Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42 wrote: »

I doubt very much that it wil be dead, that would amount to TM actually making a decision.

Well there have been discussions with the EU, e.g. with the attorney general, and she has a meeting herself tomorrow. So maybe something has come out of those meetings and she's grown a pair?

Folkstonian wrote: »

High end Irish produce is no better than high end British produce. I’ve lived in both countries, bought from high end supermarkets and independent businesses in both. There’s no substantial difference.

There is a difference in reach though, for example, Kerrygold has the second highest butter sales in the US.

RobMc59 wrote: »

How do you work that out if they're both subject to the same quality control guidelines?

Because some Irish producers pride themselves on exceeding the guidelines instead of just aiming for the bare minimum.

kunst nugget wrote: »

And some British producers would pride themselves on the same thing while some Irish producers will just aim for the bare minimum. It's hardly a black and white thing when it comes to food production between the two islands.

Indeed but it was a stupid answer to a stupid question

VinLieger wrote: »

Theres no details yet as they need to keep the pressure on the UK but id guess since its going to be an EU border we will get assistance with it

I would have thought that the way to maximise pressure on the UK is to be able to show them that we are fully prepared for no deal in all its aspects. For example, in the area of trade, the EU is keen to show that it has plans in place in the event of a no deal and that it is fully prepared.

The lack of details is more about putting pressure on the EU. Ireland is keen that a deal is made and this involves putting pressure on both sides.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting development re MEPs - the last elected in both Dublin and South wouldn't be allowed take their seats if UK hasn't left by July:

http://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1097901846440624128

That is interesting, does the law allow for that or will it have to be changed? I suppose the voting system does allow for there to be a least supported candidate who can lose their seat. Thank god we don't have FPTP single seat constituencies.

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would have thought that the way to maximise pressure on the UK is to be able to show them that we are fully prepared for no deal in all its aspects. For example, in the area of trade, the EU is keen to show that it has plans in place in the event of a no deal and that it is fully prepared.

The lack of details is more about putting pressure on the EU. Ireland is keen that a deal is made and this involves putting pressure on both sides.

The second info on no deal border prep becomes public the brexiteers will try to use it to say the EU and Ireland are pushing the UK into no deal and a hard border

Folkstonian wrote:

That’s definitely a good thing, markets like japan will prove valuable to the agricultural sector here as the British consumers turn away from more expensive Irish products in favour of options from further afield if Brexit does go ahead.

Will the options from further afield be cheaper because they are of inferior quality?

CelticRambler wrote: »

Indeed. From the link above, I see that Ireland has a trading surplus with Japan that's more than twice that of France; and Britain has a deficit. Earlier, I was looking at Ireland and the UK's trade with China. Again, Ireland has a surplus, Britain has a (huge) deficit.

Brexiteers tell us that Britain is a great trading nation, but is that another fond memory of the past? Yet again I'm left wondering what golden egg a post-Brexit Britain is going to offer the outside world, that can't be provided by some other country ...

It's something I became aware of at a young age. The myth that the British were a great trading nation (and that the Germans were efficient ). I lost count of the times I had to cajole and persuade British producers that it was actually easy to send stuff here. And even then, I had to baby-step them through the paperwork and arrange the shipping myself. And woe betide the day something went wrong. Because they went to ground faster than a fox with a hunt on its tail. And stayed there until they could reasonably expect the problem to have been sorted by me or the shipping company. There were of course others that weren't like that and had a more outward looking perspective, but they were in the minority. The best were the guys of Indian or Pakistani origin. Nothing was a problem and all done efficiently and properly.

Maybe it's the fact that they had a big market on their doorstep and didn't need to look outwards, but I often wonder was this part of the decline in British engineering, which just died a slow death as the EU opened up and they didn't take advantage of the opportunities it provided and weren't prepared to up their game to compete with the rest of Europe.

Sam Russell wrote: »

BSE was a British invention caused by feeding animal protein to herbivores.

In the interests of accuracy: not quite! The Irish (and the French, Germans, Spaniards, Americans - especially th'Americans) were doing exactly the same. It just happened that the British changed to a "more efficient" rendering process in the 80s that allowed the BSE prion into the final meat-and-bonemeal product, possibly at just the wrong time when there was a rise in the incidence of the related disease, scrapie, in sheep.

Once the problem was recognised and the (likely) source identified, the British were very quick to impose controls - two years before the French and several years before the EU as a whole. Whatever other criticisms we might have of the UK, they have always been at the forefront of sensible animal welfare regulations.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Maybe it's the fact that they had a big market on their doorstep and didn't need to look outwards, but I often wonder was this part of the decline in British engineering, which just died a slow death as the EU opened up and they didn't take advantage of the opportunities it provided and weren't prepared to up their game to compete with the rest of Europe.

I'd go along with that. Away from politics, I see a lot of similarities in the mentalities of the (southern) English and the French. The latter have a reputation for great cheese, great wine, great cuisine, great tourism, great fashion; in reality, the vast majority of all that is fake fur and shabby grey knickers, and for the same reason. Protectionism and a belief that they're the best in the world meant French businesses sold to themselves and settled for mediocrity. When the EU came along, instead of taking advantage of new opportunities, the French fell back on their tradition of protectionism.

I don't think the British are quite as handicapped as the French, though, when it comes to finding creative ways out of a bad predicament. The most common remark about Brexit that I hear in France is that it's a shame Britain is leaving - because now young French people will have go somewhere else to enjoy the professional freedom and innovation that's missing in France! :rolleyes:

RobMc59 wrote: »

Why?-Japan is ecstatic about the new EU-Japan trade deal and can import cars tariff free into the EU.I still haven't discovered what's in it for the EU though.

They called it the "Cars for Cheese" deal.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the plan for UK financial services in a crash out? I hear a lot of talk about tariffs and quotas but nothing, it seems, in relation to FS.

London is such a major contributor to the UK economy (for good or ill) yet there seems very little discussion about it.

I am not too aware of the industry, so excuse me for asking what may well be an easy question, but is a Hard Brexit expected to make any material difference to this area of the UK economy. I know about the movements of assets but even that seems to be shrugged off so leaves me thinking that overall there might not be much impact.

I guess my main point is that as far as I can see there is very little conversation about it in the UK, either in HoC or the media.

"It's complicated", as with everything Brexit related, the degree of which depends on what particular area of FS you're actually in as far as I understand.

There's a need on the EU side to still be able to deal into and through London and that coupled with the state of many of Europe's major financial institutions means there's perhaps a bigger appetite to get it sorted in the form of licenses and agreements between authorities. That being said however, afaiw, it'll be down to each country's financial regulator to grant these institutions licenses to work in London and so depending on how organised they are at dealing with those applications if and when the time comes there will be disruption.

London is one of the largest finance centres in the world, that won't change overnight even with a hard brexit, and one of its large areas is in its financial clearing houses. This was viewed as one of the bigger potential issues regarding brexit and finance given how much international & EU money flows through them but in the last few days the ESMA has clarified the situation by saying in the event of a hard brexit, it would immediately recognise the larger clearing houses (more may be added). This has been expected for a while but it's finally been made official and will help protect financial stability in the EU should "no deal" happen.

There's then the obvious inverse of that which is firms that need access to the EU as well as London will now need to set up a presence in an EU country. The extent to which they do will vary however. As a previous poster pointed out, transferring of hundreds of millions in assets does not necessarily mean the jobs must also follow. The question has to be asked - does this new firm require thousands of highly skilled staff, either moved from the London office or duplicated, or will an IT team suffice to maintain the company's new interests there allowing the staff to remain, so to speak, in London?

A bigger, more long-term issue for London is that the EU and the countries themselves will finally be able to start tightening the screw on the rules regarding how business with London can be done, something they've been gunning for for a long time. That will be what causes the long-term bleed of jobs and money from London. European countries/EU will begin to request greater oversight of operations wrt London and they will begin to insist that a skilled workforce be maintained in their country in order to responsibly oversee any assets that have been transferred from a London branch. Conceivably this could lead to a number of financial institutions beginning to view their London presence as redundant.


How the markets themselves will react to the many forms of Brexit is another question entirely. Everybody is speculating over how much uncertainty is already "priced-in" to the FX markets for instance but that will get shakier and shakier. Some of the latest analysis I heard this morning was that if it came to a no deal scenario, they expected parliament to wake up on March 28 and realise it's time to revoke article 50. Now where such confidence in parliament to suddenly act responsibly, or show this fabled "leadership", comes from is anyone's guess but I wouldn't bank on it. Excuse the pun.