Brexit - merged threads

[ShootingEgg]

No deal puts the EU in 10bn deficit... Think they lose more than we do.. Germany already struggling, Italy Greece are already fudged..  They need the bail out of billions from us to survive right now.. 

[Newbie to this]

44 minutes ago, oowee said:

You mean the knowledge and tax end of the business rather than the low cost manf. 

We are loosing high end jobs every day.  Look at a list of the companies I posted weeks ago and there are many more since. If you had an international business why would you keep it here in this mess. 

Have you read the no deal briefing papers. Just take a look at the subject headings and what companies are trying to grapple with. I thought the Tories were the party of business. 

My point is that all of this is unnecessary  handled properly. 

He only does 4% of his business in the UK apparently, 2% TAX difference between here and there and apparently only 2 jobs are to be moved from the UK or so I heard on LBC.

Plus it has nothing to do with us leaving the EU, this would have happened anyway. It's not like the company is moving to another EU country.

I haven't read the papers but if you have a link or a copy I will give them a look.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Newbie to this

[oowee]

I have dealt with Dyson in the past. There is no loyalty there to the UK. 

Here are the papers you will need lots of time to read them properly but what is good is that they give you an incite into what the Government is expecting companies to look at. My son says its endless.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal

[hambone]

24 minutes ago, oowee said:

I have dealt with Dyson in the past. There is no loyalty there to the UK. 

Here are the papers you will need lots of time to read them properly but what is good is that they give you an incite into what the Government is expecting companies to look at. My son says its endless.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal

My son says go no deal (he read "grow your own veg"...…..Bid you one opinion and raise you another 😐

[Retsdon]

7 hours ago, oowee said:

My son says its endless.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal

There's a lot of breadth, but not much depth. For example, if you're a farmer the government has apparently guaranteed to continue the equivalent of CAP payments until the end of the 2020 - but after that is anyone's guess. Consequently for the next couple of years nobody in their right mind is going to spend anything but the absolute bare minimum on buildings, machinery or stock. The farmers themselves might not get hit (unless exporting breeding stock to the EU and then they're stuffed) , but I don't mind betting the agricultural services sector gets absolutely hammered.

Glancing through your link, it seems to be pretty much the same everywhere else. Lots and lots of new paperwork and lots and lots of uncertainty. I'm still predicting USD - GBP parity within 2 years.

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by Retsdon

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Boss of a brewery on the BBC News this morning bemoaning the uncertainty of Brexit.

When asked how it would affect them she said "we might have to change the address on all of our labels."

So if they are changed at the next printing run there will be minimal work and minimal cost!

Project FEAR just ROLLS ON AND ON!

[oowee]

42 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

There's a lot of breadth, but not much depth. For example, if you're a farmer the government has apparently guaranteed to continue the equivalent of CAP payments until the end of the 2020 - but after that is anyone's guess. Consequently for the next couple of years nobody in their right mind is going to spend anything but the absolute bare minimum on buildings, machinery or stock. The farmers themselves might not get hit (unless exporting breeding stock to the EU and then they're stuffed) , but I don't mind betting the agricultural services sector gets absolutely hammered.

Glancing through your link, it seems to be pretty much the same everywhere else. Lots and lots of new paperwork and lots and lots of uncertainty. I'm still predicting USD - GBP parity within 2 years.

 

Your right there is not much depth in any of the papers I have looked at.

Farming will I reckon be subject to the greatest changes as it largely time limited produce so has limited shelf life and range. It's also more easily substituted. On dairy the UK are big exporters so any delay would be a problem in the short term, but for me the bigger risk is cheap imports to pay for trade deals which will be further down the line. It could be very good for wildlife as maybe we move to greater crop diversity to replace beef and dairy.

[Mice!]

19 hours ago, oowee said:

Airbus.

Project fear? We knew what we were voting for?

Shameful. 😭

We make stuff for Airbus, and we were told by them before the vote that if it was leave then jobs could be at risk.

But if they could get the work done cheaper elsewhere with the same quality then they would anyway, which is why companies send work to India, china anywhere that suits the money men. 

But I doubt the work airbus do is going anywhere anytime soon.

[Retsdon]

47 minutes ago, oowee said:

Farming will I reckon be subject to the greatest changes....but for me the bigger risk is cheap imports to pay for trade deals 

New trade deals are likely to be very painful. The country is going to be forced into accepting all kinds of unpalatable conditions. There's a reason why the global trade map looks like it does, and it's not just about facilitating regional trade. It's also because countries have realized that if you don't want to get shafted by the big boys, you need to up your negotiating muscle by banding together.

A post-Brexit Britain will look a tad lonely, no?

Incidentally, I suppose you read Sir Ivan's latest speech (from my old alma mater). He's been criticized in some quarters for  not offering a solution. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the message is that there isn't one! https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/sites/european-institute/files/sir_ivan_rogers_lecture_ucl_22012019.pdf

[Yellow Bear]

I suspect the Dyson HQ move has nothing to do with Berxit and everything to do with the looming treat of a pseudo marxist government, mainly, I suggest caused by the activities of the remain camp.   The irony is that these people are actually rampant remainers but are alienating the brexit side against the tories.

[oowee]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

I suspect the Dyson HQ move has nothing to do with Berxit and everything to do with the looming treat of a pseudo marxist government, mainly, I suggest caused by the activities of the remain camp.   The irony is that these people are actually rampant remainers but are alienating the brexit side against the tories.

Land of the unicorns?

 

43 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

New trade deals are likely to be very painful. The country is going to be forced into accepting all kinds of unpalatable conditions. There's a reason why the global trade map looks like it does, and it's not just about facilitating regional trade. It's also because countries have realized that if you don't want to get shafted by the big boys, you need to up your negotiating muscle by banding together.

A post-Brexit Britain will look a tad lonely, no?

Incidentally, I suppose you read Sir Ivan's latest speech (from my old alma mater). He's been criticized in some quarters for  not offering a solution. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the message is that there isn't one! https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/sites/european-institute/files/sir_ivan_rogers_lecture_ucl_22012019.pdf

This is an excellent link. Thank you. 

[oowee]

If the supposed route to prosperity for post Brexit “global Britain” lies through a global lattice work of preferential trade deals, how can one possibly seriously argue that the ONLY bloc with which one does not need a free trade deal is the one with which one does easily the largest volumes of trade? And if a preferential trade deal with the EU is, in practice, essential, then you obviously gain nothing by tumbling completely out to WTO rules, and then having to try and scramble your way back up the hill to a preferential deal, under huge time pressure, notably in those many sectors and issues on which a resort to WTO rules gives you nothing.

You just hand the perfect negotiating hand to the other side. Listening to Ministers and ex Ministers now loudly asserting that going out all the way would give us all the cards in a free trade negotiation with the EU leaves one not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

Edited January 25, 2019 by oowee

[Rewulf]

32 minutes ago, oowee said:

Land of the unicorns?

Land of the free? 

 

[Newbie to this]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

Listening to Ministers and ex Ministers now loudly asserting that going out all the way would give us all the cards in a free trade negotiation with the EU leaves one not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

I suppose it depends how much of a remainer you are, as to which you choose to do.

[oowee]

Take a read of that paper from UCL.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

From an article by Paul Goodman;

"The sequence of events is as follows.  First, earlier this week, Margaritis Schinas, the EU Commission’s chief spokesman, said: “If you push me to speculate what will happen in Ireland after a no deal Brexit I think it is pretty obvious, there will be a hard border.”  Next, Michel Barnier, in seeking to calm the troubled waters that Schinas had stirred, succeeded only in lashing them up even more: “my team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances,” he said.

It’s important to add that he also did so quite some time ago – arguing that customs, tax and regulatory checks wouldn’t need to be done at the border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  (For the deal that the Government has reached with the EU, of course, posits precisely such a border in regulatory and arguably customs terms.)  If a Northern Ireland border with Great Britain can be other than hard, why can’t a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland?  When is a unicorn not a unicorn?

Furthermore, the Irish Government knows perfectly well that there will be a hard border between the United Kingdom and Ireland in the event of No Deal.  Simon Coveney, the Tánaiste, was caught out admitting so recently.  Or rather, we should say, a harder border.  After all, there is a tax, VAT, currency, excise and security border already.  But checks are not usually done on it: given its 300 crossing points, that would not be possible as a rule.  Instead, they tend to be done away from it.  So could customs checks, given a bit of time.

What has happened since the Brexit negotiation began is that no-one has wanted to take responsibility for admitting that the border will be harder – not the Irish Government, not our own, not the Commission.  None the less, the stark fact is that the EU, led in this matter by France and the Commission itself, is not going to allow an unpoliced land border to open up between itself and the EU, into which a mass of unregulated goods and products could pour into the Single Market unchecked.

Now it is important not to assume that customs is the only contentious issue relating to the border’s future – and that if it could be solved, everything else could be solved, too.  There is also the question of future sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements on animals and plants, product compliance, and cross-border arrangements on transport, healthcare, and other matters.  It is all this and more that gave rise to the proposal for a border in the Irish Sea – and, of course, the backstop.

As March 29 draws closer and the possibility of No Deal lingers, there is rising concern – even a touch of panic – not just in Downing Street, or on Labour’s front bench, or among the drawers-up of the Cooper/Boles amendment, but in Ireland and Brussels, too.  Leo Varadkar knows that his gamble could backfire: that Brexit may not be revoked or even postponed but take place on the due date, whether a deal is in place or not.  And if even a deal would be damaging to Ireland, compared to the status quo, No Deal could be devastating.

This rising pressure on Ireland – its central bank is reported today as saying that No Deal could lead to food shortages – may explain the Taoiseach’s weird suggestion yesterday that there would have to be “full alignment on customs and regulations” in the event of No Deal.  This is precisely the wrong way round.  There will not be full alignment in the event of No Deal – because No Deal means No Deal. And if No Deal happens, it may well be precisely because of the proposal in the deal for full alignment: i.e, the backstop.

We apologise to our readers. The spectacle of Barnier astride his unicorn has distracted us from the end of the story we began.  The Irish Government was straightaway on the blower after Schinas’s original remarks, and he was duly forced to issue a “clarification”.  “The EU is determined to do all it can, deal or no deal, to avoid the need for a border and to protect peace in Northern Ireland. The EU is fully behind Ireland and has expressed, on numerous occasions, full solidarity with Ireland,” he then said, perhaps through gritted teeth.

But yesterday, James Crisp of the Daily Telegraph quizzed Schinas about Barnier’s remarks, making precisely the same point as we seek to do today. He writes: “I asked the commission why the backstop was needed at all if it is possible to carry out checks and controls without putting a hard border in place, as Mr Barnier suggested.”  At which point, Schinas appears simply to have given up: “Write what you like”, he replied.  Crisp has duly taken up the invitation.

We are about to find out, as the EU ponders Brexit, whether theology or politics will win out.  If the former, the EU will make no move on the backstop, wait hopefully for a second referendum and revocation, and be inclined only to extend the deadline briefly, in the event of a request being received.  If the latter, it will make a meaningful concession on the backstop, and May will then have a fighting chance of getting her deal through the Commons.

If the Government had paid Ireland proper attention; if Downing Street were better versed in Northern Ireland’s affairs; if DexEU had been more engaged with the island, and if the Northern Ireland Office had more collective expertise, we might not be where we are now.  Number Ten would have spotted the significance of the backstop.  It would have called in David Trimble and other veterans of the Belfast Agreement.  It might have nipped the problem in the bud: instead, no-one is now in a position from which they want to back down."

[Newbie to this]

20 minutes ago, oowee said:

Take a read of that paper from UCL.

You mean the paper written by someone who stands to lose his job and lots of money and the same paper written on a European Institute paper.

I think it may be a tad biased 

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

You mean the paper written by someone who stands to lose his job and lots of money and the same paper written on a European Institute paper.

I think it may be a tad biased 

???? He lost his job. He resigned last year. 

[Newbie to this]

Just now, oowee said:

???? He lost his job. He resigned last year. 

I stand corrected, he did resign, but that doesn't make him any less bitter or biased

[Dave-G]

No biass here either: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12059280/BBC-has-received-2m-in-EU-funding-in-run-up-to-referendum-fueling-accusations-of-bias.html?fbclid=IwAR0ef0xmbRzDSQb5MsDhNEBD5XWxO0txmVcq7lhTlbpovXjWrHKe9kub6M8

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I stand corrected, he did resign, but that doesn't make him any less bitter or biased

Read the text. Then let me know what you think. I wish I had the knowledge to write it. 

 

[Retsdon]

11 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

You mean the paper written by someone who stands to lose his job and lots of money and the same paper written on a European Institute paper.

I think it may be a tad biased 

As I've said before, talking Brexit with a hard Brexiter can be like discussing  comparative religion with a Wahabi from Qassim. Anything that doesn't conform to a narrow interpretation of the Quran is (from his perspective) de facto heresy, and consequently can be dismissed without the need to even look at it, let alone engage with it.

Interestingly it's a point that Sir Ivan made in his speech. Namely that in nearly all revolutions (and he classifies Brexit as a species of revolution),  as time goes by both revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries become polarized on the the wings. So now there is virtually no middle ground anymore, just a Hard Brexit on one side or a cancellation of the notice to leave under Article 50 on the other. And he's correct. Look how often the words 'traitor' or 'betray' are now used on both sides. The danger from that -as he sees it - is that both of these positions are predicated on a self-constructed reality that doesn't hold up to scrutiny in the real world, and unless people ON BOTH SIDES get their heads out of these unreal bubbles they've created the country is heading for one hell of a smash, the political and economic consequences of which will endure for decades. 

But hey, ho...

[Newbie to this]

26 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

As I've said before, talking Brexit with a hard Brexiter can be like discussing  comparative religion with a Wahabi from Qassim. Anything that doesn't conform to a narrow interpretation of the Quran is (from his perspective) de facto heresy, and consequently can be dismissed without the need to even look at it, let alone engage with it.

I think you'll find that works both ways.

only I doubt you will find many leavers pretending to be remainers trying to act like they have seen the error in their ways. (Not Ivan, look closer to home)

27 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Interestingly it's a point that Sir Ivan made in his speech. Namely that in nearly all revolutions (and he classifies Brexit as a species of revolution),  as time goes by both revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries become polarized on the the wings. So now there is virtually no middle ground anymore, just a Hard Brexit on one side or a cancellation of the notice to leave under Article 50 on the other.

Yes a very good way to try and show impartiality where there is none, a bit like the Speaker driving his wife's car!

As I have said before, for me it was about sovereignty not trade, if the EU wants to cut off it's nose to spite it's face about trade, then on their head be it, they will have to answer to the remaining 27 Countries people. I would prefer a free trade deal, but do not fear a WTO trade exit, no matter what spill the remainers want to spout (or people pretending to be leavers that have seen the light).

Have a look at the Leave means Leave website and others that want rid of the EU ,they say a completely different story, but I'm sorry Ivan knows best 

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, oowee said:

Read the text. Then let me know what you think. I wish I had the knowledge to write it. 

 

From the text.

Any negotiation has, in negotiators’ jargon, a ZOPA, a Zone of Possible Agreement, which is defined by where the interests, incentives and bottom lines of the sides can intersect. From the Prime Minister’s point of view, the deal struck on November 25th with the EU is in the ZOPA. Indeed, it’s the only deal acceptable to her which could be. As it was indeed within the ZOPA for the EU too – it’s a good deal for them – which meant it was not hard at all to line up Michel Barnier and Heads of State and Government to say that this was the only deal they would do. 

The only deal acceptable to HER , excuse me , but doesnt she have to get it past parliament and the country , which, as became blatently apparent , was not going to happen ?
But hey ho , trudge on, aslong as the EU are happy with it.

The message to both extremes in the debate was – is – you risk ending up with your worst nightmare world if you push your first preference all the way. You must accept my compromise. As it is the ONLY compromise which: - To the Brexiteers: “delivers Brexit over the line, and renders it irreversible except by a fresh accession process, even if it is not the Brexit you want;” - To the Remainers: “avoids a disorderly no deal Brexit and delivers a softer Brexit than many in my Party want”. - If that is your strategy, you of course refuse to take “no deal” off the table, as having it on the table has been completely central all along to attempting to force through the deal you want. 

So vote for my deal, in which Ive tried to please everybody, but ended up pleasing nobody, because at the end of the day I want to be little miss popular.

Although, let’s be honest, the other party in this negotiation – the EU - has never for one minute believed that the UK would go through with “no deal” as it is self-evidently a lot worse – in economic terms - for the UK than the deal, and a lot worse for the UK than it is for the EU. They can see we might just do it by accident, indecision or incompetence. But not on purpose.

 Really ? Yet the polls tell a completely different story, did no one notice this, or doesnt it matter what the people want ?
Again, a classic case of politicos being detached from the mob.

It’s never been a credible threat in EU eyes, because the consequences are obviously so damaging to a Government that inflicts a “no deal” outcome on the country when an alternative negotiated outcome is available, that they are relaxed that no Government could do it and survive.

Again Sir Ivan, detached from reality.
Its NEVER been a credible threat ? Its a harsh reality now 😂
The consequences ? How about the consequences of producing no Brexit at all ? I suppose the people will just take that on the chin ? No no no.
No government could do it and survive ? I beg to differ.

because WTO terms are so unpalatable and the damage from going there so asymmetrical - much worse for the UK than the EU. Nothing in the last 2 1⁄2 years has shaken that mindset, and much has reinforced it. 

Rubbish !

Why would a Government which was seriously prepared to go for “no deal” be pressing them so strongly from late 2017 onwards for what is clearly a deeply unappealing “status quo without voice” transition of 2 years - which it wrongly terms an “implementation period” to cover its desperation in pleading for it - unless it knew that “no deal” is, in the recent words of the Foreign and Business Secretaries, “cataclysmic” and “disastrous”?

If the other side’s threats in a negotiation make no sense and contradict all the evidence of what they are actually doing, in my experience, you just ignore them.

Besides the fact that bliar and soros's love child Ms Miller forced the default position to be 'no deal'  some sort of free trade deal, even if it cost something would have been preferable , but thats the position, and it isnt all down to the tory government.
Sir Ivan could do well to apply his threats rule to the EU too.

 Those who don’t want “no deal” think it so self-evidently self-harming on a grand scale that no responsible Government will do it. They think they easily have the numbers in the Commons to stop it happening anyway; and think that the more “no deal” hoves into public view, the greater their chance of persuading the public that Brexit is going badly 6 wrong, and may prove a disaster. And that a new referendum is needed, as the public was hoodwinked the first time about how Brexit could turn out. 

They THINK they know best, they are doing it for US 

And this is where we get down to the crux.
We live in a 'free' society, a democracy, we have a choice in the path our lives take, we get a vote on which way our country , our society takes. Be it a council or general election, or indeed a referendum.
Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes we vote for people or parties that really didnt have our interests at heart, was Blairs war, borrowing and uncontrolled immigration in the nations interest ?
Was Thatchers smashing of the unions and hard lines against the working class good for us ?
It doesnt matter, because its done, we recovered and we learn.

So to then say we 'didnt know what we were voting for' is rather insulting and pointless.
We voted, WE decided , and it needs to be carried out, I dont care what happens, I hope its good , but if its bad then we learn and move on.
To try and subvert it, to protect us from ourselves , like we're children, is the worst form of condescending behaviour, and will cost the perpetrators plenty.

Ive no doubt there will be pain, there always is, and there always will be when one partner doesnt really want you to leave.
But sometimes it has to be done, and afterwards it never seems so bad.
Personally, as March looms, the EU is now settling down from its hard line rhetoric, and facing the reality of life after no deal.
No divorce money , a budget black hole, a crumbling economy in some countries, whilst others are very close to open rebellion.
They are out of ammunition, we are not, have faith.
 

[oowee]

OMG.