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

RobMc59

Strazdas wrote: »

Agree to match the standards means you are not bound by the rules at all i.e. the trade deal is not worth the paper it's written on.

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market, whether for goods or services.

But how can they agree to that? That is a far worse position than they had before. Although I see today that Javid has rowed back on his non alignment claim last week to say that of course they will stay close!

They don't appear to have a Scooby do what they want or what are they doing. This week alone they have claimed they are going to target a US trade deal 1st, an EU trade deal 1st, both EU and US at the same time, and also that Japan will give them a super trade deal above the current EU deal!

Johnson is demanding the quickest trade deal ever, and they haven't even worked out what they want, well apart from everything, for free!

PeadarCo

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

The thing is from an Irish point of view and EU point of view that would be great. You would get the deal done very quickly.

However from the UK point of view its far worse than EU membership. The UK would be signing up to everything the EU parliament and commission agree on in add to accepting ECJ rulings. From a business perspective it would be great. But remember the whole point of Brexit was to "take back control". Given that most Brexiters ignored the control and influence the UK had as part of the EU I imagine most will kick up a storm if they were agree to your proposal. As your proposal means the UK losing complete control.

Again from an Irish point of view it would be absolutely fantastic if the UK did agree as it would potentially mean no change in the status quo from an economic perspective. I just don't see your proposal being accepted by the majority of UK MPs as much as I like your idea.

MrMusician18

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how can they agree to that? That is a far worse position than they had before. Although I see today that Javid has rowed back on his non alignment claim last week to say that of course they will stay close!

They don't appear to have a Scooby do what they want or what are they doing. This week alone they have claimed they are going to target a US trade deal 1st, an EU trade deal 1st, both EU and US at the same time, and also that Japan will give them a super trade deal above the current EU deal!

Johnson is demanding the quickest trade deal ever, and they haven't even worked out what they want, well apart from everything, for free!

That is of course unless they don't want a deal with anyone, leaving the country ripe for the picking

johnnyskeleton

If anyone still thinks that the UK will be able to get an even sided (or even UK favouring) trade deal with the US, they might want to consider the following:

July, 2019 British Ambassador to the US resigns due to pressure from Trump

Jan, 2020 US refuses UK request for extradition of the wife of a US citizen who the US helped to flee the UK.

Obviously the Harry Dunn case was very sad and legally complicated by issues of diplomatic immunity, but it is increasingly clear that the US whims send the UK quiverring, and the UK legal requests are easily swatted away.

The trade deal between the US and the UK will be more one sided than the time Boris Johnson rugby tackled a 14 year old Malaysian school kid.

serfboard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The trade deal between the US and the UK will be more one sided than the time Boris Johnson rugby tackled a 14 year old Malaysian school kid.

No, no, no - you've got it all wrong. The US will give the UK a great deal because reasons ...

An Ciarraioch

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

[Deleted User]

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

Interesting move and turbulent times.

Strazdas

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

I think the only acceptable deal to the EU would be one where the UK signs up to the rules as part of the trade deal. Anything about "agreeing to follow" the rules would suggest that Britain was already planning on acting the eejit in future.

[Deleted User]

Did I read today that the uk is already diverging on the copy right laws coming soon? The point is not whether you think that the laws are good or bad, but that divergence is there before the ink is dry on the WA.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

johnnyskeleton

Bit cynical wrote: »

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

Yeah. Its almost like the EU has already said that a Canada style trade deal is on offer but that its the lowest possible rung available, and the UK has said they want something higher and the EU said "fine, but to get something better you need regulatory allignment" and then the UK said no, no regulatory allignment.

Is that about the size of it?

Bit cynical

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yeah. Its almost like the EU has already said that a Canada style trade deal is on offer but that its the lowest possible rung available, and the UK has said they want something higher and the EU said "fine, but to get something better you need regulatory allignment" and then the UK said no, no regulatory allignment.

Is that about the size of it?

Well I think what will end up being agreed eventually will be something along the lines of the Canada deal. The precise sectors covered under the agreement will be the subject of negotiations. But it is likely to be a comprehensive free trade deal. It won't be the same as Canada because the trading relationship between the EU and Canada is not the same as between the EU and the UK. What is mutually beneficial in a EU-Canada deal is not the same as what is mutually beneficial in a UK-EU FTA. The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK whereas with Canada it may be some other sector.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

The main problem will be that the UK is in Europe and will be a former full EU member. The UK cannot set itself up as a rival and competitor of the EU's, located only 20 miles from France. The EU can dictate whatever terms they like in the trade deal and don't have to follow any template.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

The main problem will be that the UK is in Europe and will be a former full EU member. The UK cannot set itself up as a rival and competitor of the EU's, located only 20 miles from France. The EU can dictate whatever terms they like in the trade deal and don't have to follow any template.

However the reason for the Canada deal is that it is mutually beneficial despite the EU's larger size. The same will be true for EU-UK. I don't see the UK's proximity having as much of a bearing as you make out. Yes on the one hand it means a potential competitor on the EU's doorstep, but on the other hand, there is also proportionately more to be gained economically for both sides from that same proximity.

Of course, the precise details of the FTA will be the subject of negotiations over the year. One advantage of these negotiations over others is that the two sides will be, at least at the outset, in regulatory alignment even though there will be divergence over time.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK ...

This sounds very much like Brexiters' wishful thinking, and a deep flaw in the FTA logic. What services can the UK provide that cannot be provided by one or more of the remaining 27 member states, or one of the future new members?

The simplistic answer might be "financial services" but that goes against the stated and implied ambitions of the EU to "take back control"

of the financial services industry, so a UK government that refuses to sign up to (e.g.) full GDPR regulation, or indicates that it'll happily hand over every byte of data to the Americans if asked, or can't quite promise to share information on Russian oligarch's money laundering activities in London ... well, that'll all be used by the EU as a good reason to prolong the negotiations sufficiently to replicate at home whatever key services have, to date, been provided by the third-country UK.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

This sounds very much like Brexiters' wishful thinking, and a deep flaw in the FTA logic. What services can the UK provide that cannot be provided by one or more of the remaining 27 member states, or one of the future new members?

In principle, of course, nothing. But then you have to ask yourself what is the point of any trade deal or for that matter trading bloc or customs union? Germany could say that they can, in theory, provide for themselves every thing that France supplies to them. The reason of course is that other countries may already be efficient in producing something so it makes sense to trade with them rather than try to replicate it at home.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes on the one hand it means a potential competitor on the EU's doorstep, but on the other hand, there is also proportionately more to be gained economically for both sides from that same proximity.

That proximity also presents a proportionately greater risk to the EU's SM if the UK defaults on its responsibilities - Exhibit A: the UK's negligence in respect of unlawful Chinese imports.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

That proximity also presents a proportionately greater risk to the EU's SM if the UK defaults on its responsibilities - Exhibit A: the UK's negligence in respect of unlawful Chinese imports.

However this seems to be a fairly widespread problem in the EU not just the UK bit of it.

The last few months have seen a dramatic rise in the scale of fraud in Asian textiles. For Czech customs administration spokesman, Jiří Barták, “All the indications are that Asian dealers are using the Czech Republic as a hub for products illegally entering European Union’s single market which allows for the free circulation of goods.”

Chinese gangs got it made in Europe

The UK, in their negotiations, will need to ensure that Chinese goods illegally imported into the EU are not subsequently re-exported to the UK.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

Germany could say that they can, in theory, provide for themselves every thing that France supplies to them. The reason of course is that other countries may already be efficient in producing something so it makes sense to trade with them rather than try to replicate it at home.

You'll find that the vast majority of those efficiencies relate to producing something, something tangible. Geography, geology and climate can make it unreasonably costly and impractical to bring production "home". That's where the financial services industry is different: money these days moves through fibre-optic cables from computer to computer. As I've remarked before, we don't need a Singapore-on-Thames because any of use already have easy access to Singapore-just-Singapore if we want it.

As for other services - well, that'll depend on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications as a first step, and require an EU office as a second. While there may indeed be some UK based individuals/companies who provide a superior and/or most cost-effective service than their EU counterparts, how long is that likely to continue? Why trade with a third-country, non-Schengen UK when you could call on an equivalent provider from Switzerland?

Other than the right kind of fish, this key question still remains unanswered: what unique product or service does the UK have to offer that the EU cannot get elsewhere, something that would justify getting a "good" deal?

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

You'll find that the vast majority of those efficiencies relate to producing something, something tangible. Geography, geology and climate can make it unreasonably costly and impractical to bring production "home". That's where the financial services industry is different: money these days moves through fibre-optic cables from computer to computer. As I've remarked before, we don't need a Singapore-on-Thames because any of use already have easy access to Singapore-just-Singapore if we want it.

As for other services - well, that'll depend on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications as a first step, and require an EU office as a second. While there may indeed be some UK based individuals/companies who provide a superior and/or most cost-effective service than their EU counterparts, how long is that likely to continue? Why trade with a third-country, non-Schengen UK when you could call on an equivalent provider from Switzerland?

Other than the right kind of fish, this key question still remains unanswered: what unique product or service does the UK have to offer that the EU cannot get elsewhere, something that would justify getting a "good" deal?

I suppose we'll have to see what emerges and I think a lot depends the extent to which European countries have already replaced UK services with their own or the extent to which, say, Switzerland or Singapore have stepped in. But I think a sudden switch off of UK financial services at the end of the transition period may be seen as undesirable and something the EU wishes to avoid even if, as you correctly point out, replacements can be created over time.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the reason for the Canada deal is that it is mutually beneficial despite the EU's larger size. The same will be true for EU-UK. I don't see the UK's proximity having as much of a bearing as you make out. Yes on the one hand it means a potential competitor on the EU's doorstep, but on the other hand, there is also proportionately more to be gained economically for both sides from that same proximity.

Of course, the precise details of the FTA will be the subject of negotiations over the year. One advantage of these negotiations over others is that the two sides will be, at least at the outset, in regulatory alignment even though there will be divergence over time.

The divergence over time bit makes this one of the most dificult trade deals to negiotiate. Current alignement is worthless if there is no commitment to continuing alignment.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to see what emerges and I think a lot depends the extent to which European countries have already replaced UK services with their own or the extent to which, say, Switzerland or Singapore have stepped in. But I think a sudden switch off of UK financial services at the end of the transition period may be seen as undesirable and something the EU wishes to avoid even if, as you correctly point out, replacements can be created over time.

The EU can, at its own descretion, allow UK based services to continue to operate within the EU. As such the EU need not fear a sudden switch off as it is within its power to allow continued access to financial services, under its own terms. This will only happen where there is an advantage to the EU from allowing it, and can be revoked at any time which will create a damaging uncertantity on the UK side prompting businesses reliant on the EU market to consider relocating to the EU.

Exemptions made in such a circumstance will not be part of a trade off with the UK, they will be unilateral EU measures. As such those areas where facilitation is needed by the UK but not the EU will see the UK denied facilitation causing significant damage to the UK position.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The divergence over time bit makes this one of the most dificult trade deals to negiotiate. Current alignement is worthless if there is no commitment to continuing alignment.

However I think most FTAs involve periodic reviews and updating. Having current alignment means that for the areas covered, initial standards don't need to be hammered out piece by piece.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

However I think most FTAs involve periodic reviews and updating. Having current alignment means that for the areas covered, initial standards don't need to be hammered out piece by piece.

In the absence of agreement on continued alignment then existing alignment counts for nothing.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think a sudden switch off of UK financial services at the end of the transition period may be seen as undesirable and something the EU wishes to avoid even if, as you correctly point out, replacements can be created over time.

Exactly: that's why Johnson's Dec 2020 sudden-death deadline is irrelevant. The EU can - as Imreoir2 points out - cherry-pick those aspects of UK business to which it grants continued access to the SM ... until it decides it doesn't want/need to. This gives the UK absolutely nothing, which means that they'll still need to reach medium and long-term agreement for trade in every other area. For that reason, it'll be the EU that sets the agenda, with an extension to the transition period as the starting point.

As of next week, Britain is giving up control on just about every aspect of its relationship with the rest of the world, and especially with the EU.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK whereas with Canada it may be some other sector.

... Which means a mixed deal which must agreed by national parliaments which cannot be done in a year.

As regards any form of deal, the UK is nearby while Canada is far away. The UK - and the EU- are bound by the laws of economic gravity/distance - it is more important that the EU demand higher standards from the UK for even relatively similar deals to those granted to others.

[Deleted User]

Bit cynical wrote: »

However I think most FTAs involve periodic reviews and updating. Having current alignment means that for the areas covered, initial standards don't need to be hammered out piece by piece.

Coming from different standards naturally leads to ideas of cooperation and opportunity. Diverging after decades of alignment naturally leads to conversations about which supply lines and industries will be decimated.

The negotiations will be a mess. The EU can gain nothing from them, only lose. The UK can gain some freedom so that deals with other entities may happen, but at what cost.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

This is an obvious move. The US, especially under Trump, will use tariffs as a court/judgement if they feel they are being wronged. The problem with this is they are the judge in their own case and will never decide to tariff themselves even when they are the ones at fault. It makes sense for the other WTO nations to create a new mechanism and to deal with the US as it falls outside of the WTO.

As for the coming talks, here is an article highlighting some of the issues that will need to be sorted,

Brexit 2020: Everything you need to know about Boris Johnson's trade deal nightmare

Cool, so everything's sorted right? Brexit is getting done, everything's going back to normal and I never have to talk about trade again.

Oh yeah, no sorry. That's all a lie. We are about to enter the most perilous system-level recalibration of an advanced economy in trading history.

What is interesting is that there still isn't a policy from the UK. This is evident from the Javid quotes that both said they will leave any influence from the EU and at the same time have a close relationship. I think Johnson will go for a BRINO, just because he is lazy and this is the easiest path for him. All he needs to do then is sell his deal as the best thing ever and the sheep will follow him there. He did it with May's deal, he can do it with the trade deal. The question is how will the likes of Mark Francois react when he realises he has been burnt? It happened with the DUP and seeing as remainers aren't in cahoots with Johnson the people he will burn this time will be Brexiteers and the ERG.

listermint

One week left and nope. Still can't get my head around this economic and social suicide.

There's only one word that works.

Notions.