Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Cookie_Monster · 26-01-2021 2:20am

sondagefaux wrote: »

A renewed sense of self for the UK? Not exactly.

https://mobile.twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1353043741813202944

snip

Interesting that its framed as Scottish independence but Irish re-union, not even considering the concept of independence for northern Ireland. Would have been an interesting alternative line of questioning to include, see how the numbers changed.

Peregrinus · 26-01-2021 3:58am

RobMc59 wrote: »

I personally feel at less than a month its far too early to call the winners and loosers in brexit. I merely pointed out in my post that the outfit you quoted are discredited.

I'm not sure they are quite as comprehensively discredited as all that. The events mentioned in the story you link to occurred more than 12 years ago, and the story itself says that Moody's has already put in place agreed measures to address the issue. People continue to pay handsomely for Moody's credit assessments, and to attach considerable weight to them, so it seems they are not generally considered to be discredited today.

In any event, what Moody's are saying here is not new, or contrary to the general view. The decision of the UK government not to seek any accommodation on trade in services was widely commented on at the time and since, If you think Moody's (and almost everyone else) is wrong in their assessment of this, now would be a really good time to offer a reason for thinking this that's a bit more convincing than "Moody's did a bad thing in 2008".

dogbert27 · 26-01-2021 7:39am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Interesting that its framed as Scottish independence but Irish re-union, not even considering the concept of independence for northern Ireland. Would have been an interesting alternative line of questioning to include, see how the numbers changed.

Scotland was an independent country before the Acts of Union. Northern Ireland has never been an independent country.

CelticRambler · 26-01-2021 8:52am

RobMc59 wrote: »

I personally feel at less than a month its far too early to call the winners and loosers in brexit. I merely pointed out in my post that the outfit you quoted are discredited.

Well, if you pick the "finishing line" as your point of reference, then you've got to accept that the team passing it with the best score is the winner. The reality is that we're not at "less than a month" into Brexit - the process started when it was announced that there would be referendum (at which time the Irish government went on the offensive to make sure everyone else in the EU knew what kind of a "win" we wanted); then there was the announcement of the result (at which time GBP lost a good chunk of its value; then there was the triggering of Article 50, followed by the end of - and subsequent extension of - the transition periods, ending with the formal exit of GB from the EU (a period characterised by a slow exodus of financial services jobs from the UK, and the loss of many UK-based EU agencies and their associated personnel); and, most recently, the end of the transitional phase and the start of the Brave New Free-Trade World.

With more than four years of Brexit under their belt, the Brexiters should by now have some indisputable positives to show for their gamble; instead, we have JRM saying that it could take 50 years for any to show up; while the less optimistic Brexiters fell back on the argument that the sky wouldn't fall on English heads if/when the UK went solo. Unfortunately for many British heads, the sky has indeed fallen on them since the start of the month, and the only comfort being offered to them is the demonstrable lie that these are "teething problems".

Every problem arising from Brexit was foreseen by and discussed on these threads; and every "clever ruse" predicted to be a potential benefit of Brexit for GB has been anticipated by the EU, with rules drafted to suffocate any such shenanigans (and signed up to by Boris Johnson). Today's EU vs GB armwrestle is about Covid vaccines and supply of same. If Ursula van der Leyen is telling Britain to deliver what was ordered "or else ...", you can be damn sure that Britain will do what its told. 26 days is more than enough for a small independent nation to be put in its place, and it's not on the winners' podium.

tubercolossus · 26-01-2021 12:51pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If one, admittedly significant, bad news story is sufficient to cause Moodys to be discredited, at what point do all the bad news stories about the UKs handling of Brexit discredit the UK?

A 13 year-old story, too. And anyone who's watched The Big Short knows that Moody's indiscretions pale into the background when compared to the massive, industry-wide corruption extant just before the Big Crash of 2008.

RobMc59 · 26-01-2021 1:29pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, if you pick the "finishing line" as your point of reference, then you've got to accept that the team passing it with the best score is the winner. The reality is that we're not at "less than a month" into Brexit - the process started when it was announced that there would be referendum (at which time the Irish government went on the offensive to make sure everyone else in the EU knew what kind of a "win" we wanted); then there was the announcement of the result (at which time GBP lost a good chunk of its value; then there was the triggering of Article 50, followed by the end of - and subsequent extension of - the transition periods, ending with the formal exit of GB from the EU (a period characterised by a slow exodus of financial services jobs from the UK, and the loss of many UK-based EU agencies and their associated personnel); and, most recently, the end of the transitional phase and the start of the Brave New Free-Trade World.

With more than four years of Brexit under their belt, the Brexiters should by now have some indisputable positives to show for their gamble; instead, we have JRM saying that it could take 50 years for any to show up; while the less optimistic Brexiters fell back on the argument that the sky wouldn't fall on English heads if/when the UK went solo. Unfortunately for many British heads, the sky has indeed fallen on them since the start of the month, and the only comfort being offered to them is the demonstrable lie that these are "teething problems".

Every problem arising from Brexit was foreseen by and discussed on these threads; and every "clever ruse" predicted to be a potential benefit of Brexit for GB has been anticipated by the EU, with rules drafted to suffocate any such shenanigans (and signed up to by Boris Johnson). Today's EU vs GB armwrestle is about Covid vaccines and supply of same. If Ursula van der Leyen is telling Britain to deliver what was ordered "or else ...", you can be damn sure that Britain will do what its told. 26 days is more than enough for a small independent nation to be put in its place, and it's not on the winners' podium.

I was under the impression the vaccine issues involved Astra Zeneca's EU facility and there is also a problem with EU vaccine supplies from Phizer as well.Nothing to do with Brussels fiddling whilst Europe burned in a covid inferno of course.
Britain has a deal with the world's second largest trading bloc(EU)and is looking to secure deals with other trading partners .I'd guess it will take years to give an accurate assessment of brexit.

yagan · 26-01-2021 1:45pm

The only winners so far seem to be EU hauliers and sellers.

Companies are willing to pay the price for the trucks to go back empty because it’s cheaper than being stuck in a lorry park for four or five days. We charge €400 to €600 a day, so it’s cheaper for companies to pay for the trailer to go back empty and then get another delivery back into the truck. It’s stupid at the end of the day but that is Brexit. If they have a delivery coming from Belgium or Germany they would prefer the truck to go back and get a second or third delivery. The UK is already the laughing stock of Europe with Brexit, but I have to say, and I don’t enjoy saying this, we are making a lot of money out of it.

CelticRambler · 26-01-2021 1:49pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Nothing to do with Brussels fiddling whilst Europe burned in a covid inferno of course.

Of course - as I've just posted on another thread, this time last year Brussels had no authority to fiddle in this particular domain: matters of public health remained (and still remain) sovereign powers of the member states.

CelticRambler · 26-01-2021 1:58pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Britain has a deal with the world's second largest trading bloc(EU)and is looking to secure deals with other trading partners .I'd guess it will take years to give an accurate assessment of brexit.

Sure, it might take years, but as I pointed out above, so far everything about Brexit is negative. The "deal with the world's second largest trading bloc" that you refer to is most definitely a negative for GB, being considerably worse than the deal they had up until 31st December 2020.

On the basis of the deals signed to date, every single one has been a "loss" for the UK/GB - even with global minnows like the Faeroe Islands. That implies that either the UK's negotiators are complete dimwits or that there are forces at work in the world that are heavily weighted against the UK.

Yet again I'll ask the (now rhetorical) question: what does the UK have to offer any other country that warrants a good deal? A better deal than that which they had while a member of the EU? This first month - remembering that there are still a few transitional measures in force, making things easier for the UK - has shown that there are no benefits, only losses. What evidence is there that that situation is going to get better?

RobMc59 · 26-01-2021 2:30pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Sure, it might take years, but as I pointed out above, so far everything about Brexit is negative. The "deal with the world's second largest trading bloc" that you refer to is most definitely a negative for GB, being considerably worse than the deal they had up until 31st December 2020.

On the basis of the deals signed to date, every single one has been a "loss" for the UK/GB - even with global minnows like the Faeroe Islands. That implies that either the UK's negotiators are complete dimwits or that there are forces at work in the world that are heavily weighted against the UK.

Yet again I'll ask the (now rhetorical) question: what does the UK have to offer any other country that warrants a good deal? A better deal than that which they had while a member of the EU? This first month - remembering that there are still a few transitional measures in force, making things easier for the UK - has shown that there are no benefits, only losses. What evidence is there that that situation is going to get better?

As I've said twice, I believe its far too early to call brexit,probably won't get a reasonably accurate assessment for a number of years.
The UK market is attractive to all potential partners,its up to the UK negotiating teams to see what's in it for the UK. For example,wine or meat could be cheaper from South America or Australia and as long quality isn't comprimised could be a potentially good thing for the UK.

Sam Russell · 26-01-2021 2:39pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I've said twice, I believe its far too early to call brexit,probably won't get a reasonably accurate assessment for a number of years.
The UK market is attractive to all potential partners,its up to the UK negotiating teams to see what's in it for the UK. For example,wine or meat could be cheaper from South America or Australia and as long quality isn't comprimised could be a potentially good thing for the UK.

Of course, they have to bear in mind that they have a deal with the EU.

moon2 · 26-01-2021 2:43pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I've said twice, I believe its far too early to call brexit,probably won't get a reasonably accurate assessment for a number of years.
The UK market is attractive to all potential partners,its up to the UK negotiating teams to see what's in it for the UK. For example,wine or meat could be cheaper from South America or Australia and as long quality isn't comprimised could be a potentially good thing for the UK.

While it will take years for the impact to be fully realised, its still possible to look at each event and grade it into positive, neutral or negative. These events are fairly clear cut leading indicators as to the future health of the economy.

Events are overwhelmingly in the negative bucket so far. Do you agree with this assessment?

Your point is valid, it's possible for this to turn around and be positive. The current lack of substantive brexit positive events/agreements precludes this.

Edit: you also suggest that wine and meat could be cheaper from other locations. Do you know if it's theoretically possible for the UK to accomplish that based on the pre-existing bilateral or multi-lateral treaties the EU have? Does a most favoured nation clause preclude this hypothetical brexit benefit?

breezy1985 · 26-01-2021 2:43pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I've said twice, I believe its far too early to call brexit,probably won't get a reasonably accurate assessment for a number of years.
The UK market is attractive to all potential partners,its up to the UK negotiating teams to see what's in it for the UK. For example,wine or meat could be cheaper from South America or Australia and as long quality isn't comprimised could be a potentially good thing for the UK.

I notice the "wait and see" theory has become the new tagline for brexiters. It's been popping up.a lot recently especially with supposedly neutral posters

rock22 · 26-01-2021 2:45pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I've said twice, I believe its far too early to call brexit,probably won't get a reasonably accurate assessment for a number of years.
The UK market is attractive to all potential partners,its up to the UK negotiating teams to see what's in it for the UK. For example,wine or meat could be cheaper from South America or Australia and as long quality isn't comprimised could be a potentially good thing for the UK.

It won't be so good for the planet though, transporting meat and wine halfway across the world.

dogbert27 · 26-01-2021 2:59pm

I think thoughts of cheap Australian wine are optimistic:

It would therefore seems somewhat optimistic to think any savings on trade tariffs would be passed to consumer in the long term, given the susbtantial costs already borne by the trade.

https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2019/08/australias-top-diplomat-optimistic-of-quick-deal-with-uk-but-will-it-bring-cheaper-wine/

There’s also the issue of rising duty, which is currently around 27 times higher than the trade tarif on a botle of wine, as pointed out winemaker and industry commentator, Gavin Quinney.

As Stannard points out, since 2010, the government has increase wine duty has by 39% whereas duty on beer has only gone up only 16% over the same period – and this has helped push the average price of a bottle of wine up to £5.68, compared to £5.40 in 2016.

There are also other factors to consider. Speaking to a Commons international trade select committee back in January, Stannard warned MPs that the tax increase had upset Australian producers and importers who are interpreted the move as favouring domestic producers. He also warned that winemakers were “seriously” considering shifting bottling away from the UK to mainland Europe if a no-deal Brexit results in increased red tape, trade barriers and tariffs.

Given that Rishi needs to find money to cover all the borrowings for Covid I don't think they'll be reducing duty on alcohol any time soon.

And I don't think UK farmers will be too pleased if the markets are getting flooded with cheap South American meat.

ancapailldorcha · 26-01-2021 3:00pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I've said twice, I believe its far too early to call brexit,probably won't get a reasonably accurate assessment for a number of years.
The UK market is attractive to all potential partners,its up to the UK negotiating teams to see what's in it for the UK. For example,wine or meat could be cheaper from South America or Australia and as long quality isn't comprimised could be a potentially good thing for the UK.

Why is it too early when we finally have a definition?

The UK market is no more attractive and the LPF commitments the British made to the EU means that any imported food must meet reasonable standards or the EU will be able to suspend whole chunks of the deal.

I'm a bit baffled that you think that somehow importing wine and meat from South Africa and Australia without reducing standards and adding significant costs in transportation and storage will make these products cheaper.

yagan · 26-01-2021 3:13pm

moon2 wrote: »

.

Edit: you also suggest that wine and meat could be cheaper from other locations. Do you know if it's theoretically possible for the UK to accomplish that based on the pre-existing bilateral or multi-lateral treaties the EU have? Does a most favoured nation clause preclude this hypothetical brexit benefit?

I remember the South African, NZ and Australian wine producers warning the UK that even after the Brexit vote the weakened GBP was sending their stock elsewhere.

The global supply chain is already flushing the UK down the priority ladder.

RobMc59 · 26-01-2021 3:19pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why is it too early when we finally have a definition?

The UK market is no more attractive and the LPF commitments the British made to the EU means that any imported food must meet reasonable standards or the EU will be able to suspend whole chunks of the deal.

I'm a bit baffled that you think that somehow importing wine and meat from South Africa and Australia without reducing standards and adding significant costs in transportation and storage will make these products cheaper.

So do you think what is happening now is how things are going to remain?There are obviously initial problems and UK traders have been slow getting their act together,combined with the alleged 'dirty tricks 'being used(shipments a kg over refused,GB sticker instead of UK etc)
Even in my lifetime,I can remember meat and fruit from Australia and New Zealand amongst other countries before the EU. The UK can trade with whomever it pleases which is fine as long as quality and standards aren't compromised.

ancapailldorcha · 26-01-2021 3:26pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

So do you think what is happening now is how things are going to remain?There are obviously initial problems and UK traders have been slow getting their act together,combined with the alleged 'dirty tricks 'being used(shipments a kg over refused,GB sticker instead of UK etc)
Even in my lifetime,I can remember meat and fruit from Australia and New Zealand amongst other countries before the EU. The UK can trade with whomever it pleases which is fine as long as quality and standards aren't compromised.

Of course. There'll be some process improvements of course but the businesses that have been devastated are unlikely to survive so they might reject the "teething problems" defence.

Enforcement of the rules does not constitute "dirty tricks".

I remember seeing lamb from New Zealand in Asda on Sunday. What is the point here? Brexit increasing trade with the Commonwealth is no less a lie today than it was in 2016.

[Deleted User] · 26-01-2021 3:31pm

rock22 wrote: »

It won't be so good for the planet though, transporting meat and wine halfway across the world.

Globalisation, in general is bad for the planet, look around you right now and see just how much stuff came in from China, most of which could have been made closer to home.

ArmaniJeanss · 26-01-2021 3:34pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

combined with the alleged 'dirty tricks 'being used(shipments a kg over refused, GB sticker instead of UK etc)

This is not 'a dirty trick'.

'GB' is the ISO two-character code for your country, it's not 'UK'.
Getting your country code and your product codes/category codes correct is a really basic thing that you just have to get right in business.

dogbert27 · 26-01-2021 3:46pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course. There'll be some process improvements of course but the businesses that have been devastated are unlikely to survive so they might reject the "teething problems" defence.

Enforcement of the rules does not constitute "dirty tricks".

I remember seeing lamb from New Zealand in Asda on Sunday. What is the point here? Brexit increasing trade with the Commonwealth is no less a lie today than it was in 2016.

I was just about to make the same point. Frozen New Zealand lamb is sold throughout the EU.

Hurrache · 26-01-2021 3:51pm

I do like this quote on the followings business's website

BREXIT UPDATE
Due to long term idiot activity concluding at No 10, we can no longer send any plants to Northern Ireland or the EU (A business loss of around 10%). As compensation for naked gardens you can have Sovereignty!

https://www.trees-online.co.uk/

ambro25 · 26-01-2021 4:23pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

So do you think what is happening now is how things are going to remain?There are obviously initial problems and UK traders have been slow getting their act together,combined with the alleged 'dirty tricks 'being used(shipments a kg over refused,GB sticker instead of UK etc)
Even in my lifetime,I can remember meat and fruit from Australia and New Zealand amongst other countries before the EU. The UK can trade with whomever it pleases which is fine as long as quality and standards aren't compromised.

These initial problems correspond precisely to UK businesses (mostly) and their foreign trading counterparts (EU27 and not) adjusting to "how things are going to remain".

Those already adapted, may manage to keep existing levels of business, and maybe even snatch some business from less-prepared others.

Those less well adapted and/or yet to adapt, will fare according to Darwinism (in a nutshell): the better their starting cashflow/goodwill/reserves/credit terms with suppliers <etc>, and the faster they adapt relative to the others, then the likelier they'll survive.

But the common baseline for all, is that the non-tariff-barriers are here to stay (and getting progressively worse by 1st July as the 'transitory light touch' gets progressively withdrawn - per agreed terms of FTA), until and unless the UK comes 'back' closer to the EU. That is highly unlikely in the short-term, so Darwinism will do the rest in the meantime.

It might well not have been what 'smart' Brexiters (after a less-disruptive/still reasonably-cooperative Brexit) wanted. But it's the Brexit they got.

Buyer beware, caveat emptor, read the small print, <etc>

Zubeneschamali · 26-01-2021 4:23pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I've said twice, I believe its far too early to call brexit,probably won't get a reasonably accurate assessment for a number of years.

And in a number of years, the brexiteers will say maybe the decline that happens after Brexit would have happened anyway, no way to tell.

Nody · 26-01-2021 4:31pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

So do you think what is happening now is how things are going to remain?There are obviously initial problems and UK traders have been slow getting their act together,combined with the alleged 'dirty tricks 'being used(shipments a kg over refused,GB sticker instead of UK etc)

It shows what your news sources are. Those "dirty tricks" as you call them is the standard rules for all third party countries; UK is not special in any way shape or form and will get zero special treatment accordingly. Why? Because if EU allowed UK to fudge their forms and ignore the rules and requirements every other country in the world under WTO terms have the right to do so as well. We said this up front in this thread, EU told UK this up front and now UK is crying like a baby over the fact they don't get any special treatment in the paperwork. "Oh it's only a kilo over", "Oh it's only filled in wrong in a field"; yes but that does not make the form any more correct now does it? Either do it correctly or go back in the queue and do it again; no exceptions because that's the reality for everyone else.

So the "dirty tricks" as you call it and the papers you read is actually the rules and regulations that apply to all countries; UK is only showing their lack of education on the pick up on things here. This is what Brexiteers claim to have wanted, this is what WTO terms means and it's not only going to be EU, this applies to every other country in the world as well. Welcome to the third world country status; UK knew what we they voted for we keep hearing, well here it is. The lack of understanding and the lack of preparation falls fully on UK, EU told what would happen, then implemented what they said they would do and UK is caught with their pants down going "Uhm what?" and cry about EU bullies etc. instead.

Enzokk · 26-01-2021 4:53pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I've said twice, I believe its far too early to call brexit,probably won't get a reasonably accurate assessment for a number of years.
The UK market is attractive to all potential partners,its up to the UK negotiating teams to see what's in it for the UK. For example,wine or meat could be cheaper from South America or Australia and as long quality isn't comprimised could be a potentially good thing for the UK.

I don't know how this happens without either increasing tariffs and checks between the EU and the UK to ensure that these products that are so much cheaper isn't sold into the EU without the proper checks or tariffs. That would surely mean another blow to the success of Brexit.

RobMc59 wrote: »

So do you think what is happening now is how things are going to remain?There are obviously initial problems and UK traders have been slow getting their act together,combined with the alleged 'dirty tricks 'being used(shipments a kg over refused,GB sticker instead of UK etc)
Even in my lifetime,I can remember meat and fruit from Australia and New Zealand amongst other countries before the EU. The UK can trade with whomever it pleases which is fine as long as quality and standards aren't compromised.

Yeah, companies may work out how to better negotiate the process needed to export, but the problem is that this red tape is still needed and will always be needed. That will not go away unless the UK commits to BRINO, which it will not do under this government.

So basically the light at the end of the tunnel at the moment is for companies to work on the time delay of sending items to the EU and importing from the EU, and not about reducing the extra cost that they have now. That in itself makes Brexit a loser no matter how long you want to wait before you call it.

20silkcut · 26-01-2021 4:58pm

There is no Brussels red tape either. Brussels/ EU has spent the last 40 years removing red tape.

This is WTO 3rd country red tape designed to encourage countries to enter trade deals with each other.

The same WTO that the brexiteers gave the last 4 and half years crowing about.

The express are absolute charlatans to refer to the current **** show as Brussels red tape.

The Raging Bile Duct · 26-01-2021 5:19pm

EU citizens are being offered financial incentives to leave the UK, the Guardian has learned, months before the deadline to apply for settled status.

From 1 January EU citizens have quietly been added to the government’s voluntary returns scheme where financial support is offered as an encouragement to return to their country of origin.

Payments can include flights and up to £2,000 resettlement money. The scheme is designed to help some migrants in the UK to leave voluntarily.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/26/eu-citizens-offered-financial-incentives-to-leave-uk

breatheme · 26-01-2021 5:21pm

TBH, if I were in the UK right now, I might take it.

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Comments