Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Alf Bentley]

47 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Even if tariffs are applied we're not going to stop trading immediately. We won't go from 45% of our exports to zero, and vice versa.

 

True - and exports only constitute a minority of our economy, most of which relies on domestic demand.

 

I just did a quick check. Apparently about 27% of our goods/services are exported.

So, I suppose 45% x 27% = 12.15% of our economy could become less profitable. Presumably firms would react in different ways long-term: some might accept lower profit, some might quit/relocate to the continent, others might cut labour or other costs to maintain profit, others might invest and become more efficient. Overall, the impact would be negative, though....likewise for the EU, but if they export to a similar extent, only about 5% of their economy would become less profitable, instead of 12%.

 

There would also be all sorts of multiplier impacts on the economy in both the UK and EU, presumably: consumers spending less, subcontractors losing out etc. 

 

Some firms and even some nations might win overall, if no EU-UK trade deal is signed, but for the UK & EU overall it would be a lose-lose scenario, short-term at least....but with the UK losing more in the short-term (unless firms became massively more efficient or quickly found new markets on a large-scale). Not some sort of cliff-edge or armageddon, but a bad thing for both sides is my reading.

[Buce]

First the Saudis, now the Philippines - apparently trade is more important than Human Rights post-Brexit.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/liam-fox-meets-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte

 

I wonder what Islamic State might fancy buying?

[bovril]

47 minutes ago, Buce said:

First the Saudis, now the Philippines - apparently trade is more important than Human Rights post-Brexit.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/liam-fox-meets-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte

 

I wonder what Islamic State might fancy buying?

Virgins? Could be tricky in Norfolk. 

[Foxxed]

10 hours ago, Webbo said:

It was a silly comment from a silly old man. Nobody pondered war, stop pretending otherwise.

I'm not only referring to our MPs. But our national respected newspapers. Read the Telegraph. We consider it. Our allies consider it. It's only very minor, but it's there. Even the tensions between the British and Spanish navy, albeit slight, is now today there. It's very minor. Likely hopefully nothing. But it's not good. It's not healthy. This slight consideration of war has not happened in peacetime before.

[Jon the Hat]

10 hours ago, Foxxed said:

I'm not only referring to our MPs. But our national respected newspapers. Read the Telegraph. We consider it. Our allies consider it. It's only very minor, but it's there. Even the tensions between the British and Spanish navy, albeit slight, is now today there. It's very minor. Likely hopefully nothing. But it's not good. It's not healthy. This slight consideration of war has not happened in peacetime before.

Our navies have been bickering over where the sea border is for decades, nothing new there.  Its hardly the Korean DMZ is it.

[Foxxed]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Our navies have been bickering over where the sea border is for decades, nothing new there.  Its hardly the Korean DMZ is it.

They've never ordered the Spanish navy to leave before from what I could understand. And the timing is somewhat of a coincidence. Before we were on vaguely friendly terms... Even if that had not happened, even if this is a coincidence, the Telegraph theorising we could "cripple" what we formerly called an ally is incredibly worrisome.

[l444ry]

Gibraltar, like the silly colour of passport nonsense, is just part of a Brexit dead cat strategy. The whole Leave con is unravelling as all the lies and false promises become evident.

[Alf Bentley]

Another video from Prof. Michael Dougan for anyone who still listens to experts - this time specifically about the potential impact for the border between Northern Ireland and Irish Republic.

 

Key points seem to be:

- The issue of a land border for goods (if the UK leaves the customs union) is quite separate from the issue of a border for people (immigration)

- The EU will play a major role in what sort of border/procedures are introduced for customs on goods but immigration controls between the UK and Ireland are the business of those 2 countries (within reason)

- There WILL have to be a customs border/procedures between North and South, which WILL add costs, disruption and potential risk...but this can be minimised via the use of high tech procedures rather than physical border posts

- If the UK wants to operate a more restrictive immigration policy and to keep borders open between the UK, including Northern Ireland, and the Irish Republic, it would probably have to introduce more rigorous internal immigration checks when people take up jobs, use public services, apply for benefits etc. The only alternatives are a hard immigration border within Ireland (costly, disruptive & would enrage nationalists/republicans) or a hard immigration border between Great Britain and the island of Ireland (somewhat costly & disruptive and would enrage unionists/loyalists).

 

 

[Facecloth]

 

The Sun want to do what to the Spanish?!?  

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

 

The Sun want to do what to the Spanish?!?  

That paper really needs to go.

[davieG]

Germany's "Mittelstand" of small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) could lose billions of euros if the UK is shut out of the single market, an industry representative has warned.

The boss of the BVMW, which represents more than 270,000 SMEs, told the BBC "a hard Brexit would harm both sides".

Mario Ohoven added that negotiations should be "guided by economic sense and not by political ideologues".

The remarks diverge from the position taken by other leading German voices.

In September last year, the head of the BDI, a powerful German business lobby whose members are larger companies, told the BBC it was "better to have a hard Brexit that works".

German politicians have almost unanimously underlined that the UK cannot have unfettered access to the single market unless it allows for the free movement of EU citizens.

In her letter to the EU last week, Theresa May said the UK would "not seek membership of the single market" in the upcoming negotiations.

'Worst result'

But Mr Ohoven emphasised that the close economic ties between the UK and the German Mittelstand - which makes up the bulk of the country's economy - meant a Brexit deal without single market access would be damaging to both countries.

"Germany exported goods worth 89bn euros to the UK alone in 2015, almost half of it was exported by 150,000 German SMEs," he said, adding that many more companies traded indirectly with the British market, as well as relying on UK research and development.

"In the end, a soft Brexit should be reached. It is important that the UK stays in the single market, or that the UK joins an agreement similar to the the EFTA (European Free Trade Association), similar to Norway or Iceland.

"The worst result would be if the EU and the UK did not reach an agreement in time," he added.

Image copyrightBVMW

That sentiment was echoed by Dirk Rothweiler, the chief executive of First Sensor, a Mittelstand firm that makes almost 7m euros a year from sales to the UK market.

Dr Rothweiler, whose company in the east of Berlin provides highly specialised sensor chips for products such as premature baby incubators and autonomous vehicles, said pragmatism was "what the industry was interested in".

"It would be very desirable not to have trade barriers, and if so to have the least possible amount of trade barriers in both directions"

'No winners'

The BVMW's Mario Ohoven emphasised that all four freedoms of the EU - the free movement of goods, capital, services and people - were important to the businesses he represents, at which almost 6% of employees are from elsewhere in the EU.

"We shouldn't forget that 750,000 jobs in Germany depend on the trade with the United Kingdom", he added.

Mr Ohoven dismissed the idea that a "hard Brexit", with the UK no longer in the single market, could benefit some SMEs who may face less international competition.

"The German Mittelstand does not believe in the world economy as a fixed size cake, in which every country has to fight against the other countries to increase its share.

"A hard Brexit, or an increase in protectionism, will only lead to a decrease of the cake as a whole," he warned.

"I want to be very clear here - Brexit knows no winners, all sides will lose."

[Thracian]

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/post-brexit-trade-deal-india-203000515.html

[theessexfox]

I wonder what sort of data protection regulations we'll be dropping that the EU wanted to include in the deal, and whether the economic gains will outweigh any potential losses in quality/serving our interests.

[Buce]

Report claims Russians may have hacked Brexit website:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/12/foreign-states-may-have-interfered-in-brexit-vote-report-says

[Darkon84]

[SMX11]

So it was the Russian's fault again *rolls eyes*. People really need to move on.

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

[Alf Bentley]

While it's an interesting story that merits investigation, any Russian interference with the voter registration web site was irrelevant to the outcome.

 

They say that the site crashed as 0.5m people tried to register at the last minute.....but Leave won by about 1.27m votes.

So, even if every one of those 0.5m people had registered and they had all voted Remain, Leave would still have won (and they extended the deadline, so at least some of those 0.5m got to vote).

 

I'm no fan of Brexit. I expect it to be a disaster. But this doesn't constitute grounds to contest the referendum result.

Better to focus on battles over the terms negotiated for Brexit over the next 2 years (and any upsurge in xenophobia), unless the public unexpectedly turns massively against Brexit, in which case rescinding Article 50 notification might come into play.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm going to harp on again about the hypothetical scenario of the UK rescinding its Article 50 notification within the next 2 years....

 

That seems unlikely at the moment, as public attitudes to Brexit seem to have changed little since the referendum, Parliament has approved Article 50 notification and the Government is committed to Brexit.

However, a lot could change in the next 2 years: the economy might suffer serious impact due to Brexit, the EU27 might offer us no deal or a very harsh deal & the public mood might turn against Brexit. I know that most Brexiteers won't expect that to happen. I expect the first two to happen (economic damage & a harsh deal) but not the third - I expect some movement against Brexit over the next 2 years, but much more blaming of the EU for being "unfair" to us, xenophobia whipped up by Govt & press etc.

But that scenario is certainly a possibility, at least.....

 

Anyway, a few weeks back, I wrote to my MP (Jon Ashworth) about the widespread belief that, under Article 50, the UK could rescind its notice to leave within the next 2 years. He referred the question to David Davis (Brexit Minister).

 

Davis' junior minister has just sent a very interesting reply. Unsurprisingly, it stresses the Government's policy commitment to implementing the referendum result - Brexit. What it does NOT do is try to claim that the UK Parliament has no legal option to reverse its Article 50 notice - the question asked. That leads me to believe that IF the public mood turned against Brexit and/or Parliament ceased to support it, then the Govt believes that the UK might be able to reverse the process within the next 2 years.

 

The other interesting bit of the letter is that the minister stresses that IF the EU believed that the UK had an option to reverse its decision, then it would offer the harshest possible deal so as to encourage the UK Parliament to withdraw its Article 50 notice. Well, it seems that most legal experts, apparently including the Govt, believe that it's possible (though not legally certain) that the UK DOES indeed have that option....so aren't we already in that situation? It could well be in the interests of the EU to take a hard line for at least the next 18 months to see if the UK resolve on Brexit cracks - to see whether the public mood changes, forcing a reversal, or whether the government's ability to get a Very Hard Brexit through Parliament comes under threat, remembering that May has a tiny majority and a lot of backbenchers who supported either Remain or Soft Brexit (staying within the Single Market / EEA)?

 

It really is extraordinary that there is no clarity as to whether the UK Parliament can rescind such a massive decision, when it could have such a massive impact on both negotiating tactics and the final outcome.

[bovril]

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Alf - your most recent post made me think of this article;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/07/michel-barnier-eu-red-line-theresa-may-article-50-brussels

[Alf Bentley]

27 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Alf - your most recent post made me think of this article;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/07/michel-barnier-eu-red-line-theresa-may-article-50-brussels

 

Yes, I saw that article. It partly addresses another scenario whereby the UK could have used Article 50 tactically - revoking its notice to leave if it hadn't negotiated a good deal, then giving notice again.

The EU seems to have blocked that scenario, so the options seem to be....

1) Agree a Brexit deal within 2 years (it will probably take longer to finalise a trade deal)

2) Agree a Brexit deal within 2 years AND transitional arrangements beyond that, particularly if the trade deal takes longer (probably the most likely outcome)

3) Gain agreement for Brexit negotiations to continue beyond 2 years (unlikely and high-risk as this would require unanimous support among all 28 EU states - & some regions, I think)

4) Bomb out of the EU without a Brexit deal, trading on WTO terms, possibly facing legal action over debts to the EU etc.

5) Or....Revoke our notice under Article 50 and stay in the EU!

 

It would obviously be massively controversial for Parliament to revoke our notice to leave. It certainly wouldn't do it unless there had been a sea-change in public opinion.

It's not the Government's policy - and would probably require an early general election - but it's not as unimaginable as some might think. If serious economic damage starts to appear, jobs are lost, incomes/prospects decline and the EU27 play hardball over negotiations, maybe in the hope that we reverse our decision. I assume the EU would prefer us to stay, though they might exact some price for all the disruption.

 

That could happen, but it's not the scenario I'm expecting. While some who voted Leave might change their mind, I'd expect a lot to become even fiercer in their hostility if the EU doesn't offer us the generous Brexit deal that we were promised by the Leave campaign. If we don't get a great new trade deal with the EU, great new trade deals all around the world, much lower immigration, prosperity for all, more money for the NHS and a powerful, independent role in the world (eh, Boris, eh?), then I expect many Brexit voters to blame the EU for that, not false promises by British Brexit politicians....

 

It's still unbelievable that there's no clarity as to whether the UK has a right to revoke its notice, but the political reality is probably that it could do so - if it so chose. The Government is hoping that it never becomes an issue (probably correctly), but it might do....and, in the meantime, it could have a massive impact on negotiations, seriously weakening our negotiating position if the EU27 decide to play hardball for 18 months to see how the British public and Parliament react, indirectly pressuring May & co....  

 

 

[Webbo]

If we wanted to stay in the EU  they would let us. £10 billion net and their trade surplus would mean they would find a way.

 

Everything I read seems to suggest we'll get a good deal. Maybe we won't get everything we want but I'd take what we could get, see how we get on and if it's not good enough we'll ask for some more. Once we're not under EU control we'll have a lot more freedom to renegotiate our deal.

[sphericalfox]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If we wanted to stay in the EU there is absolutely no doubt that they would let us. £10 billion net and their trade surplus would mean they would find a way.

 

Everything I read seems to suggest we'll get a good deal. Maybe we won't get everything we want but I'd take what we could get, see how we get on and if it's not good enough we'll ask for some more. Once we're not under EU control we'll have a lot more freedom to renegotiate our deal.

Lols. Can you share these linked articles. Strictly no DM/Sun/Express, ta.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If we wanted to stay in the EU  they would let us. £10 billion net and their trade surplus would mean they would find a way.

 

Everything I read seems to suggest we'll get a good deal. Maybe we won't get everything we want but I'd take what we could get, see how we get on and if it's not good enough we'll ask for some more. Once we're not under EU control we'll have a lot more freedom to renegotiate our deal.

 

As the EU would have the same freedom to tell us to take our 'asking for more' and place it where the electromagnetic radiation from our nearest star does not reach.