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

KildareP · 28-01-2020 11:58am

Aegir wrote: »

this is where the debate on this and other threads just descends in to farce. the brief and somewhat pointless debate around job losses at Land Rover are a good example.

it is possible to not be a supporter of Brexit and also not think it is apocalyptic at the same time.

100%.

It will be neither a success nor a disaster overnight.

More like a boiling frog or watching a loved one grow old.

It will be very slow and gradual.

28-01-2020 12:01pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your own parliament went pretty wild on what was seen as a fairly clear inference in what she said. She was responding/quoting an article that highlighted food shortages in Ireland.
Your PM May had to answer questions on it in the HoC and disassociate her government from them. One of YOUR Mp's lambasted her

one of the opposition MPs jumped on it you mean? hardly a great example there Fran.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fairly typical you are laying the 'over reaction' solely at the door of the Irish people.

fairly typical you try and put words in to people's mouths to be honest Francis.

The Irish are prone to over reaction, as are most people nowadays.

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 12:05pm

Aegir wrote: »

one of the opposition MPs jumped on it you mean? hardly a great example there Fran.

fairly typical you try and put words in to people's mouths to be honest Francis.

The Irish are prone to over reaction, as are most people nowadays.

Aegir wrote:

Was this before or after the Irish list their collective **** over an imagined threat to starve the Irish, followed by obligatory discussions about the famine, genocide and reparations?

The reaction came from here and the UK. You could have said the UK Parliament 'lost it's collective **** over it' too...but of course you didn't.

28-01-2020 1:52pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The reaction came from here and the UK. You could have said the UK Parliament 'lost it's collective **** over it' too...but of course you didn't.

because they didn't.

FrancieBrady · 28-01-2020 2:33pm

Aegir wrote: »

because they didn't.

Matter of opinion. If a UK PM has to address the controversy the remarks aroused, I would say **** was lost somewhere.

theological · 28-01-2020 8:56pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The Irish economey is larger than the smallest 8 member states combined and Ireland is itself a small member state. There are counties in Ireland with a larger economey than some EU member states, but that does not make us an economic superpower. The point you make gets thrown about is if it should hold some weight but the EU has a lot of small members, so what exactly is your point? The reality is that the UK will not get as good a deal from the EU as even the smallest member of the EU gets.

Brexit won't be armageddon for the UK, but if that is the bar you have set then you need to take a serious look at what you are doing.

Great. So I guess I would say the UK should act on the democratic will of the people and gain its own trade policy as a result. In all probability the UK will continue to be a successful market economy outside of the EU.

I'm glad we're in agreement.

First Up · 28-01-2020 9:20pm

theological wrote:

Great. So I guess I would say the UK should act on the democratic will of the people and gain its own trade policy as a result. In all probability the UK will continue to be a successful market economy outside of the EU.

As I said before, the democratic will of the people would be for free beer on Sundays. Should that be respected too?

Representative democracy involves electing people to make decisions about complicated stuff. That's the version that works.

cryptocurrency · 28-01-2020 9:26pm

KildareP wrote: »

He was giving an interview with a UK interviewer on a UK channel to be aired in a part of the schedule the vast majority of Irish people don't watch. Call it putting a perspective on the oft-uttered "they need us more than we need them" mantra. What did you expect, him to agree with everything put to him?

The EU and it's populace really don't care what English people think.

This thread keeps an interest purely out of watching what's going on on the ground in the UK but your average Joe or Jane on the streets of Ireland couldn't care less what the English think of them or anyone else.

Johnson doesn't even have the wherewithall to manage that. He came over here to meet Varadkar spouting meaningless optimism and bluff to hide the reality he doesn't seem to have a clue what "his" WAB actually entails. Still doesn't (still no checks between GB/NI, apparently).
The most talked about takeaway from his meeting here was this gem:

Ah wonderful, yes, threaten Ireland now with fuel and supply shortages.

Just remember:
- 47% of UK gas comes through European pipelines
- Britain's broadcast media - including terrestrial Freeview and DAB - is heavily reliant on EU-based and owned satellite companies to function effectively
- NI is still reliant on landbridge to get goods to/from GB
- The UK is reliant on ongoing co-operation to travel through EU airspace unless they want to make fuel-hungry and time consuming diversions to the very North of GB to get anywhere they want in the world

So go on, try it.

Why not. The EU is full of tin pot nations, UK could do what they liked. Nations of chumps. Do they have a catapult between them?

28-01-2020 9:30pm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why not. The EU is full of tin pot nations, UK could do what they liked. Nations of chumps. Do they have a catapult between them?

More evidence that you really don't know what your talking about.

Leroy42 · 28-01-2020 10:06pm

theological wrote: »

Great. So I guess I would say the UK should act on the democratic will of the people and gain its own trade policy as a result. In all probability the UK will continue to be a successful market economy outside of the EU.

I'm glad we're in agreement.

And what trade policy did the people vote for? Did it involve increased foreign aid to African countries? Did it involve increased visas for India?

Did it involve GMO foods, bank deregulation?

People voted for an idea, when in fact the idea is undeliverable.

theological · 28-01-2020 10:22pm

And there was a general election to elect a government. There will be other general elections to elect future governments which will stand on policy platforms in all of these areas.

28-01-2020 10:37pm

First Up wrote: »

As I said before, the democratic will of the people would be for free beer on Sundays. Should that be respected

If parliament passes legislation to hold a referendum for free beer in a Sunday, holds the referendum and then passes legislation to provide free beer in Sundays then yes, it should be respected.

Leroy42 · 28-01-2020 10:49pm

And if it turns out that it isn't free, but will costs loads, should people be expected to simply now pay for the beer?

First Up · 28-01-2020 10:55pm

Aegir wrote:

If parliament passes legislation to hold a referendum for free beer in a Sunday, holds the referendum and then passes legislation to provide free beer in Sundays then yes, it should be respected.

Why involve parliament? Surely the will of the people is all that counts?

28-01-2020 11:19pm

First Up wrote: »

Why involve parliament? Surely the will of the people is all that counts?

this thread gets more and more bizarre by the day

Junkyard Tom · 28-01-2020 11:59pm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Why not. The EU is full of tin pot nations, UK could do what they liked. Nations of chumps. Do they have a catapult between them?

If Britain stopped Irish freight using its landbridge the EU could stop Britain using its landbridge and Britain would be destroyed.

Don't mess with us in the EU.

Bit cynical · 29-01-2020 12:26am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If Britain stopped Irish freight using its landbridge the EU could stop Britain using its landbridge and Britain would be destroyed.

I don't think the problem would be Britain preventing Ireland using the landbridge but rather that in case of a bad or no deal outcome, Irish goods at the far end would not be able to enter France from Britain as the EU would regard those goods as originating in the UK.

Peregrinus · 29-01-2020 2:44am

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think the problem would be Britain preventing Ireland using the landbridge but rather that in case of a bad or no deal outcome, Irish goods at the far end would not be able to enter France from Britain as the EU would regard those goods as originating in the UK.

No. There'd be no reason to regard Irish-originating goods as originating in the UK.

There would be two different problems in a no-deal/minimal deal scenario. The first is general chaos and congestion at the Channel port, in which Irish goods would be caught up not because they are Irish goods but because they have to pass through the Channel ports. While it would actually make sense for the UK to establish a fast-track channel for Irish goods, sense is not something which has characterised the UK's implementation of Brexit at any point, and the political difficulties in being seen to prioritise Irish goods are obvious. So I don't think it will happen.

The second is that it would be necessary to document that Irish goods are, indeed, Irish goods, and this would involve a layer of paperwork and checking that they don't currently face. This isn't rocket science - internationally recognised procedures exist and could readily be implemented in this context - but nevertheless it represents a layer of bureaucracy and processing that the landbridge trade does not currently face.

Hamsterchops · 29-01-2020 5:58am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If Britain stopped Irish freight using its landbridge the EU could stop Britain using its landbridge and Britain would be destroyed.

Don't mess with us in the EU.

If Britain stopped Irish freight using .....

Britain has no intention of stopping Irish freight or closing itself off post Brexit, indeed the whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers.

Whatever happens, the UK certainly won't be pulling down the shutters on freight within these islands or with the EU continent.

New trade horizons 'outside EU bureaucracy is the 'Holy Grail' that Brexiteers seek to enhance the UK's trade around the globe.

UK > Irish > UK trade predates any EU structures, and the UK is not going to stop Irish freight traveling across Britain on the way to Europe...

29-01-2020 6:22am

Trade was never the point of Brexit. That was a late addition.

Peregrinus · 29-01-2020 6:46am

Deleted User wrote: »

Trade was never the point of Brexit. That was a late addition.

I don't think this is right. The trading opportunities (supposedly) presented by Brexit were a core plank of the Vote Leave campaign right from the get-go (along with immigration control, national sovereignty and the fiscal benefit (supposedly) resulting from not having to pay EU budget contributions any more).

29-01-2020 7:10am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think this is right. The trading opportunities (supposedly) presented by Brexit were a core plank of the Vote Leave campaign right from the get-go (along with immigration control, national sovereignty and the fiscal benefit (supposedly) resulting from not having to pay EU budget contributions any more).

I don't agree that "whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers." like Hamsterchops said. None of the Brexit supporters I knew in 2016 were talking about it. They were talking about the other three things you mentioned and that's where the votes came from imo.

I think it started becoming a core part of the Brexiteer chant when it started to become apparent during the WA negotiations that staying in the CU would hamper their potential deals with the US etc. Or maybe my memory is just crap.

Peregrinus · 29-01-2020 7:13am

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't agree that "whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers." like Hamsterchops said. None of the Brexit supporters I knew in 2016 were talking about it. They were talking about the other three things you mentioned and that's where the votes came from.

I think it started becoming a core part of the Brexiteer chant when it started to become apparent during the WA negotiations that staying in the CU would hamper their potential deals with the US etc. Or maybe my memory is just crap.

Staying in the CU would completely put the kibosh on any UK deal at all with the US, or indeed with anyone else; CU members can't make meaningful trade deals on their own.

But if it's true that Brexiteers wanted to leave the CU in order to do a trade deal with the US, that very thing tells you that one of the attractions of Brexit for them was that it would open the way to a UK-US trade deal. And, therefore, Brexit was about trade for them. If it weren't, the inability to make a UK/US trade deal wouldn't have bothered them.

29-01-2020 7:45am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Staying in the CU would completely put the kibosh on any UK deal at all with the US, or indeed with anyone else; CU members can't make meaningful trade deals on their own.

But if it's true that Brexiteers wanted to leave the CU in order to do a trade deal with the US, that very thing tells you that one of the attractions of Brexit for them was that it would open the way to a UK-US trade deal. And, therefore, Brexit was about trade for them. If it weren't, the inability to make a UK/US trade deal wouldn't have bothered them.

That's a pretty big If at the start of that paragraph, though.

The media and public discourse in the UK has been anti-EU, not pro-US. I think that in a hypothetical world where the UK could either strike a perfect "bespoke" deal with the US / China and stay in the EU, or they could leave the EU but also get no trade deals with those countries, most Brexit supporters would choose the latter, because of the other reasons you mentioned previously.

The economics of it don't matter. The only financial thing that matters is not sending money to the EU.

Peregrinus · 29-01-2020 7:56am

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a pretty big If at the start of that paragraph, though.

But I think it's implied ini what you yourself said:

Deleted User wrote: »

. . . I think [trade] started becoming a core part of the Brexiteer chant when it started to become apparent during the WA negotiations that staying in the CU would hamper their potential deals with the US etc.

This only makes sense if "potential deals with the US etc" were a core part of the reason for brexiting in the first place. If they weren't, hampering those deals would not be a problem, and would not be a factor that would steer the UK towards a painful, damaging hard Brexit.

Deleted User wrote: »

The media and public discourse in the UK has been anti-EU, not pro-US. I think that in a hypothetical world where the UK could either strike a perfect "bespoke" deal with the US / China and stay in the EU, or they could leave the EU but also get no trade deals with those countries, most Brexit supporters would choose the latter, because of the other reasons you mentioned previously.

The economics of it don't matter. The only financial thing that matters is not sending money to the EU.

It may be the case that, for some Brexiters, a professed desire for an independent trade policy is simply a rationalisation of an instinctive dislike of EU membership. One one level this makes sense, since a desire for an independent trade policy is very hard to justify in terms of benefitting the UK's trade. But it remains the case that, even if so, it wasn't a new or late-arriving rationalisation; it has been an explicit part of the case for Brexit right from the start of the referendum campaign.

(And of course the other arguments for Brexit may also be rationalisations. A lot of people's concern about controlling immigration, for example, was actually about controlling non-EU immigration, and the Leave campaigning played up to this. But the UK was always in control of non-EU immigration; it didn't need to Brexit in order to do this. And you point out yourself that the economic case for saving budget contributions doesn't stand up very well.)

29-01-2020 8:19am

All I know is I've seen the reasons being given my English friends change many times over the years, but they didn't land on trade until 2018-2019 or so. Their reasons basically followed what was the hot topic at the time, and now, that's trade.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

So while as usual, your points are convincing, I'm gonna stick with my belief that trade is now the most important thing as it's simply the only potential tangible benefit of the whole thing. And all of this was just my response to a poster saying Brexit was about breaking down trade barriers.

Peregrinus · 29-01-2020 8:31am

Deleted User wrote: »

All I know is I've seen the reasons being given my English friends change many times over the years, but they didn't land on trade until 2018-2019 or so . . . I'm gonna stick with my belief that trade is now the most important thing as it's simply the only potential tangible benefit of the whole thing. And all of this was just my response to a poster saying Brexit was about breaking down trade barriers.

Well, fair enough. But I think we could cut to the chase by pointing out that the effect of Brexit is quite clearly to erect trade barriers, not to break them down.

(Which of course lends support to your view that concerns about trade are simply a rationalisation. If rational people were motivated by a desire to reduce or avoid trade barriers, they would not be Brexit supporters.)

First Up · 29-01-2020 10:40am

Hamsterchops wrote:

Britain has no intention of stopping Irish freight or closing itself off post Brexit, indeed the whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers.

Now THAT's what I call bizarre.

ancapailldorcha · 29-01-2020 12:01pm

Trade in 2016 was a meaningless counterfoil to the economic argument to prevent arch-Brexiters looking stupid in debates. It also gave people facile talking points to parrot without thinking too much about the actual complexity of aligning towards Washington or Bejing. Very few people actually care about trade.

First Up · 29-01-2020 12:06pm

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Trade in 2016 was a meaningless counterfoil to the economic argument to prevent arch-Brexiters looking stupid in debates. It also gave people facile talking points to parrot without thinking too much about the actual complexity of aligning towards Washington or Bejing. Very few people actually care about trade.

Even fewer seem to understand it. Some seem to think it happens automatically as a result of trade "deals". The reality is that every transaction is the result of negotiation between private companies who have a choice in who to do business with.

Brexit makes it harder to do business with companies in the UK.

timetogo1 · 29-01-2020 12:11pm

US wants the EU to accept chemical washed chickens.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-27/chicken-chemicals-eu-trade

I presume the EU will resist. They say in the article that it's not chlorine anymore.
It doesn't mention that it wasn't the chlorine itself that the EU has a problem with but the poor practices that it allows for the animal.

So good luck to the UK in their trade deals. If the US are pushing the EU I'd imagine they have more leverage over the UK.

ancapailldorcha · 29-01-2020 12:12pm

First Up wrote: »

Even fewer seem to understand it. Some seem to think it happens automatically as a result of trade "deals". The reality is that every transaction is the result of negotiation between private companies who have a choice in who to do business with.

Brexit makes it harder to do business with companies in the UK.

I've a friend in London working in the area and... yes. Trade is hugely complicated. Even maintaining the status quo is a huge struggle once you discount Brexit.

29-01-2020 12:37pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, fair enough. But I think we could cut to the chase by pointing out that the effect of Brexit is quite clearly to erect trade barriers, not to break them down.

(Which of course lends support to your view that concerns about trade are simply a rationalisation. If rational people were motivated by a desire to reduce or avoid trade barriers, they would not be Brexit supporters.)

it does within the EU members states, but there is an argument that it opens up trade with the rest of the world as the eu has, by its nature, become fairly protectionist.

For people like Steve Baker, Brexit has only ever been about free trade and little else.

ancapailldorcha · 29-01-2020 12:40pm

Aegir wrote: »

it does within the EU members states, but there is an argument that it opens up trade with the rest of the world as the eu has, by its nature, become fairly protectionist.

For people like Steve Baker, Brexit has only ever been about free trade and little else.

Why does the EU have so many trade deals then?

First Up · 29-01-2020 1:00pm

Aegir wrote:

it does within the EU members states, but there is an argument that it opens up trade with the rest of the world as the eu has, by its nature, become fairly protectionist.

The EU has, by its nature, become a formidable trade negotiator due to the size of its market, unified approach and the skills and experience of its negotiating team.

It will be interesting to see how many of the EU's trade agreements the UK can improve on when it negotiates on its own.

Tony EH · 29-01-2020 1:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't agree that "whole point of Brexit is to open up trade, & dismantle any perceived trade barriers." like Hamsterchops said. None of the Brexit supporters I knew in 2016 were talking about it. They were talking about the other three things you mentioned and that's where the votes came from imo.

I think it started becoming a core part of the Brexiteer chant when it started to become apparent during the WA negotiations that staying in the CU would hamper their potential deals with the US etc. Or maybe my memory is just crap.

The point of Brexit was to get away from trade regulations that are part of the agreement that countries sign up to when they choose to deal with other countries in the EU, because the rich business classes who want to push it, wish to be free of such irritating things like controls on food quality.

To get it over the line, however, it was pushed on other bogus issues, like "sovereignty" and "immigration" that got the smaller minds so riled up.

Right now, it can anything to anyone in their own heads.

First Up · 29-01-2020 1:40pm

Tony EH wrote:

The point of Brexit was to get away from trade regulations that are part of the agreement that countries sign up to when they choose to deal with other countries in the EU, because the rich business classes who want to push it, wish to be free of such irritating things like controls on food quality.

Except that they will still have to comply with those regulations if they want to keep the half of their export business they do in/with the EU.

In my experience, the "rich business classes" (like the CBI) understand that perfectly well. Its the Sun readers who don't.

Tony EH · 29-01-2020 1:47pm

First Up wrote: »

Except that they will still have to comply with those regulations if they want to keep the half of their export business they do in/with the EU.

Yeh, but I think their the original position was just to leave and "deal with other countries", like Farage and Reece Mogg were peddling.

Over the course of time, it became clearer that actually leaving the EU customs area was a lot more complicated than they first thought and getting "deals" elsewhere not so handy.

First Up · 29-01-2020 2:07pm

Tony EH wrote:

Yeh, but I think their the original position was just to leave and "deal with other countries", like Farage and Reece Mogg were peddling.

They will do well to find enough "other countries" to replace the 46% they sell to the EU. I wonder what concessions they will need to make to strike deals. I know India is putting visas on the table.

Boredstiff666 · 29-01-2020 2:18pm

First Up wrote: »

Even fewer seem to understand it. Some seem to think it happens automatically as a result of trade "deals". The reality is that every transaction is the result of negotiation between private companies who have a choice in who to do business with.

Brexit makes it harder to do business with companies in the UK.

No it doesnt. Thats where you prove with your comment you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

If I was making something simple like wooden boxes for anything. If I am in UK I can make boxes which are fit for purpose and as long as they are then they are a saleable item to anybody around the world who wants that product and deems it suitable.

If I was governed by for example regs which state wooden boxes have to be out of a certain wood of a certain grade of a certain etc etc etc. All may be fine but obviously make the product harder and more expensive to produce and may be overkill for the buyer. Then my boxes may have a problem competing with the UK boxes.

Just a very simple example but there you go.

Also the tax system. The UK can drop and abolish vat or any tax to suit now without having to worry or be breaking any rules from Brussels. The same with other things.

First Up · 29-01-2020 2:27pm

Boredstiff666 wrote:

If I was making something simple like wooden boxes for anything. If I am in UK I can make boxes which are fit for purpose and as long as they are then they are a saleable item to anybody around the world who wants that product and deems it suitable.

If the UK deviates from EU standards for wooden boxes, then that market is off the table for starters.

Even if they keep EU standards, their EU customers will have to factor in port congestion and the extra paperwork needed to import from outside the Single Market.

But the box makers are free to look for customers on other continents to replace them. I'm sure they are eager to get started.

29-01-2020 2:36pm

First Up wrote: »

The EU has, by its nature, become a formidable trade negotiator due to the size of its market, unified approach and the skills and experience of its negotiating team.

It will be interesting to see how many of the EU's trade agreements the UK can improve on when it negotiates on its own.

it depends on what is considered an improvement I guess.

The Canada agreement, for example, was delayed firstly because Poland wanted to remove the Visa requirement for its citizens and lastly because farmers in Belgium didn't like it. It is reasonable to presume that both of these required some kind of concession by the EU.

The UK would be entering negotiations without having to consider the concerns of other states, only its own. It may be happy to give relatively high quotas on beef, for example, in return for low tariffs on cars.

Tony EH · 29-01-2020 2:38pm

First Up wrote: »

They will do well to find enough "other countries" to replace the 46% they sell to the EU. I wonder what concessions they will need to make to strike deals. I know India is putting visas on the table.

Perhaps. But if anything was ever poorly thought out, it was Brexit.

Boredstiff666 · 29-01-2020 2:48pm

First Up wrote: »

If the UK deviates from EU standards for wooden boxes, then that market is off the table for starters.

Even if they keep EU standards, their EU customers will have to factor in port congestion and the extra paperwork needed to import from outside the Single Market.

But the box makers are free to look for customers on other continents to replace them. I'm sure they are eager to get started.

But thats the whole point. The UK are looking for customers to replace the EU and most likely getting them which will start to become apparent after next week.

Which means that the EU has a loose canon on its doorstep of their own making. Not great. Probably why they keep banging on about tieing the UK to this and that. But that policy simply will not work.

It's a bit like kindergarden kids saying ....if you want to be my friend and come to my party you cant speak to big jimmy and little tommy off the council estate.

Doesn't work.

Anyway just wait and see.

PeadarCo · 29-01-2020 2:53pm

Aegir wrote: »

it depends on what is considered an improvement I guess.

The Canada agreement, for example, was delayed firstly because Poland wanted to remove the Visa requirement for its citizens and lastly because farmers in Belgium didn't like it. It is reasonable to presume that both of these required some kind of concession by the EU.

The UK would be entering negotiations without having to consider the concerns of other states, only its own. It may be happy to give relatively high quotas on beef, for example, in return for low tariffs on cars.

But you the UK will enter negotiations with a fraction of the potential market size than it had as part of the EU. And more importantly the UK desperately needs trade deals. It will still have to compromise.

To see this in action just look at the Brexit so far. The EU has been in complete control to the point that to get even the withdrawal agreement its had to surrender partial control of its territory to the EU. And remember the EU more than any other country or organisation is in the most need of a trade deal with the UK. So what you are looking at here with UK EU trade negotiations is arguably the best case scenario for the UK when it comes to trade negotiations. Which tells its own story for talks with other trade blocks.

And while the UK only needs to consider its own interests that assumes the UKs interests can be clearly defined. The biggest reason for hold up with the withdrawal agreement was not the EU but competing interests within the UK. Leaving the EU while reducing the amount of competing interests does not eliminate them.

First Up · 29-01-2020 3:15pm

Boredstiff666 wrote:

But thats the whole point. The UK are looking for customers to replace the EU and most likely getting them which will start to become apparent after next week.

Yes, its a big world out there and if UK wooden box makers can be competetive in the US, Asia or Latin America then good luck to them. We will see how they get on.

Larbre34 · 29-01-2020 3:21pm

First Up wrote: »

Yes, its a big world out there and if UK wooden box makers can be competetive in the US, Asia or Latin America then good luck to them. We will see how they get on.

I completely agree.

At the other end of the scale, who is going to readily replace all the tech, pharma and high end consumer goods that they sell into the EU? It should be mentioned, all those cars and engines, built in the UK are European spec!!

The EU is 44% of Britain's market, that simply does not get replaced easily, otherwise they would be supplying those alternates already. Who do Britain think they are going to compete with, the Chinese? Taiwan? Give me a break.

First Up · 29-01-2020 3:36pm

Larbre34 wrote:

The EU is 44% of Britain's market, that simply does not get replaced easily, otherwise they would be supplying those alternates already. Who do Britain think they are going to compete with, the Chinese? Taiwan? Give me a break.

I wonder what the Chinese will demand from the UK in return for allowing them flood the Chinese market with low grade wooden boxes?

Some of this stuff is truly surreal.

Padre_Pio · 29-01-2020 3:43pm

First Up wrote: »

I wonder what the Chinese will demand from the UK in return for allowing them flood the Chinese market with low grade wooden boxes?

Some of this stuff is truly surreal.

Thats the crux of the matter. The UK are service, aerospace, pharma and high end engineering.

There's no market for this in most of the world. What do the UK make that Ghana or Vietnam want? Sweet FA.

They need the EU and US, and to less extent Japan, Oz and the BRIC countries.

Any talk about lower standards is bollox. There's plenty of places already building cheap products.

Also EU standards arent particularly high. They're just safety standards more than anything. You can still make poor quality products that don't work under EU regs, just means it won't kill you when it fails. People have a notion that standards are restrictive, but they're not. They force you to be a better designer and manufacturer by considering all the ways that people have f*cked up in the past and stop cowboys putting dangerous product on the market.

So for the wooden box example above, the box maker only has to ensure his product is fit for purpose, doesn't contain any dangerous chems or preservatives, and isnt designed in a way to hurt people. Common sense stuff. He can still use thin, weak wood, three rusty nails and a bit of baling twine so long as the above criteria are met.

First Up · 29-01-2020 3:58pm

Aegir wrote:

The Canada agreement, for example, was delayed firstly because Poland wanted to remove the Visa requirement for its citizens and lastly because farmers in Belgium didn't like it. It is reasonable to presume that both of these required some kind of concession by the EU.

Yes, plenty of haggling and horse trading; that's how these things get done. There is scope for plenty of haggling between Welsh farmers and Birmingham toolmakers too. The difference is that the EU has been doing this since before the UK stopped doing it in 1973.

Aegir wrote:

The UK would be entering negotiations without having to consider the concerns of other states, only its own. It may be happy to give relatively high quotas on beef, for example, in return for low tariffs on cars.

They will have enough to do on their own. That's why they are trying to entice people back from Brussels and from as far away as Singapore and New Zealand to help. (Getting people out of retirement too.)

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

Comments