nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Russman

With all this discussion of trade negotiations and negotiators, maybe I've missed it, but has anyone yet managed to come up with a trade metric (or any metric) by which the UK will be better off outside the EU ?
I mean, "freedom to negotiate our own trade deals worse than what we already have" doesn't really stack up as an argument, does it ?

VinLieger

theological wrote: »

It does stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. The objection I had was that the UK doesn't have a free trade negotiation competence or much experience in recent years. This is true but it isn't a benefit of being an EU member. Joining the EU made the UK depend on them for trade negotiations hence why their trade negotiation capacity was reduced.

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny as has been repeatedly pointed out Ireland has a trade surplus with China whereas the UK has a deficit while both are operating under the same trade agreement rules. We have a population of 4,8 million they have a population of 66.

This proves that while yes the FTA is not something that can be negotiated there is lots of work available to be done if you want to do it, we had the enthusiasm and foresight to get involved in such a way as to work our way into a surplus they did not. And as someone else quite succinctly pointed out instead of choosing to sell to china they decided to buy from them. which is the easier and lazy option.

theological wrote: »

There are two ways of looking at the facts on this. One is to say it is a benefit because the UK doesn't have to pay for it (but it pays substantially for EU membership anyway) or that it is a drawback because the UK lost an independent trade policy. I mean towards the latter in the case of the UK because it is a large economy already.

The benefit has nothing to do with paying for operating a trade team the benefit is the difference between being involved in trade negotiations where you are a market of 512 million instead of a market of 66 million,

theological wrote: »

As for surpluses with particular countries if you went through the UK list it would have certain countries with a better trade surplus than Ireland so respectfully I don't think there's much merit exploring that point.

Very probably but again we are talking about china which has the largest market in the world at 1.386 billion, again we have 4.8 for us to have a surplus with them is a massive achievement, when compared with the deficit the UK currently operate it really is something they should be quite ashamed of.

theological wrote: »

I think it is better that matters like trade are taken into the hands of British politicians ultimately.

You mean the kind of politician who proudly states "fvck business"

theological wrote: »

It does affect all EU states. All member states are prohibited from negotiating their own free trade agreements. All member states have to give up control of their tariff schedule.

As I say it can be argued both ways and I can see that. It benefits smaller countries to centralize this competence. It doesn't suit the UK.

The key word here is prohibited, you are looking at this completely backwards, when a worker joins a trade union are they prohibited from negotiating with their employer or are the benefited by not having to and instead negotiating collectively?

Negotiating as a block of 512 million versus 80, 70 or 60 etc undoubtedly and inarguably benefits everybody even Germany, France and the UK by being part of one of the largest trading blocks in the world especially when dealing with the likes of the behemoths that are China, India and the US.

ambro25

theological wrote: »

(...)

As I say it can be argued both ways and I can see that. It benefits smaller countries to centralize this competence. It doesn't suit the UK.

The obvious flaw in your core argument, is that the UK is a smaller economy, pre- just like post-Brexit, than the integrated supranational economy made up of these smaller countries.

So, with your above sentence, you have inadvertently validated the fundamental use case of the Single Market, at the expense of the notion of Brexiting: trade union makes trade might.

Danzy

Proximity is the most important thing in trade.

China is nearly the largest economy in the world yet it sells slightly less to Britain than we do.

Japan is 3rd biggest yet we sell nearly double.

No matter how favourable the deal Britain gets with those 2 countries, Ireland will always be a significant trade partner for its size.

We'll probably always be a bigger one than Japan and near half of China's trade.

woohoo!!!

Danzy wrote: »

Proximity is the most important thing in trade.

China is nearly the largest economy in the world yet it sells slightly less to Britain than we do.

Japan is 3rd biggest yet we sell nearly double.

No matter how favourable the deal Britain gets with those 2 countries, Ireland will always be a significant trade partner for its size.

We'll probably always be a bigger one than Japan and near half of China's trade.

Proximity equals less time to deliver. I can have that for you the next day vs I can have that for you in 1 week, 3 weeks or 6 weeks, depending on what you're willing to pay. Nevermind the just in time delivery model.

LeinsterDub

I thought brexitcast/electioncast's piece on people spreading spin on Twitter was fairly ironic when you consider their love for 'government sources'

prawnsambo

boring accountant wrote: »

Admittedly I skimmed the first paragraph of your post, but the DFA aren't trade negotiators either. They have no power to set tariffs or regulatory standards. So how, in your opinion, has the DFA negotiated its way to increasing trade with China?

Tariffs and quotas are only a small part of trade deals. Outside of those it's a sales effort. Looking for opportunities, presenting products, attending trade shows etc. It's why the Trade portfolio was added to the DFA as they could use the diplomatic presence to leverage Irish export potential.

boring accountant wrote: »

With trade surpluses/deficits a lot has to do with the nature of the country's exports which is often determined by geographical, historical and demographic factors, not necessarily trade policy. That makes it hard to draw a fair comparison between the relative imbalances between two different economies.

In terms of Chinese trade, the UK lags behind not just Ireland, but Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Italy as well. But taking your factors one at a time: Geographical - Not much difference between Ireland and the UK to China. Historical - The UK used to have a very strong presence in Asia. Demographic - I really have no clue as to how the UK's demographics would influence their exports to China.

Joe_ Public

Danzy wrote: »

Proximity is the most important thing in trade.

China is nearly the largest economy in the world yet it sells slightly less to Britain than we do.

Japan is 3rd biggest yet we sell nearly double.

No matter how favourable the deal Britain gets with those 2 countries, Ireland will always be a significant trade partner for its size.

We'll probably always be a bigger one than Japan and near half of China's trade.

Distance in trade is governed by an economic theory known as the "gravity equation". Not sure of precise details but its along the lines of half the distance, double the trade or something like that. Brexiteers tell you distance doesnt matter in this day and age of global trade, but they are wrong. It matters, a lot.

Letwin_Larry

rarely have i witnessed a more cack-handed start to an election campaign than the tories, what with trump's awkward intervention, JRM apalling interview on LBC, and Bojo comparing his opponent with Stalin.

quite possibly these incidents will actually play well with the middleclass/retired greyhaired, tory heartland voter in the shires, but i have little doubt the swaying voter will be put off.

the game may well have only kicked off, but the tories have been caught napping having conceded 2 soft goals.

CelticRambler

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

rarely have i witnessed a more cack-handed start to an election campaign than the tories ...

My feeling too. I feels like the same shambles around the unlawful prorogation that we were assured (by some :rolleyes: ) was all part of a Cunning Plan by an exceptional genius.

Johnson is off to see the Queen this morning. I wonder will she tell him she'll set the corgis on him if he sets foot in the Palace again this year ... ?

IAmTheReign

theological wrote: »

I disagree with the pessimism about the UK being able to agree FTA's. Smaller countries have been able to negotiate good FTA's that have been beneficial to their economies.

No one is claiming that the UK won't be able to negotiate FTAs after they leave. People are questioning the logic of leaving the largest and most lucrative FTA in the world in pursuit of merely 'good' FTAs.

theological wrote:

The first step is maintaining trade arrangements that currently exist. I agree in this regard. That's all they can do until they regain control of their own trade policy after leaving the EU.

The UKs value as a trading partner is less than the value of the EU as a trading partner. Why would any major economy give the UK the same terms that they agreed with the EU?

theological wrote:

This is presuming that the UK won't be able to negotiate a FTA with the European Union. Smaller countries like Canada have been able to do this.

The EU will probably negotiate a FTA agreement with the UK but that will take years. And when it does happen the terms of the FTA will be based on what the UK can offer the EU. Trading goods into the EU will also mean the UK will have to follow EU regulations. Regulations that will be agreed in Brussels without any input from the UK and compliance with these regulations will be enforced be the EUCJ. That's what 'taking back control' will look like

reslfj

prawnsambo wrote: »

Tariffs and quotas are only a small part of trade deals.

FTAs, membership of a CU or the EU's CU+SM is not trade at all. It is like the "Consumer Rights Act 2015" the laws and rules under which trade is conducted - between retailer and consumer - between exporter and importer.

Trade deals were traditionally mostly a matter of lower tariffs, but are nowadays much more about lowering the cost of Non-Tariff-Barriers (NTBs) and checking rules ensuring only safe products are imported.
(No child labour and Paris climate accord are often included too)

Tariffs in an EU-UK context are low and matters little except for food (farm and fish) and for cars.
NTBs including 'Country/Region of Origin' requirements are the horror story for JIT production and for many SMEs exporting/importing using the SM ( NTB in the SM is nothing but an extra stamp on the packet and a country name on the 'To field' of the address label).

prawnsambo wrote: »

Outside of those it's a sales effort. Looking for opportunities, presenting products, attending trade shows etc. It's why the Trade portfolio was added to the DFA as they could use the diplomatic presence to leverage Irish export potential.

This is the actual trade under the safety & certainty umbrella of a FTA, a CU and indeed the EU's CU+SM with its common standards, rules and regulations.

Sometimes an official visit by Royals/Presidents/Ministers can indeed focus attention in a foreign land and help businesses in contact with potential customers and get contracts signed.

prawnsambo wrote: »

In terms of Chinese trade, the UK lags behind not just Ireland, but Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Italy as well...

The UK may export components to another EU country. The final assembled product may be exported to China, but statistically included in the other country's export statistics. RR engines and Airbus wings vs Airbus planes ????
Always check Ireland's trade figures for skew due to Irish tax laws.

Lars

quokula

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

rarely have i witnessed a more cack-handed start to an election campaign than the tories, what with trump's awkward intervention, JRM apalling interview on LBC, and Bojo comparing his opponent with Stalin.

quite possibly these incidents will actually play well with the middleclass/retired greyhaired, tory heartland voter in the shires, but i have little doubt the swaying voter will be put off.

the game may well have only kicked off, but the tories have been caught napping having conceded 2 soft goals.

Well at least they've started on the front foot today.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/kay-burley-empty-chairs-james-cleverly-on-sky-news-1-6360245

marno21

James Cleverly backed out of appearing on Sky News this morning to answer for all the recent Tory gaffes and in the process created another one

https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1192015686551388165

They really aren’t making a great start here

prawnsambo

marno21 wrote: »

James Cleverly backed out of appearing on Sky News this morning to answer for all the recent Tory gaffes and in the process created another one

https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1192015686551388165

They really aren’t making a great start here

The mad thing is that he was actually in the Sky studios and elected to do a radio interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkRadio instead.

lawred2

marno21 wrote: »

James Cleverly backed out of appearing on Sky News this morning to answer for all the recent Tory gaffes and in the process created another one

https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1192015686551388165

They really aren’t making a great start here

oooof

funnily enough that in itself with no one in the room is quite possibly up there as the single greatest bit of holding this government to account I've seen in the last three or so years

Had he been sitting there - he would have no doubt engaged in obfuscation and distraction and she might not have got through that list of questions...

Joe_ Public

Dunno....cleverly seems to have been on every show this morning apart from kay burleys one. It may be something personal between them or sky producers made a mistake in the booking. Wouldnt jump to conclusions on it. Cleverly made a fool of himself on the piece i heard, but he didnt duck any questions.

Quin_Dub

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dunno....cleverly seems to have been on every show this morning apart from kay burleys one. It may be something personal between them or sky producers made a mistake in the booking. Wouldnt jump to conclusions on it. Cleverly made a fool of himself on the piece i heard, but he didnt duck any questions.

Maybe - But which thing will get traction on Social media this morning?

His actual interviews or this misstep (even if the misstep was a mistake by Sky) ?

It's just bad media management.

Duane Dibbley

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Maybe - But which thing will get traction on Social media this morning?

His actual interviews or this misstep (even if the misstep was a mistake by Sky) ?

It's just bad media management.

Its going bad for James Cleverly this morning

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1191985174097145856

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dunno....cleverly seems to have been on every show this morning apart from kay burleys one. It may be something personal between them or sky producers made a mistake in the booking. Wouldnt jump to conclusions on it. Cleverly made a fool of himself on the piece i heard, but he didnt duck any questions.

He's claiming to have been on TalkRadio at the time, even though that interview took place half an hour later - he even talked about the empty chair bit during that interview, so it couldn't have been at the same time, which shows how little he thinks of the electorate's critical thinking, or more likely the willingness of the right wing media to uncritically report his lie.

And Julia Hartley Brewer is more a Tory cheerleader than a journalist, so interviewing with her over a more reputable organisation like Sky News is still not a brilliant excuse.

Joe_ Public

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Maybe - But which thing will get traction on Social media this morning?

His actual interviews or this misstep (even if the misstep was a mistake by Sky) ?

It's just bad media management.

To be honest if i were in his shoes i'd nearly feel relieved to see the focus on the no show at the expense of the shambolic performance i saw on itv earlier.

Letwin_Larry

there is a very real possibility the tories could be caught in a classic pincher movement.

Hardline Remainers will desert to the Lib Dems.
Hardline Leavers will vote for The Brexit Party.
The undecided will vote Lab.
if this transpires (and i accept it is a big IF), i can see a coalition Govt of Lab/Lib Dems being formed, but what they'll actually decide to do with Brexit is anybody's guess.

possibly a 2nd Referendum?

An Ciarraioch

And now the Welsh Secretary has resigned:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-50302173

reslfj

IAmTheReign wrote: »

... People are questioning the logic of leaving the largest and most lucrative FTA in the world in pursuit of merely 'good' FTAs.
...

The CU&SM is qualitatively very different from and miles above any FTA.

Most people outside business trade seems to think tariffs or no-tariffs are all that matters - and for some few products tariffs alone will block trade.
Beef, sheep/lamb, dairy products, farm products in general and many species of fish have trade-prohibitive tariffs into the EU. Cars have a tariff of 10% into the EU, which is a lot and will move production of cars to existing and new factories in the EU27 or to import from e.g. Japan using the new EU-Japan FTA.

But for most products tariffs are very low (1-3 %), zero for agreed large import quotas or often just zero (e.g medicine, import under EBA rules from poor countries ...).

Non-Trade-Barriers - NTBs - the paperwork, Region of Origin documentation, delays at borders, uncertainty and stops at JiT dependent factories, SPS documentation (food security) for animals, plants and fish, special national product rules, etc., etc. are of much more concern for doing business across borders.

NTBs just add much more - non productive - cost to all products than does paying a small customs duty.

The actual paperwork is less of a problem for very large im-/exporters of the same goods every time (mostly done in the computer), but e.g. actual delays for parts to JIT production can be expensive beyond belief. A Vet not turning up before the departure of a lorry with fresh fish for export, can be a total loss.

The SM with its identical rules and same (lowest) standards in all EU member states is the only way to have real friction-free trade across borders. Yes, there are corners where the current SM rules need some improvements, but for the majority of trade the SM is working very well and very friction-less.

Lars

hotmail.com

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dunno....cleverly seems to have been on every show this morning apart from kay burleys one. It may be something personal between them or sky producers made a mistake in the booking. Wouldnt jump to conclusions on it. Cleverly made a fool of himself on the piece i heard, but he didnt duck any questions.

I have to agree. Politicians tend not to attach much weight to Sky News.

Burley just comes across as cringeworthy.

Quin_Dub

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

there is a very real possibility the tories could be caught in a classic pincher movement.

Hardline Remainers will desert to the Lib Dems.
Hardline Leavers will vote for The Brexit Party.
The undecided will vote Lab.
if this transpires (and i accept it is a big IF), i can see a coalition Govt of Lab/Lib Dems being formed, but what they'll actually decide to do with Brexit is anybody's guess.

possibly a 2nd Referendum?

Will never happen as long as Swinson and Corbyn are in charge.

Swinson has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Corbyn.

Professor Moriarty

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Will never happen as long as Swinson and Corbyn are in charge.

Swinson has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Corbyn.

I wonder if there is a hung parliament, and Lab/LDs can form a government that will hold a referendum, will LD grassroots put serious pressure on Swinson to do a deal on the basis that the alternative might be another GE and a Tory government that will push Brexit through.

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

I have to agree. Politicians tend not to attach much weight to Sky News.

Burley just comes across as cringeworthy.

Best to put as much weight to that opinion as politicians apparently place in sky news.

Why did he turn up to the studio so?

What is cringe worthy about Burley?

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder if there is a hung parliament, and Lab/LDs can form a government that will hold a referendum, will LD grassroots put serious pressure on Swinson to do a deal on the basis that the alternative might be another GE and a Tory government that will push Brexit through.

Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats...

She's playing the Eamonn Gilmore book to a t.

Letwin_Larry

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Will never happen as long as Swinson and Corbyn are in charge.

Swinson has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Corbyn.

LOL. forgive me for laughing.
i'm not sure how old you are, but my experience of politicians tells me whatever promises are made during an election campaign are quickly forgotten once the votes/seats are counted.