Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Options
1…5253555758…203

Comments

  • Options
    #1622
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Melanchthon wrote: »
    Isn't one of the big sticking points the EU pushing for dynamic allignment rather than the level playing field in the political declaration.
    No. The EU's position is that dynamic alignment is the mechanism by which a level playing field can be delivered; it's not an alternative to a level playing field or something that goes above and beyond a level playing field.

    There are, of course, other possible mechanisms for delivering a level playing field that could be considered. The UK, though is still stuck at the stage where fulminating about the EU's suggested mechanism seems more important to them than suggesting a credible alternative of their own.

    When negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement, they spent about two years stuck in that stage (on the subject of avoiding a hard border in Ireland). It is to be hoped that, having been round the block before, they will progress a bit more quickly this time.


  • Options
    #1623
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Melanchthon wrote: »
    Isn't one of the big sticking points the EU pushing for dynamic allignment rather than the level playing field in the political declaration.

    So I am not sure that point works particularly well

    How do the UK propose the level playing field be achieved/maintained if not by dynamic alignment?


  • Options
    #1624
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    They never said EU non compliant goods, sure look at chinese sweat shop labour conditions, riding roughshod over environmental rules and communist totalitarian control , yet they make goods to CE standards, get the stamp and its all good for import.

    And before anyone starts im not saying the UK is about to become a sweatshop

    I've never heard anyone in the UK government suggest that the EU-China trade agreement might be suitable for them. I presume that's because it's far less favourable for UK exporters than, say, the Canada or Norway agreements would be.

    Have you any reason to think a China-style deal would suit the UK?


  • Options
    #1625
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The question is not whether the UK is about to become a sweatshop. The question is whether it will lower labour, environmental, state aid etc standards, and thereby expose EU producers, who have to comply with these standards, to unfair competition if they have a tariff free, quota free trade deal.

    They would like the option to so id imagine its something they would like to alter. They could get to a position that theyre the EU's unfortunate best bet , where producing goods that have a higher environmental or different labour standards are allowed to continue tariff free because its still preferable than importing from asia or the overall impact is reduced as transport miles are much lower than asia.

    Carbon emissions leauge table of activities by output are

    Electricity & heat (24.9%)
    Industry (14.7%)
    Transportation (14.3%)
    Other fuel combustion (8.6%)
    Fugitive emissions (4%)
    Agriculture (13.8%)
    Land use change (12.2%)
    Industrial processes (4.3%)
    Waste (3.2%)
    Road transport (10.5%)
    Air transport (excluding additional warming impacts) (1.7% )
    Other transport (2.5%)
    Fuel and power for residential buildings (10.2%)
    Fuel and power for commercial buildings (6.3%)
    Unallocated fuel combustion (3.8%)
    Iron and steel production (4%)
    Aluminium and non-ferrous metals production (1.2%)
    Machinery production (1%)
    Pulp, paper and printing (1.1%)
    Food and tobacco industries (1.0%)
    Chemicals production (4.1%)
    Cement production (5.0%)
    Other industry (7.0%)
    Transmission and distribution losses (2.2%)
    Coal mining (1.3%)
    Oil and gas production (6.4%)

    If the EU could find a way to lower its overall emissions total by offsetting some of these industries to the UK in exchange for no tariffs , it is possible they'd do a deal. I mean steel production, britain did it before, the transport miles double its carbon output from asia, start making it cost effective for the UK again and the EU gets its steel, can still quote way lower emissions figures and britin is our filthy little friend we all shake fists at but never sanction.


  • Options
    #1626
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,728 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    They could get to a position ... where producing goods that have a higher environmental or different labour standards are ... preferable than importing from asia or the overall impact is reduced as transport miles are much lower than asia.

    The UK is at least 50 years away from being able to compete with Asia for the kind of manufacturing that comes from Asia at the price we've got used to. The UK is a nation of purchasers, not producers - that's why it's got such a massive deficit with places like China and the EU. Until such time as the English are prepared to get out of bed and work in a field or a factory for less than £5 an hour, they won't even be competitive with Eastern Europe, never mind Asia.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1627
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    It depends on what you count as production. If you only include goods yes the UK is a net purchaser. If you include services it is a different picture however.

    It isn't ideal to have such a balance skewed towards services and it would be good to develop production of goods and open new markets for these goods to be exported to.


  • Options
    #1628
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    The UK is at least 50 years away from being able to compete with Asia for the kind of manufacturing that comes from Asia at the price we've got used to. The UK is a nation of purchasers, not producers - that's why it's got such a massive deficit with places like China and the EU. Until such time as the English are prepared to get out of bed and work in a field or a factory for less than £5 an hour, they won't even be competitive with Eastern Europe, never mind Asia.

    Ahh, but youre missing a trick. The chinese have been buying up africa trading building roads for shady deals that offer them basically free reign to do whatever they want in exchange for much needed infrastructure that only benefits the chinese. Their idea of communism is collapsing and the ever growing middle class are also turning their back on toiling in a field. This and the environmental sanctions will come, transporting metal, and meat half way around the world, having countries say no to nuclear power etc.. will have to end or be heavily curtailed. It suits is all in the EU to have a geographically close friend who doesn't listen to our rules while we transition out of needing the things only a country that is a law onto itself could produce.

    If britain really wanted to make some money it could become the nuclear power producing, petrol refining, beef grazing, data warehousing, goods finishing capitol of the world. Eventual environmental sanctions against china would matter not if the mined lithium was shipped to the UK and finished into batteries there which could be chunnel'd into the EU.

    https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=94 drill baby drill....


  • Options
    #1629
    davedanon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭davedanon


    Nah, no need, they have cheap immigrant labour for that....





    Oh wait.


  • Options
    #1630
    davedanon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭davedanon


    Eric Cartman wrote:
    while we transition out of needing the things only a country that is a law onto itself could produce.


    What does this mean? It sounds like the UK is going to become the EUs dealer, or something.


  • Options
    #1631
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    davedanon wrote: »
    What does this mean? It sounds like the UK is going to become the EUs dealer, or something.

    Basically yes. Its a possibility , the EU gets to shout from the rooftops about lowering emissions , to stop people looking the other way to the smog cloud over dover.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1632
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,728 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    theological wrote: »
    It depends on what you count as production. If you only include goods yes the UK is a net purchaser. If you include services it is a different picture however.
    Well, no I don't count services as production because ... they're not. Services can be provided by anyone anywhere, and demand can evaporate overnight in the face of a sudden global shock - e.g. flights to Italy.
    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    If britain really wanted to make some money it could become the nuclear power producing, petrol refining, beef grazing, data warehousing, goods finishing capitol of the world.
    Do you really think the country that can't even get one new high-speed railway to join up with the (one) existing line in the country can do all that? :pac:


  • Options
    #1633
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    Well, no I don't count services as production because ... they're not. Services can be provided by anyone anywhere, and demand can evaporate overnight in the face of a sudden global shock - e.g. flights to Italy.

    I don't share your view. Services are economic output and they are valuable. Services require expertise. In the case of the UK it has lots to offer especially considering over 80% of the UK's output is services.

    It's important to note this before we speak of the UK being a purchaser rather than a producer.


  • Options
    #1634
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    theological wrote: »
    Services are economic output and they are valuable.

    And unlike a factory, or an oil field, easy to replicate or relocate.


  • Options
    #1635
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    And unlike a factory, or an oil field, easy to replicate or relocate.
    Factories are quite easy to relocate. Indeed, relocation of factory-based activity may be easier than relocating an expert service-based activity.

    We live in an increasingly globalised world where relocating alomst anything is much easier than it used to be. Even though things like mines and oilfields cannot be relocated, production can easily be switched to other mines or other oilfields if that is more advantageous.

    Theo is right; the UK is a service-focussed economy and, to the extent that those are high-value services are located in places with a critical mass of businesses and expert staff, they are (comparatively) difficult to relocate, at least in the short to medium term.

    That's not to say that it can't happen; Montreal used to be the financial centre of Canada and one of the leading financial cities in North America, but it lost that to Toronto, part of the reason being the growing cultural distinction between Quebec and the rest of Canada. London will face different challenges, but they will be real challenges.


  • Options
    #1636
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    The UK is at least 50 years away from being able to compete with Asia for the kind of manufacturing that comes from Asia at the price we've got used to. The UK is a nation of purchasers, not producers - that's why it's got such a massive deficit with places like China and the EU. Until such time as the English are prepared to get out of bed and work in a field or a factory for less than £5 an hour, they won't even be competitive with Eastern Europe, never mind Asia.

    Can anyone compete with China on production costs?I'd be very surprised if any western countries can.


  • Options
    #1637
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    theological wrote: »
    I don't share your view. Services are economic output and they are valuable. Services require expertise. In the case of the UK it has lots to offer especially considering over 80% of the UK's output is services.

    It's important to note this before we speak of the UK being a purchaser rather than a producer.

    I agree,I work in oil field supply manufacturing which is classed as a service-the Americans or Saudis don't have the expertise to take this business away,despite trying.The company supplies various oil companies in Europe,the middle east and Australasia.


  • Options
    #1638
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I agree,I work in oil field supply manufacturing which is classed as a service-the Americans or Saudis don't have the expertise to take this business away,despite trying.The company supplies various oil companies in Europe,the middle east and Australasia.
    A lot of high-end manufacturing or sales is a combination of, well, manufacturing and service provision. The company that manufactures (say) high-tech plant and equipment for the oil extraction industry may also provide consultancy and design services to enable customers to identify what equipment they need and to organise their production operations to best advantage, install the equipment, service the equipment, etc. Actually manufacturing the equipment may contribute a relatively modest component of the company's earnings.

    But this is something of a double-edged sword. While actually supplying the equipment may be a modest contributor to earnings in its own right, it is the platform on which the sale of all the other high-value and high-profit services is founded. Which means that, if the UK doesn't get a trade deal that enables the sale of the equipment to non-UK buyers to happen on competitive terms, the sale of all the associated services is also jeopardised, even though they themselves may not face any tariffs or new barriers.

    This probably isn't a huge problem for the old field supply manufacturing industry, since I'm guessing that relatively few of its exports go to the EU/EEA, or indeed to countries that trade with the UK on the terms of an existing EU trade deal. But it will certainly be an issue for many other industries.


  • Options
    #1639
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,728 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    A lot of high-end manufacturing or sales is a combination of, well, manufacturing and service provision. ... While actually supplying the equipment may be a modest contributor to earnings in its own right, it is the platform on which the sale of all the other high-value and high-profit services is founded.

    Which brings us back to the "easiest trade deal in history" and the ten-months-and-four-days countdown do same. No fish = no deal on services; no deal on services = no deal on goods-and-services bundles ; no deal on goods-and-services = one hell of a headache for companies that trade on those terms ... and all the business that depend on them.


  • Options
    #1640
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    Which brings us back to the "easiest trade deal in history" and the ten-months-and-four-days countdown do same. No fish = no deal on services; no deal on services = no deal on goods-and-services bundles ; no deal on goods-and-services = one hell of a headache for companies that trade on those terms ... and all the business that depend on them.
    I think even the misguided people who voted for brexit realise "easiest trade deal in history" isn't going to happen but the more reasonable of us remain hopeful of a negotiated agreement that doesn't require any further humiliation(a large portion of it self inflicted!)being heaped on the UK.


  • Options
    #1641
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,728 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    And I think the "more reasonable" are probably in the majority ... which makes it difficult to understand why Johnson & Co. are starting into negotiations with a position based on impossibly short "do-or-die" deadlines.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1642
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    And I think the "more reasonable" are probably in the majority ... which makes it difficult to understand why Johnson & Co. are starting into negotiations with a position based on impossibly short "do-or-die" deadlines.

    He is trying to invoke the 'beleaguered Britain' syndrome standing up to the bigger,ruthless EU,egged on by the equally unhinged trump.The EU position on negotiations regarding a trade deal is very reasonable imo and I hope the UK will come to its senses but I'm worried that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.


  • Options
    #1643
    davedanon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,062 ✭✭✭davedanon


    He's already signalling Britain's bad faith to the EU by saying they're not going to abide by the Political Declaration which they publicly signed up to.


  • Options
    #1644
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,507 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Remember when TMs deal was voted down by historic numbers because the PD was too binding?

    Now the UK are saying it isn't at all.

    Gas bunch they are.

    And if course nothing says trust us to maintain standards more than openly threatening to renege on an agreement because it isn't legally binding.

    The only option open to the EU is to seek legal agreements on anything they need going forward.


  • Options
    #1645
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    He's saying he might walk away from negotiations in June. So 33 billion for five months of negotiations followed by six months of preparations for a No Deal that they could have taken ages ago, except now they have to sort out NI as well.

    Bunch of clowns.


  • Options
    #1646
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Deleted User wrote: »
    He's saying he might walk away from negotiations in June. So 33 billion for five months of negotiations followed by six months of preparations for a No Deal that they could have taken ages ago, except now they have to sort out NI as well.

    Bunch of clowns.

    NI would be covered under the withdrawal agreement.

    There's a strong desire for an agreement with the EU, but the UK Government are rightly clear that it shouldn't be a deal at any cost. Whatever is agreed must ensure that the UK has control over its own laws.

    This is why the UK side have been clear they are willing to have a Canada style arrangement with the EU. It is the EU who are insisting on auto-copying of rules.

    From my standpoint if Canada hasn't agreed it the UK definitely shouldn't. The UK is a much more important trading partner for the EU than Canada.

    By the by - abiding by the political declaration doesn't mean auto-copying of EU rules. There are other mechanisms that can be agreed including an arbitration panel.


  • Options
    #1647
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    theological wrote: »
    NI would be covered under the withdrawal agreement.

    There's a strong desire for an agreement with the EU, but the UK Government are rightly clear that it shouldn't be a deal at any cost. Whatever is agreed must ensure that the UK has control over its own laws.

    This is why the UK side have been clear they are willing to have a Canada style arrangement with the EU. It is the EU who are insisting on auto-copying of rules.

    From my standpoint if Canada hasn't agreed it the UK definitely shouldn't. The UK is a much more important trading partner for the EU than Canada.

    By the by - abiding by the political declaration doesn't mean auto-copying of EU rules. There are other mechanisms that can be agreed including an arbitration panel.

    This stance by the UK government makes me think they have collectively lost their marbles or they feel they have an ace up their sleeve.I can't think of any other reason they are refusing to back down(so far,at least)Gove was just on the news saying fishing grounds will not be linked to a trade deal-how can he say that which effectively nullifies a major UK negotiating lever?


  • Options
    #1648
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    This stance by the UK government makes me think they have collectively lost their marbles or they feel they have an ace up their sleeve.I can't think of any other reason they are refusing to back down(so far,at least)Gove was just on the news saying fishing grounds will not be linked to a trade deal-how can he say that which effectively nullifies a major UK negotiating lever?

    A negotiation will end up with both sides having to move from their positions, in effect a compromise.

    If you start from a reasonable position and the other team start from an unreasonable one, where do you end up?


  • Options
    #1649
    RobMc59
    Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Aegir wrote: »
    A negotiation will end up with both sides having to move from their positions, in effect a compromise.

    If you start from a reasonable position and the other team start from an unreasonable one, where do you end up?

    I agree,but the EU has a stronger negotiating position which is only negated by the UK walking away which leaves the UK up sh*t creek without a paddle as opposed to the EU who will just have to replace the UK contributions.Also,has the divorce bill been paid or is it outstanding?


  • Options
    #1650
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I agree,but the EU has a stronger negotiating position which is only negated by the UK walking away which leaves the UK up sh*t creek without a paddle as opposed to the EU who will just have to replace the UK contributions.Also,has the divorce bill been paid or is it outstanding?

    and a trade deal with the US makes walking away much easier, which will be much harder if the UK accept copy and paste of EU laws.

    this is all just positioning at the moment, effectively the trash talking two boxers do before they get in to a ring.

    No idea on the divorce bill.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1651
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    RobMc59 wrote: »
    I agree,but the EU has a stronger negotiating position which is only negated by the UK walking away which leaves the UK up sh*t creek without a paddle as opposed to the EU who will just have to replace the UK contributions.Also,has the divorce bill been paid or is it outstanding?

    I'm not convinced that their position is much stronger if they are going to insist on an unreasonable demand at the starting point of the talks.

    If the EU cares so much about the level playing field provision then they should agree to an independent panel to oversee it on the basis of commonly agreed principles rather than EU law enforced by the ECJ.

    No reasonable third party nation would agree to the criteria the EU are putting on the table, so why should the UK?

    Even America wouldn't insist that the UK automatically copy their rulebook.

    So the obvious answer should be no until they improve their position.

    Edit: And also, it wouldn't be just replacing UK contributions. It would be replacing the UK share of trade with the EU which is significant given the trade deficit.


Advertisement