far the British have attempted to walk back .

Tropheus · 16-03-2018 02:32PM

Looking at the headlines over the past couple of days, May must be delighted she has the nerve gas attack to distract from the shambles that is Brexit. Nothing like a threat of war (no matter how vague) to improve a British PMs rating in the poles.

farmchoice · 16-03-2018 02:39PM

Tropheus wrote: »

Looking at the headlines over the past couple of days, May must be delighted she has the nerve gas attack to distract from the shambles that is Brexit. Nothing like a threat of war (no matter how vague) to improve a British PMs rating in the poles.

Oh i'd say so and before that the snow, but unfortunately for her a day will come in the very near future where it will have to be faced up to.

may is on borrowed time, every day she hangs on to number 10 is a bonus now and as far as i can make out her entire political raison d'etre is simply staying in number 10 for as many more days or weeks as possible. i dont think she is in a position to think in terms of months, even 2 of them.

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 02:52PM

One gets the feeling that the EU understand that as bad as May is, what could potentially replace her is far worse.

The likes of Boris, JRM etc aren't even listening to the points being made. They simply claim that the reports are wrong or the people voted.

I really don't think there is much chance of TM being ousted before 2019. Why would anyone want to take up the challenge?

She is also secure because of the lack of any serious opposition she receives from Crobyn. Whatever about the points he makes, his timing and reading of the mood is terrible.

I could see the frustration on Mairead McGuinness on QT last night, she sees the 'arguments' as nothing more than soundbites dressed up as a position. Imagine having to sit beside the UK transport secretary, who just spent the last 20 minutes arguing for Brexit, and then having him trot out the line that there will be no effects on the borders!

EU have been placed in a terrible situation as the UK are totally failing to take this seriously and only want to negotiate on the basis of how brilliant a deal the EU will be forced to give them. They are continuing to state that they want to control their own borders, but it is up to the EU to set up any borders.

Its an impossible situation for the EU, and by extension Ireland, to come out of without serious negative impact.

farmchoice · 16-03-2018 03:00PM

in the next few weeks she is going to have to present something concrete to the eu this will mightily piss off one or the other sides of the tory split.

her majority is too thin and the dup are a bomb waiting to go off she has kicked the can down the road beautifully so far but she is running out of road.

if i was a betting man id suggest a few pound on a uk election by june would be a decent gamble.

this will surely return a lab/snp government.

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 03:09PM

Just to follow up on what Grayling stated during QT last night;

Sky News Breaking
‏
Verified account

@SkyNewsBreak
Follow Follow @SkyNewsBreak
More
Sky News understands non-disclosure agreements the Government is asking businesses in the UK to sign include a plan not to enforce a customs border if no deal is reached on Brexit

10:00 AM - 16 Mar 2018

This must be possible, otherwise they wouldn't be suggesting it (the non enforcement, not the non-disclosure). I assume they are doing this to try to alleviate any delays due to Brexit border checks, but what practical impact could it have?

I assume the EU would then need to check every shipment arriving from the UK, so are the simply trying to shift the problem further down the line?
As isn't this acceptable? I mean, it is the EU issue to police what comes in I would have thought

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2018 03:27PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I assume they are doing this to try to alleviate any delays due to Brexit border checks, but what practical impact could it have?

Peregrinus called this out as a possibility some time ago - although WTO rules require them to enforce customs on goods from the EU in the same way as from China or the US, they could simply refuse to do it.

Eventually the WTO would get around to fining them or putting punitive tariffs on their exports, but that would be medium term, and at least they wouldn't starve in the meantime.

So it's just kicking the can down the road a bit more.

Skedaddle · 16-03-2018 03:30PM

I still find this a bit like:

UK: "I am going to drill huge ventilation hole in the bottom of the ship"
EU: "but your boat will sink if you do that!!"
UK: "it's the democratic will of the British people to drill this hole!"
EU: "ok, but you'll still sink"
UK: "your threatening me you big bully! Stop trampling upon British dreams and hurry up and change the laws of physics! We voted! How dare you!"

LeinsterDub · 16-03-2018 03:33PM

Sky News Breaking
‏
Verified account

@SkyNewsBreak
Follow Follow @SkyNewsBreak
More
Sky News understands non-disclosure agreements the Government is asking businesses in the UK to sign include a plan not to enforce a customs border if no deal is reached on Brexit

10:00 AM - 16 Mar 2018

Hat tip to Leroy42.

What the hell does this even mean? Businesses don't enforce borders governments do. If the UK doesn't want to enforce it's borders fine but the WTO says they must offer the same deal to everyone.

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 03:36PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peregrinus called this out as a possibility some time ago - although WTO rules require them to enforce customs on goods from the EU in the same way as from China or the US, they could simply refuse to do it.

Eventually the WTO would get around to fining them or putting punitive tariffs on their exports, but that would be medium term, and at least they would starve in the meantime.

So it's just kicking the can down the road a bit more.

Well if that is the approach they are going to take, then surely the EU must treat them as a aggressive state, actively looking to cause trouble for the EU.

It goes back to the posts earlier about trying to help the UK. It seems the only thing they will accept is their way and are willing to do anything to get it. I would be very slow to vote for (not me personally obv but the EU) any transition deal

Havockk · 16-03-2018 03:36PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Hat tip to Leroy42.

What the hell does this even mean? Businesses don't enforce borders governments do. If the UK doesn't want to enforce it's borders fine but the WTO says they must offer the same deal to everyone.

What about the customs on the EU side?

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 03:42PM

Havockk wrote: »

What about the customs on the EU side?

That is one of the questions I have but I think I already know the answer. The EU will have to enforce checks on their side. The UK are looking at this purely from an Island POV. They are looking to avoid truck parks along the motorways in the UK as that will look really bad.

But I cannot see how the EU will be able to cope. They are not going to want massive truck parks either so are they going to stack up the ships until the previous one is fully cleared? So now we have a serious impact on the movement of the ships themselves?

Of course in NI, the problem will actually be on the NI side. EU won't care about goods leaving, and I assume neither do the UK care about incoming checks. But Ireland will need to check all trucks coming in and they will do that by closing the border. You are looking at significant delays in the NI side. The EU would have no option but to do this.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2018 03:46PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well if that is the approach they are going to take, then surely the EU must treat them as a aggressive state, actively looking to cause trouble for the EU.

No, not at all. If the UK want to wave EU trucks through, that's good for the EU. Our exports don't face delays. Likewise, no checks means trucks crossing the UK from Ireland heading for the EU will be unimpeded

The WTO suing the pants off the UK later is not the EU's problem.

Havockk · 16-03-2018 03:48PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is one of the questions I have but I think I already know the answer. The EU will have to enforce checks on their side. The UK are looking at this purely from an Island POV. They are looking to avoid truck parks along the motorways in the UK as that will look really bad.

But I cannot see how the EU will be able to cope. They are not going to want massive truck parks either so are they going to stack up the ships until the previous one is fully cleared? So now we have a serious impact on the movement of the ships themselves?

Of course in NI, the problem will actually be on the NI side. EU won't care about goods leaving, and I assume neither do the UK care about incoming checks. But Ireland will need to check all trucks coming in and they will do that by closing the border. You are looking at significant delays in the NI side. The EU would have no option but to do this.

Either way I think it could be played by the EU that lorries get backed up on the UK side. I mean this is what I would do in that scenario.

As far as having businesses sign a non-disclosure that also indicates the UK will no longer have customs-checks is that serious an issue and so open to fraud the EU would be forced into such action. What are the UK thinking, I feel as if I am watching them just completely break down.

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 03:56PM

Well, my reading of what they are saying is that no outbound checks.

But yeah, I see that that would cause as many problems, so I guess it would have to be no borders at all. They can't really be running with the idea that no checks will be undertaken? Won't that simply open everything up to illegal stuff everywhere?

And doesn't it somewhat reduce their ability to strike trade deals? If they have zero tariffs already, and no controls, what exactly are they going to offer to other countries to trade with them? China for example will happily export to them, but what incentive to they have to import from them as UK have nothing to offer?

Nody · 16-03-2018 04:01PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is one of the questions I have but I think I already know the answer. The EU will have to enforce checks on their side. The UK are looking at this purely from an Island POV. They are looking to avoid truck parks along the motorways in the UK as that will look really bad.

But I cannot see how the EU will be able to cope. They are not going to want massive truck parks either so are they going to stack up the ships until the previous one is fully cleared? So now we have a serious impact on the movement of the ships themselves?

The ferries will simply only take on empty trucks (about 60% of inbound trucks return empty as it is today anyway) and a very limited number of trucks (if any) that fits in the area on EU side as EU will simply refuse entry for the trucks until space is created. This will create a pike up in the UK that will be accelerating rapidly as the clearing rate will be far below the outbound goods rate most likely. EU can then start to let through trucks with goods certified in EU country (several companies have already started that process) as this reduces the inspection rate on certain items (but live stock and food etc. would still have a very high check rate) which can go into the quick lane so to speak. With in a month I'd expect things would balance out relatively speaking as the only once continuing shipping out would be the makers who can get pre approved clearance for their goods while food/livestock is greatly reduced in volume (local market / food simply rotting away in the fields / rotting in the trucks) to a set of more specialised items etc.

farmchoice · 16-03-2018 04:16PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, my reading of what they are saying is that no outbound checks.

But yeah, I see that that would cause as many problems, so I guess it would have to be no borders at all. They can't really be running with the idea that no checks will be undertaken? Won't that simply open everything up to illegal stuff everywhere?

And doesn't it somewhat reduce their ability to strike trade deals? If they have zero tariffs already, and no controls, what exactly are they going to offer to other countries to trade with them? China for example will happily export to them, but what incentive to they have to import from them as UK have nothing to offer?

a few weeks ago pascal lamy give evidence to hilary benns committee. it was during the discussions on what WTO terms meant and how it works.

jacob rees mogg put forward the proposition that the UK could simply not bother to enforce a border.
he put it lamy that there was nothing in the WTO terms to stop them.

lamy agreed that this was possiblein theory but only if the UK has a 0% tarrif on all goods entering the uk, everything bar exception.

rees mogg agreed and suggested that this was a fine idea and the ultimate free trade agreement and would be better for the poor in particular.

lamy pointed out that there would be the issue of standards and regulations on goods, childern's toys for example.
rees mogg didn't see the problem. buyer beware.

i found this very reveling as to what rees mogg and his ilk actually believe in. up to that point i thought he was more of an attention seeker and deluded little englender than anything else.
but they do have a type of economic policy it appears to be a return to 19th century laissez faire economics in its truest form.

Havockk · 16-03-2018 04:19PM

farmchoice wrote: »

a few weeks ago pascal lamy give evidence to hilary benns committee. it was during the discussions on what WTO terms meant and how it works.

jacob rees mogg put forward the proposition that the UK could simply not bother to enforce a border.
he put it lamy that there was nothing in the WTO terms to stop them.

lamy agreed that this was possiblein theory but only if the UK has a 0% tarrif on all goods entering the uk, everything bar exception.

rees mogg agreed and suggested that this was a fine idea and the ultimate free trade agreement and would be better for the poor in particular.

lamy pointed out that there would be the issue of standards and regulations on goods, childern's toys for example.
rees mogg didn't see the problem. buyer beware.

i found this very reveling as to what rees mogg and his ilk actually believe in. up to that point i thought he was more of an attention seeker and deluded little englender than anything else.
but they do have a type of economic policy it appears to be a return to 19th century laissez faire economics in its truest form.

This indicates to me that the Hard Brexit column within the Tories are now firmly in charge and driving this agenda.

Leroy42 · 16-03-2018 04:25PM

Well, they seem almost happy with the gig economy and the zero hours contracts that entails.

Of course if there are no barriers to trade, no tariffs (which IMO are of questionable value) but more importantly no standards, they are forcing a race to the bottom.

This comes just a few weeks after May declaring that the UK will be driving standards up, not down. What chance has a UK manufacturing company got when the likes of China can simply dump whatever onto them. How are they going to protect the steel industry that is already in crisis?

I am asking these questions, although I think I know the answers, but maybe somebody can point out what they are thinking in all this.

As one reply to the Sky News Tweet about no checks said, so we are going to take back control by giving up all controls? That summed it up very nicely to me

Havockk · 16-03-2018 04:28PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, they seem almost happy with the gig economy and the zero hours contracts that entails.

Of course if there are no barriers to trade, no tariffs (which IMO are of questionable value) but more importantly no standards, they are forcing a race to the bottom.

This comes just a few weeks after May declaring that the UK will be driving standards up, not down. What chance has a UK manufacturing company got when the likes of China can simply dump whatever onto them. How are they going to protect the steel industry that is already in crisis?

I am asking these questions, although I think I know the answers, but maybe somebody can point out what they are thinking in all this.

As one reply to the Sky News Tweet about no checks said, so we are going to take back control by giving up all controls? That summed it up very nicely to me

It's also a gross misreading of the disillusionment that was the main driving factor that resulted in the Brexit vote in the first place.

This is not going to end well at all.

farmchoice · 16-03-2018 04:45PM

its a fantasy, it's nonsense, it would collapse the British economy in a month.

they would be unable to export anything because no one would know what was in anything as no one would know what they had imported and used in anythings production, from cheese to planes.

trellheim · 16-03-2018 05:15PM

The above conversation struck off a dim memory from leaving cert

Didn't laissez-faire economics have a big effect on the Irish famine ... plus ca change etc

Skedaddle · 16-03-2018 05:40PM

There's a huge disconnect between what Tory hardliners want and what the UK electorate seems to have voted for. I would have my doubts, based on being quite familiar with British consumer culture, that they would be very happy with the notion of any old random junk being stocked on the basis of 'buyer beware'.

The average person over there expects a lot of regulation, which is why there's a big audience for programmes like Watchdog on BBC and generally widespread support for Trading Standards and so on. They don't expect to be living in some kind of chaotic market.

There's also huge support for and pride taken in social achievements like the NHS, even by people on the right of centre.

If Brexit pushes the UK out into some kind of ultra-libritarian economic dystopia, I suspect there'll be political hell to pay over the next few years.

My view of the main stream of English and British politics in general is that it's somewhere in the centre, not dramatically unlike Ireland on most issues. People want some degree of decent social services but don't want to be overtaxed either, so there's a balance struck.

There's a definite attempt to dismantle the post-war progressive society that was built in the UK, and it's actually a parallel issue to Brexit, which is only the vehicle by which it will be achieved. I just see Brexit being used as a Trojan horse for a some very nasty policies that were never voted for by the UK electorate.

They really need to get their head out of the tabloids and stop allowing themselves to be trolled by these characters.

Brexit discussion thread III

Comments