Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

54and56 · 25-01-2021 4:31pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

But yeah, blue passports, says absolutely nothing about the impact on business or society generally. It's a glib, self righteous remark with its only intention to show that the author was right.

Arguably Suez was a much greater crisis for both the UK and France geopolitically than Brexit.

Suez marked a very public and permanent relegation of Britain and France as global powers (militarily, economically and politically) in their own right.

Whilst France have adapted and found global strength via it's leading role in the EU, as had the UK as the leading NATO nation within the EU but the UK has now chosen to to (self inflict this time) another very public and permanent relegation to an even lower tier of influence via Brexit.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The three day week was a greater crisis for the UK, if you want to contextualize it more domestically.

The 1970's three day week in the UK brought in by Edward Heath lasted about 10 week.

I reckon the effects of Brexit will be a lot deeper and last a lot longer.

sondagefaux · 25-01-2021 5:05pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

But yeah, blue passports, says absolutely nothing about the impact on business or society generally. It's a glib, self righteous remark with its only intention to show that the author was right.

Arguably Suez was a much greater crisis for both the UK and France geopolitically than Brexit. The three day week was a greater crisis for the UK, if you want to contextualize it more domestically.

The 'blue passports' issue exemplifies Brexit: a lack of knowledge of EU law (it permits different national passport colours) leads to a pointless symbolic gesture, creates extra business in the EU (the passports are printed in the EU), makes movement between the UK and EU more difficult, but gives Northern Ireland an escape clause, as people from there can still claim citizenship of an EU member state.

It would be hard to pick a better example that encapsulates all of the negatives of Brexit in one go.

Brexit threatens the break-up of the British state itself.

It's a far greater existential threat to the UK than the loss of empire or diminshed global power, and far more likely to do lasting economic harm than the three-day week.

The UK is the new Italy for FDI.

https://unctad.org/webflyer/global-investment-trend-monitor-no-38

It also says something about the lack of importance of Northern Ireland within the UK that the three-day week can be seen as more harmful than the Troubles violence prevalent in the early 1970s.

Back to passports: it's possible that British passports won't exist at all in a few years because of Brexit.

MrMusician18 · 25-01-2021 6:08pm

sondagefaux wrote: »

The 'blue passports' issue exemplifies Brexit: a lack of knowledge of EU law (it permits different national passport colours)leads to a pointless symbolic gesture, creates extra business in the EU (the passports are printed in the EU), makes movement between the UK and EU more difficult, but gives Northern Ireland an escape clause, as people from there can still claim citizenship of an EU member state.

It would be hard to pick a better example that encapsulates all of the negatives of Brexit in one go.

Brexit threatens the break-up of the British state itself.

It's a far greater existential threat to the UK than the loss of empire or diminshed global power, and far more likely to do lasting economic harm than the three-day week.

The UK is the new Italy for FDI.

https://unctad.org/webflyer/global-investment-trend-monitor-no-38

It also says something about the lack of importance of Northern Ireland within the UK that the three-day week can be seen as more harmful than the Troubles violence prevalent in the early 1970s.

Back to passports: it's possible that British passports won't exist at all in a few years because of Brexit.

It's not pointless if it gives the UK a renewed sense of self, and the rest of your points are verifiably untrue. The colour of the document does not make movement more difficult, nor does it give NI an escape clause.

But yeah blue passports is a remark used to demonstrate an intellectual superiority. It doesn't go any deeper than that. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.

It won't be Brexit that breaks the UK - both NI and Scotland have been walking towards the exit lobby for decades. You might remember that Scotland was at the door already, but pissed itself and went back to London. If the nationalist movements are successful, it will be down to over half a century of underinvestment and central government neglect rather than Brexit.

The nationalists may well attempt to use Brexit as their lever, but if that didn't happen, they would use something else. I really doubt the SNP would've just given up if the UK had backed remain.

sondagefaux · 25-01-2021 6:24pm

British citizens who want to buy property in some parts of Spain, designated by law as sensitive military areas, will have to get permission from the Spanish military now that the UK has left the EU and become a third country.

https://murciatoday.com/brexit-collides-with-1978-military-law-in-spain-british-housebuyers-must-now-obtain-military-permit_1552969-a.html

MrMusician18 · 25-01-2021 6:30pm

sondagefaux wrote: »

British citizens who want to buy property in some parts of Spain, designated by law as sensitive military areas, will have to get permission from the Spanish military now that the UK has left the EU and become a third country.

https://murciatoday.com/brexit-collides-with-1978-military-law-in-spain-british-housebuyers-must-now-obtain-military-permit_1552969-a.html

That article overblows the issue - like a lot of issues surrounding Brexit. It is literally in no one's interest to delay sales, buyer, seller or government. There will be pressure on all sides to streamline the process for property sales.

There are big issues with SPS that are unlikely to be resolved soon, but this is a genuine teething issue that will be fixed.

eire4 · 25-01-2021 6:45pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Is it possible that once the media glare dies down the UK can do a load of little individual deals which will essentially make them an EFTA without people noticing ?

LOL I had to take a double take there as at first glance I didn't see the UK off in the corner. Great graphic really one of those classic a picture is worth a thousand words cliche moments.

sondagefaux · 25-01-2021 6:50pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not pointless if it gives the UK a renewed sense of self, and the rest of your points are verifiably untrue. The colour of the document does not make movement more difficult, nor does it give NI an escape clause.

But yeah blue passports is a remark used to demonstrate an intellectual superiority. It doesn't go any deeper than that. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.

It won't be Brexit that breaks the UK - both NI and Scotland have been walking towards the exit lobby for decades. You might remember that Scotland was at the door already, but pissed itself and went back to London. If the nationalist movements are successful, it will be down to over half a century of underinvestment and central government neglect rather than Brexit.

The nationalists may well attempt to use Brexit as their lever, but if that didn't happen, they would use something else. I really doubt the SNP would've just given up if the UK had backed remain.

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

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

Nobody has ever claimed that the colour of the document makes movement more difficult and certainly not me. 'Blue passports' is shorthand for 'British passports are no longer EU passports'.

People from Northern Ireland do have an escape clause from having to use British passports; they can use Irish passports.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/apply-for-irish-passport-if-you-can-advises-dup-mp-ian-paisley-34835231.html

The SNP and NI nationalists wouldn't have given up on leaving the UK even if Brexit hadn't happened?

So what?

The polls have swung towards independence and reunification because of Brexit.

If not for Brexit, neither would have seen the increases in support seen in the past few years.

The term 'blue passports' is used to illustrate the negatives of Brexit rather than literally attacking the colour of British passports; nobody gives a flying fúck about what colour they are. It's what they represent, primarily a lack of knowledge of the EU and above all, making movement more difficult.

moon2 · 25-01-2021 6:56pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That article overblows the issue - like a lot of issues surrounding Brexit. It is literally in no one's interest to delay sales, buyer, seller or government. There will be pressure on all sides to streamline the process for property sales.

There are big issues with SPS that are unlikely to be resolved soon, but this is a genuine teething issue that will be fixed.

Well... No. This is absolutely not "genuine teething issues".

The article states that this law has been used multiple times in the past to limit purchases from non-EU citizens/corporations. The application of this to purchases made by UK citizens is simply the new reality facing the UK now they are not schengen or EU members. There are no surprises here, no unanticipated consequences, no teething issues.

Will Spain eventually repeal this law? Maybe? That's definitely outside the bounds of "teething problems" though.

sondagefaux · 25-01-2021 7:07pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That article overblows the issue - like a lot of issues surrounding Brexit. It is literally in no one's interest to delay sales, buyer, seller or government. There will be pressure on all sides to streamline the process for property sales.

There are big issues with SPS that are unlikely to be resolved soon, but this is a genuine teething issue that will be fixed.

More denial. Read the article. This is the law in Spain. It's applied to all property purchases in the designated zones by third-country nationals, now including British citizens.

The world doesn't revolve around Britain. Neither the EU nor Spain will change their laws just because British people and business find life more difficult after Brexit.

I've always maintained that Brexit is a fantasy.

The inability to deal with its consequences in reality, the fantasy that the rules will be changed specially for Britain, all highlight the fantasy-based ideology behind it.

If the UK government can accept the reality that Brexit makes interactions between the EU and the UK more difficult, it might seek a closer relationship with the EU, participation in the EEA Agreement or a Swiss-style relationship.

But that's not going to happen until fantasy gives way to reality.

sondagefaux · 25-01-2021 7:15pm

moon2 wrote: »

Well... No. This is absolutely not "genuine teething issues".

The article states that this law has been used multiple times in the past to limit purchases from non-EU citizens/corporations. The application of this to purchases made by UK citizens is simply the new reality facing the UK now they are not schengen or EU members. There are no surprises here, no unanticipated consequences, no teething issues.

Will Spain eventually repeal this law? Maybe? That's definitely outside the bounds of "teething problems" though.

The law in its present form has been in force since 1978.

The idea that the British are so special and important to the EU and its individual members ('They need us more than we need them', 'We hold all the cards', 'German car makers') that special accommodation will be made is evidently still alive and well, despite the daily facts on the ground.

You can't even legally bring a ham sandwich into the EU from Britain because of Brexit.

Why would you think that buying a house in a sensitive military zone is going to be as easy now as it was before Brexit?

MrMusician18 · 25-01-2021 7:26pm

sondagefaux wrote: »

The law in its present form has been in force since 1978.

The idea that the British are so special and important to the EU and its individual members ('They need us more than we need them', 'We hold all the cards', 'German car makers') that special accommodation will be made is evidently still alive and well, despite the daily facts on the ground.

You can't even legally bring a ham sandwich into the EU from Britain because of Brexit.

Why would you think that buying a house in a sensitive military zone is going to be as easy now as it was before Brexit?

And why do you think it won't be changed if to change it will suit all parties? Did you know that all foreign nationals had to get ministerial approval in Ireland for property purchases up until I think 20 years ago? We changed the rules to make investments and purchases easier for foreign nationals because it was in our interest.

There is a huge property industry in the south of Spain that actively markets to the UK. A good number of jobs depends on this market and it brings in taxes and revenue particularly in the off season. I wouldn't expect the Spanish to abandon their law, but when agents and officials are interacting with it more regularly they will get more used to the process and allow it to happen faster. This is of course setting aside the lobbying for easing for the UK that will come from the Spanish property sector itself.

Is not about them needing us more than we need them, it's about the economic reality on the ground in these regions.

Eric Cartman · 25-01-2021 7:42pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Do you seriously think this clownshower of a government would have had the legislation in place on 1/1/2021? They can barely string a sentence together.

Be patient. It will happen. They'll be sly about it, like most governments, but it'll happen.

I really think the idea that workers rights are going to be eroded to any extent or that dangerous foods will be present on UK shelves in the term of this government are pretty unrealistic.

As somebody for whom a 60 hour work week would be considered short though, I do not see minor changes to the work time legislation as an 'erosion of workers rights'

breezy1985 · 25-01-2021 7:55pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I really think the idea that workers rights are going to be eroded to any extent or that dangerous foods will be present on UK shelves in the term of this government are pretty unrealistic.

As somebody for whom a 60 hour work week would be considered short though, I do not see minor changes to the work time legislation as an 'erosion of workers rights'

How much of your 60+ hours is by choice and how much do you get paid for it.

60+ on minimum behind a bar or coffee machine with no overtime doesn't sound too good

yagan · 25-01-2021 8:00pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

And why do you think it won't be changed if to change it will suit all parties? Did you know that all foreign nationals had to get ministerial approval in Ireland for property purchases up until I think 20 years ago? We changed the rules to make investments and purchases easier for foreign nationals because it was in our interest.

There is a huge property industry in the south of Spain that actively markets to the UK. A good number of jobs depends on this market and it brings in taxes and revenue particularly in the off season. I wouldn't expect the Spanish to abandon their law, but when agents and officials are interacting with it more regularly they will get more used to the process and allow it to happen faster. This is of course setting aside the lobbying for easing for the UK that will come from the Spanish property sector itself.

Is not about them needing us more than we need them, it's about the economic reality on the ground in these regions.

The Brits are being replaced by Swedes, Polish etc..

UK retirees will have to meet the same income and health insurance tests as all non EU.

sondagefaux · 25-01-2021 8:36pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

And why do you think it won't be changed if to change it will suit all parties? Did you know that all foreign nationals had to get ministerial approval in Ireland for property purchases up until I think 20 years ago? We changed the rules to make investments and purchases easier for foreign nationals because it was in our interest.

There is a huge property industry in the south of Spain that actively markets to the UK. A good number of jobs depends on this market and it brings in taxes and revenue particularly in the off season. I wouldn't expect the Spanish to abandon their law, but when agents and officials are interacting with it more regularly they will get more used to the process and allow it to happen faster. This is of course setting aside the lobbying for easing for the UK that will come from the Spanish property sector itself.

Is not about them needing us more than we need them, it's about the economic reality on the ground in these regions.

'to suit all parties'. Pretty arrogant assumption that it would suit all parties to change this law. You can ask the Spanish military if it would suit them if you like:

CHIEF OF DEFENSE STAFF (CHOD)
Welcoming words by Air General Miguel Ángel Villarroya
...

Calle Vitruvio 1, 28006 Madrid, SPAIN (+34) 91 745 52 00

https://emad.defensa.gob.es/en/emad/

The restricted zones are in limited areas. There's no ban on third country nationals buying property in those areas. The existing restrictions make it harder for British citizens. I sincerely doubt that extra hassle for Brits in a few areas is going to cause any particular hardship for the economies of these regions.

embraer170 · 25-01-2021 8:37pm

An interesting article about the impact on the British music business that goes a bit beyond visa requirements for performers:
https://musiceducation.global/uk-government-has-wilfully-thrown-the-live-music-sector-under-the-big-red-brexit-bus/

I suppose more relocation to the EU.

sondagefaux · 25-01-2021 9:29pm

embraer170 wrote: »

An interesting article about the impact on the British music business that goes a bit beyond visa requirements for performers:
https://musiceducation.global/uk-government-has-wilfully-thrown-the-live-music-sector-under-the-big-red-brexit-bus/

I suppose more relocation to the EU.

Temporary imports of instruments, sound and lighting equipment and so on are a pain and require ATA Carnets which are complex to deal with.

Then there are restrictions on British trucks operating in the EU (and vice versa), with limitations on the numbers of loads they can deliver per trip.

Seth Brundle · 25-01-2021 10:18pm

This shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone...

Credit ratings agency Moody’s, which assesses organisations’ and states’ abilities to pay their debts, says a trade deal struck between Brussels and London on Christmas Eve is skewed in the EU’s favour.

Benedicte Andries, Moody’s analyst and co-writer of the report, says “while the Brexit agreement avoids a no-deal scenario, it largely lacks substance in areas vital to the UK economy, such as services”.

As a result, he says the UK economy will be significantly smaller over the longer term.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/credit-analysts-say-uk-economy-will-shrink-as-brexit-deal-lacks-substance-1.4467228

RobMc59 · 25-01-2021 10:31pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

This shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/credit-analysts-say-uk-economy-will-shrink-as-brexit-deal-lacks-substance-1.4467228

What surprises me is you would take any notice of such a discredited company,as illustrated in this link.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/14/moodys-864m-penalty-for-ratings-in-run-up-to-2008-financial-crisis

MrMusician18 · 25-01-2021 10:39pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

What surprises me is you would take any notice of such a discredited company,as illustrated in this link.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/14/moodys-864m-penalty-for-ratings-in-run-up-to-2008-financial-crisis

To be fair, I don't think that are wrong this time. Any deal that excluded financial services, let alone services in general was always going to be considered as one that was in the EUs favour. Add in the terrible rules of origin on reexporting and remanufacturing and it's quite clear, even to a non trade expert, that is a fairly poor deal for the UK.

Seth Brundle · 25-01-2021 10:48pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

What surprises me is you would take any notice of such a discredited company,as illustrated in this link.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/14/moodys-864m-penalty-for-ratings-in-run-up-to-2008-financial-crisis

Rather than just shouting "look over there" do you want to highlight the flaws or inaccuracies in what they're claiming?

Itssoeasy · 25-01-2021 10:57pm

I was just on Twitter and some cheese makers were saying they can longer export to NI from England because of the paperwork involved because of brexit. Some of the replies are baffling though. Either the majority of people in the UK knew the issues that would arise and decided to ignore them, or they didn’t know and now are having an awful moment of realisation that they were sold a pup by the people in charge of their country.

RobMc59 · 25-01-2021 11:10pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Rather than just shouting "look over there" do you want to highlight the flaws or inaccuracies in what they're claiming?

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.

prawnsambo · 25-01-2021 11:20pm

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.

The UK-Japan trade deal is skewed 80/20 in Japan's favour. As (eventually) admitted by Liz Truss. You think this one is better?

yagan · 25-01-2021 11:21pm

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.

If you believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see then empty shelves in UK supermarkets and more Irish ferries being switched to direct continent routes speaks volumes.

Seth Brundle · 25-01-2021 11:27pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I personally feel at less than a month its far too early to call the winners and loosers in brexit.

Do you still think that by erecting trade barriers between you and your biggest market will create anything other than a massive loss?
Seriously?

Brexit was never going to create any winners. It was an utterly stupid proposal carried out with little concern for the inevitable consequences purely to satisfy some jingoistic nonsense about sovereignty.
However, for the people if the UK, there are no positives from Brexit, that I'm aware of, that have stood up to any kind of scrutiny. In fact, Brexit looks like it may be the catalyst that finally breaks up the UK (which is a positive (NI), I'll grant you that!)

sondagefaux · 26-01-2021 12:12am

This could be fun. A group of German lawyers claim the the TCA is a 'mixed agreement'. If they're right and the CJEU agrees, the agreement would need to be ratified by each of the 27 member states individually.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/brexit-handelsabkommen-warum-der-deal-juristisch-auf-wackligen-beinen-steht-a-227a2740-dcc8-46c3-bc7b-c7183b6bf615-amp

johnnyskeleton · 26-01-2021 12:36am

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.

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?

johnnyskeleton · 26-01-2021 12:39am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

However, for the people if the UK, there are no positives from Brexit, that I'm aware of, that have stood up to any kind of scrutiny. In fact, Brexit looks like it may be the catalyst that finally breaks up the UK (which is a positive (NI), I'll grant you that!)

If you are a conservative English nationalist, the breakup of the UK is the positive. If it was just Emgland and Wales, the Tories would be in power for the next 20 years unopposed. That is plenty time for them to finally carry out their policies, and they wouldnt have to pay lip service to the red wall. That is the real benefit of Brexit, for those sorts of people.

listermint · 26-01-2021 12:43am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you are a conservative English nationalist, the breakup of the UK is the positive. If it was just Emgland and Wales, the Tories would be in power for the next 20 years unopposed. That is plenty time for them to finally carry out their policies, and they wouldnt have to pay lip service to the red wall. That is the real benefit of Brexit, for those sorts of people.

I think even conservative English nationalists balk at the idea of Scotland heading off. There's an ownership mentality there. You'd find few that would agree to let it go Even for continued Tory rule. It's again a case of cherry picking and wanting to have it all.

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.

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.

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Comments