Brexit matters

[ainsworth74]

At the end of the day, I'm not sure that Brexiteers outside of London/uni towns really care about those things. If you went to Stoke on Trent and asked them "would you rather see the onshore of British industry with a no-deal Brexit or keep EU membership and let London have a few nice EU agency offices?" I think I know which one they would pick.

50p says they're going to be extremely disappointed if they think that any form of Brexit let alone no-deal will see the factories, steel mills, etc re-open or that we'll even manage to keep what we have...

 

[DerekC]

It's because we have a government lead by a Prime Minister who thinks anything is possible if you believe strongly enough and a cabinet who think "But we're British!" overrides any objection.

I am not sure our PM believes in anything much. He thinks you can get anything past anyone who didn't go to Eton if you b*ll**** strongly enough. And it seems to be working on Brexit. Unfortunately it doesn't work on viruses, but every cloud has a silver lining - the Covid recession will give excellent cover for the deal-or-no-deal-Brexit recession.

 

[Ianno87]

50p says they're going to be extremely disappointed if they think that any form of Brexit let alone no-deal will see the factories, steel mills, etc re-open or that we'll even manage to keep what we have...

Don't worry, it'll then be Remainers' fault for not "believing" enough.

 

[class ep-09]

Don't worry, it'll then be Remainers' fault for not "believing" enough.

Or EU’s fault

 

[Snow1964]

Seems to me Boris (and his Cabinet chums) thought threat of No deal would make EU give in, seems to have been delusional

Never mind, as he made clear a year ago, there is an oven ready deal. Only problem is doesn’t seem to have thought to check if he had an oven.

I think the Brexiteers didn’t even see the loss of going abroad due to not being on a low Covid country list. They really have stuffed the ordinary British Citizen with whole stupid Brexit idea

 

[alex397]

the Covid recession will give excellent cover for the deal-or-no-deal-Brexit recession.

I am worried this will happen. However, the difference between how EU countries / other countries recover and how we recover from the Covid recession, may make it obvious that Brexit has made a big impact too.
I do hope our economy doesn’t suffer too much, but having to deal with both Covid and Brexit, I’m quite worried about what is going to happen.

Or EU’s fault

Yes, I can imagine politicians and large sections of our media making it look like the EU are ‘punishing us’, when in reality they will just treat us like any other non-EU country. I can see the furious headlines now....

 

[edwin_m]

The referendum is a once in a generation event, we're not doing an Ireland referendum.
We have tried to reform from within, vested interest has prevented any improvement.
Our political tradition is different from European political culture.

We should never have joined in (without a referendum) and remained with the EFTA.

That's your opinion, for which you have provided no supporting evidence.

The UK has been very influential within the EU, such as with the single market.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure that Brexiteers outside of London/uni towns really care about those things. If you went to Stoke on Trent and asked them "would you rather see the onshore of British industry with a no-deal Brexit or keep EU membership and let London have a few nice EU agency offices?" I think I know which one they would pick. Healthcare on the continent, Univeristy research, living and working in the EU probably means sod all to the majority of Brexiteers considering many of them will never get the chance (or want to) live or work (or love-cringe) in the EU.

But if you went to Sunderland and ask them "would you rather seen Nissan shut down with a no-deal Brexit" you might get a different answer.

 

[SteveP29]

The question goes beyond economics, it cover sovereignty, court supremacy, political institutions, governance.

All of which have been shown to have been things we had control over already

Setting up on your also means creating your own rules, bar and course and be happier for it.

That's what I'm saying when you leave a club you don't like, I thought you guys could have understood that, instead you're going back to the usual remainer recriminations again.

I stand by my vote to Leave because I believed in it, I fully understood the consequences, leaving the custom union, single market, EHC, banking passporting rights, I am under no illusions and as we all know that the world has changed, it's more global and not everything is made in Europe compare to the 70s, most manufacturing has moved to the far East.

If your new golf club specifies that all putts on the 18th green must be done one handed between the legs facing away from the hole, when it comes to selecting a course for an international tournament, then the PGA are going to choose a course that conforms to the standards of how golf is played (specifically putting, side on to the hole with the putter in front of you)
To be able t compete to attract that tournament, you're going to need to abandon that putting policy.

What does this have to do with the EU?
Well, you're saying we want our own rules, if we implement those rules that are advantageous to us, is lower specifications and standards of manufacturing so that we can produce a product at the same price or cheaper than a competitor, then because it doesn't adhere to the standards set out by the EU, then our products won't be considered.
Its nonsensical.

 

[DerekC]

I am bit lost with the golf club analogies. It makes the whole question of EU membership sound to easy - just set up a different club, cut your ties and that's it. Like it or not we are still part of Europe and our geographic, cultural and commercial ties will continue whatever happens. In golf club terms, we live next door to the fairway and own a couple of the holes. We have fallen out with the committee and are unhappy about the fees so won't use the clubhouse but we still want to play the whole course whenever we feel like it. However we want to control access to our two holes so that we can practice whenever we want, with no interruptions from club members.

 

[nlogax]

Like Trumpism in the US, Brexiteers need to experience a brief period of high triumph before a lengthy spell of cold and disappointing reality. Then and only then is there a chance a high percentage of them will come to an actual informed opinion that isn't based on gut feel and a bizarre sense of gaining independence from the elite / shoving it to the Libs or whatever BS phrases have been used in the last four years.

 

[edwin_m]

onshore of British industry with a no-deal Brexit

Yet another Brexiter inversion of the truth (not necessarily from this poster, from whoever is saying it to the people of Stoke-on-Trent).

Imagine you are a manufacturer located in Britain selling products across the EU. When every such product attracts a tariff you can do one or more of:

• Cut your costs to stay competitive (=lower wages or job losses for British citizens)
• Look for government aid (=higher taxes for British citizens)
• Downsize your UK plant to manufacture only for the UK, increasing unit costs due to loss of scale (=bigger job losses and higher prices for British citizens)
• Close your UK plant completely, relocate to the EU and pay tariff to import product to the UK (=even bigger job losses and even higher prices for British citizens)
• Give up on the UK completely (=all of the above plus less choice for British citizens)

Each way the British citizens lose out.

It's even worse for companies operating integrated supply chains, where a component may cross borders several times as it is built into a sub-assembly then a final product.

Manufacturers considering setting up in the UK will have to consider these extra risks:

• Delays at the border delaying material imports and product exports
• Increased difficulty of travel to and from markets
• Increased difficulty in hiring people you need that may not be available in the UK labour pool
• Who wants to invest in a country where the government is so incompetent that it hasn't even set its trade policy three weeks before it comes into effect?

 

[YorkshireBear]

No deal now a strong possibility but we will find out before Sunday. Companies should now plan for no deal. With only 8 full working days plus Christmas eve to sort themselves out.

 

[alex397]

No deal now a strong possibility but we will find out before Sunday. Companies should now plan for no deal. With only 8 full working days plus Christmas eve to sort themselves out.

It’s quite devastating to hear this. So much for this “oven-ready deal”. Here is the BBC News report:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55266678

Boris Johnson says there is a "strong possibility" the UK will fail to strike a post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU.
The prime minister said "now is the time" for businesses and the public to prepare for that outcome, although negotiators would continue talks.
He added that negotiations were "not yet there at all".
It comes after his meeting on Wednesday with the president of the EU Commission failed to reach a breakthrough.
Weeks of intensive talks between officials have failed to overcome obstacles in key areas including competition rules and fishing rights.
In his first public comments since Wednesday night's dinner meeting in Brussels, Mr Johnson said British negotiators were going to "go the extra mile," and he was prepared to travel to Paris or Berlin for talks if necessary.

• What are the sticking points in Brexit trade talks?
• Brexit trade deal now looking remote

But he said the EU wanted to keep the UK "locked" into its legal system, or face punishments such as taxes on imports, which had "made things much more difficult".
"At the moment, I have to tell you in all candour the treaty is not there yet and that was the strong view of our cabinet," he said.
He added that "looking at where we are," it was vital the UK prepares for the "Australian-style option" of not having a free trade deal with the EU.

I cynically wonder if Johnson is being negative at the moment, so that he will soon look the hero if we manage to get a deal, but I doubt it.

 

[Domh245]

I cynically wonder if Johnson is being negative at the moment, so that he will soon look the hero if we manage to get a deal, but I doubt it.

It's one of those very rare occasions that both my inner cynic and optimist are thinking the same thing!

 

[Chester1]

If both sides genuinely want a deal then the obvious compromise would be signing the agreement but limiting it to one year. The UK would adopt any EU regulations for goods that are due to take effect during 2021. That would provide 1 year to work out a package of acceptable tools to provide a level playing field, rather than the UK completely aligning with EU law. A broader package should allow an acceptable degree of divergence without pulling the deal apart.

 

[edwin_m]

It’s quite devastating to hear this. So much for this “oven-ready deal”.

The only ever "oven-ready deal" was the one that involved cooking the books.

If both sides genuinely want a deal then the obvious compromise would be signing the agreement but limiting it to one year. The UK would adopt any EU regulations for goods that are due to take effect during 2021. That would provide 1 year to work out a package of acceptable tools to provide a level playing field, rather than the UK completely aligning with EU law. A broader package should allow an acceptable degree of divergence without pulling the deal apart.

Isn't that what they did last year?

 

[Ianno87]

If both sides genuinely want a deal then the obvious compromise would be signing the agreement but limiting it to one year. The UK would adopt any EU regulations for goods that are due to take effect during 2021. That would provide 1 year to work out a package of acceptable tools to provide a level playing field, rather than the UK completely aligning with EU law. A broader package should allow an acceptable degree of divergence without pulling the deal apart.

...and we kick the can to end up in exactly the same position in 12 months time.

No Brexit supporter can, in good conscience, honestly defend the situation we're in.

 

[Chester1]

The only ever "oven-ready deal" was the one that involved cooking the books.

Isn't that what they did last year?

No because that rolled over nearly all aspects of EU membership. I mean just have an interim agreement on the crucial missing piece of the Trade and Security Agreement. 97% is supposed to have been agreed. If the UK agrees to fully align on laws for goods (what the EU is demanding) for one year then the agreement can be be completed and ratified but with a sunset clause. If there is no agreement on how to manage the level playing field and over fisheries then the agreement during next year then the agreement would expire. The EU wouldn't be risking the integrity of the single market because the UK would have met its demands for the duration of the agreement. Its hard to argue that one year of alignment (mid parliament) would be a loss of sovereignty.

 

[Vespa]

If both sides genuinely want a deal then the obvious compromise would be signing the agreement but limiting it to one year. The UK would adopt any EU regulations for goods that are due to take effect during 2021. That would provide 1 year to work out a package of acceptable tools to provide a level playing field, rather than the UK completely aligning with EU law. A broader package should allow an acceptable degree of divergence without pulling the deal apart.

What's the point ? Another 12 months of uncertainity, kicking the can further down the road only to end up exactly the same position as we are now, the two sides are still poles apart in their red lines and there is no movement on that, we've had four years of this, Brexit fatigue is setting in, I for one am fed up with the whole thing and I just want it over, so I can plan ahead with certainty so I know what rules were playing by post Brexit.

 

[najaB]

If the UK agrees to fully align on laws for goods (what the EU is demanding)...

If by "laws for goods" you mean standards then the EU isn't demanding that we align anything.

Goods sold in the EU have to meet EU standards, in the same way that goods sold in the UK have to meet UK standards.

At the moment, since UK standards are a subset (or superset?) of EU standards, UK manufacturers don't have to separately prove compliance with EU and UK standards - if they comply with one then they comply with the other.

After we leave the transition period, we are free to vary our standards, but doing that would mean that we will no longer be automatically in compliance with EU standards.

The EU's position is that if we agree to align our standards with theirs (which we already do!) then our manufacturers can sell into the EU without having to prove compliance with EU standards. Without that agreement they will have to demonstrate compliance the same as any other third country would.

This will increase costs for our manufacturers for very little benefit.

 

[Journeyman]

The whole thing is like burning your house down because there's a spider in the bath.

If we leave without a deal, it will be the most spectacular and irresponsible failure of government we'll have experienced in possibly hundreds of years.

 

[Chester1]

What's the point ? Another 12 months of uncertainity, kicking the can further down the road only to end up exactly the same position as we are now, the two sides are still poles apart in their red lines and there is no movement on that, we've had four years of this, Brexit fatigue is setting in, I for one am fed up with the whole thing and I just want it over, so I can plan ahead with certainty so I know what rules were playing by post Brexit.

At a minimum it would separate the UK leaving the single market and customs union from the introduction of WTO tariffs. That would reduce the economic shock to both sides. It would probably mean the security element of the treaty would be sufficiently established that it could be rolled into its own treaty should trade talks fail. The two sides are not poles apart. They disagree on how to make sure that regulatory changes don't under cut one side. 97% of the treaty text of over 600 pages have been agreed.

If by "laws for goods" you mean standards then the EU isn't demanding that we align anything.

Goods sold in the EU have to meet EU standards, in the same way that goods sold in the UK have to meet UK standards.

At the moment, since UK standards are a subset (or superset?) of EU standards, UK manufacturers don't have to separately prove compliance with EU and UK standards - if they comply with one then they comply with the other.

After we leave the transition period, we are free to vary our standards, but doing that would mean that we will no longer be automatically in compliance with EU standards.

The EU's position is that if we agree to align our standards with theirs (which we already do!) then our manufacturers can sell into the EU without having to prove compliance with EU standards. Without that agreement they will have to demonstrate compliance the same as any other third country would.

This will increase costs for our manufacturers for very little benefit.

Its not about product standards but the whole regulatory framework our manufacturing and farming industries work under. The EU isn't worried about substandard products because as you point out they don't have to let them in. They are worried that goods will be exported to the EU that are cheaper because of other changes within industry. Personally I am OK with regulatory alignment for primary and secondary industries if we get the highest quality FTA in return.

 

[Vespa]

At a minimum it would separate the UK leaving the single market and customs union from the introduction of WTO tariffs. That would reduce the economic shock to both sides. It would probably mean the security element of the treaty would be sufficiently established that it could be rolled into its own treaty should trade talks fail. The two sides are not poles apart. They disagree on how to make sure that regulatory changes don't under cut one side. 97% of the treaty text of over 600 pages have been agreed.

Have you not been reading the news ?

The UK and the EU differs fundamentally on fisheries, level playing field, European Courts, custom union and single market.

There's no middle ground whatsoever between the two sides at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2020 ==

The whole thing is like burning your house down because there's a spider in the bath.

If we leave without a deal, it will be the most spectacular and irresponsible failure of government we'll have experienced in possibly hundreds of years.

Bit of an overdramatic analogy that bears no resemblance to reality.

It doesn't really contribute to the discussion, it's not going to prevent Brexit on that basis alone, which is looking to be going ahead, the real question is not preventing Brexit, it's too late for that.

It's living with Brexit and how to manage it, otherwise you're just flogging a dead defunct argument.

 

[Chester1]

Have you not been reading the news ?

The UK and the EU differs fundamentally on fisheries, level playing field, European Courts, custom union and single market.

There's no middle ground whatsoever between the two sides at all..

Single market and customs union?! Both sides are absolutely clear that the Britain will leave both at the end of the year (and the terms as to how Northern Ireland will leave bits of both). The fishing dispute is a straightforward haggle over how much quota share the EU will lose from UK waters. The UK wants half the EU quota and the EU wants to limit its loss to 18%. The EU dropped its excessive demand that the ECJ act as final arbitor of the treaty. Its role would match that of Supreme Court (each would be responsible for treaty matters relating to points of EU or UK law). Its really all about the level playing field and trade dispute process. Its an important issue but its the only one that is really preventing a deal. Agreeing to the EUs terms in a 1 year treaty would temporarily resolve this and reduce the economic shock next year. It would buy time to focus on the remaining dual issue of the level playing field and its governance. Any solution that Boris could sign up to would need to involve a tarifs mechanism that could be agreed amicably. What the EU is proposing is that if it tightens its regulations and the UK refuses to then it could retaliate in a completely unrelated area. Its unsurprising our government won't sign up to that to get a deal. They should be able to over the course of a year agree a mechanism for imposing tariffs if or when there is regulatory divergence. A fair mechanism would make those tarifs specific to the relevant goods and only sufficient to balance out the regulatory change. If Boris made a 1 year offer to discuss alternatives then it would put the EU on the spot to decide whether its position is about fair competition or attempting to dictate UK law.

 

[Vespa]

Single market and customs union?! Both sides are absolutely clear that the Britain will leave both at the end of the year (and the terms as to how Northern Ireland will leave bits of both). The fishing dispute is a straightforward haggle over how much quota share the EU will lose from UK waters. The UK wants half the EU quota and the EU wants to limit its loss to 18%. The EU dropped its excessive demand that the ECJ act as final arbitor of the treaty. Its role would match that of Supreme Court (each would be responsible for treaty matters relating to points of EU or UK law). Its really all about the level playing field and trade dispute process. Its an important issue but its the only one that is really preventing a deal. Agreeing to the EUs terms in a 1 year treaty would temporarily resolve this and reduce the economic shock next year. It would buy time to focus on the remaining dual issue of the level playing field and its governance. Any solution that Boris could sign up to would need to involve a tarifs mechanism that could be agreed amicably. What the EU is proposing is that if it tightens its regulations and the UK refuses to then it could retaliate in a completely unrelated area. Its unsurprising our government won't sign up to that to get a deal. They should be able to over the course of a year agree a mechanism for imposing tariffs if or when there is regulatory divergence. A fair mechanism would make those tarifs specific to the relevant goods and only sufficient to balance out the regulatory change. If Boris made a 1 year offer to discuss alternatives then it would put the EU on the spot to decide whether its position is about fair competition or attempting to dictate UK law.

A 1 year extension is still a pointless exercise in futility, we've had it for 4 years and we are still at point zero !

What's the point of that ? There is no gain.

 

[Chester1]

A 1 year extension is still a pointless exercise in futility, we've had it for 4 years and we are still at point zero !

What's the point of that ? There is no gain.

I would hardly say 97% of a treaty text agreed is point zero. Sources on both sides have confirmed to the media that figure. You seem determined to have no trade agreement with the EU. I am not suggesting anything like an extension of the transition. I am suggesting we move forward on a temporary basis with a free trade agreement using the text that has been agreed so far but with a temporary solution to disputed section (and fishing). If that section were resolved within a year then the FTA would become permanent and if not then the whole FTA would be curtailed.

 

[Journeyman]

Bit of an overdramatic analogy that bears no resemblance to reality.

It doesn't really contribute to the discussion, it's not going to prevent Brexit on that basis alone, which is looking to be going ahead, the real question is not preventing Brexit, it's too late for that.

It's living with Brexit and how to manage it, otherwise you're just flogging a dead defunct argument.

I'm not trying to prevent Brexit. I think it's an act of epic stupidity, but it's happened.

I do, however, stand by my words. Forcing no deal out of sheer pig-headedness is grossly irresponsible behaviour that will potentially completely trash the economy.

Happy to return to this in a few months' time and see who is right. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect I won't be.

 

[XAM2175]

Brexit fatigue is setting in, I for one am fed up with the whole thing and I just want it over

Wow, and this is coming from somebody who actually wanted it to happen!

I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you though - it is done. The UK left the EU on 31 Jan 2020. Referendum outcome delivered. You're never going to hear the end of it though, because as long as the EU continues to exist the UK will need to manage its relationship with the EU. Perhaps it'll be easier in a few years when it's just England (and maybe Wales) on the outside.

 

[yorksrob]

Its really all about the level playing field and trade dispute process. Its an important issue but its the only one that is really preventing a deal. Agreeing to the EUs terms in a 1 year treaty would temporarily resolve this and reduce the economic shock next year. It would buy time to focus on the remaining dual issue of the level playing field and its governance. Any solution that Boris could sign up to would need to involve a tarifs mechanism that could be agreed amicably. What the EU is proposing is that if it tightens its regulations and the UK refuses to then it could retaliate in a completely unrelated area. Its unsurprising our government won't sign up to that to get a deal. They should be able to over the course of a year agree a mechanism for imposing tariffs if or when there is regulatory divergence. A fair mechanism would make those tarifs specific to the relevant goods and only sufficient to balance out the regulatory change. If Boris made a 1 year offer to discuss alternatives then it would put the EU on the spot to decide whether its position is about fair competition or attempting to dictate UK law.

That sounds a fairly sensible compromise. As I've said before, there are other bi-lateral deals between countries that have cracked this, so it should be perfectly possible.

The only other issue with the "level playing field" is what of state aid ? Personally I'd gladly see this dead and buried, but I realise that this will have to linger on in some form for an agreement. I'm not sure what's been discussed with this, but we'd have to have the right to replicate what the ERDF and ESIF funds currently do.

 

[nlogax]

Brexit fatigue is setting in, I for one am fed up with the whole thing and I just want it over, so I can plan ahead with certainty so I know what rules were playing by post Brexit.

Welcome to the club. Regardless of what you think you voted for in 2016, you voted for this. We're all sick and tired of it.