Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Andy_Ross]

OMFG, Brexit is threatening our biscuits:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38328388

Good, they're bloody awful.

 

[abaddon]

Good, they're bloody awful.

Interesting point. They were awful. How they got presented as some sort of treat is, to me, a triumph of tradition over reality. One might as well eat cardboard.

 

[Garrison]

Well now you're just back to pointing out obstacles.

Remember that we ARE leaving. It's more positive to try to suggest the best path through that difficult process. Crying over spilt milk benefits no one.

And who is this 'we'? The people who were persuaded it would mean more money for the NHS? Only for David Davis to announce he doesn't feel bound by that promise? The people who believed the leave campaign when they said we could keep all the same trading terms or have better ones? Only now for the same people to be talking about a hard Brexit. There were any number of reasons why people voted leave, most of those reasons turn out to have been based on lies. There is no best path, it's like being asked if you would rather be executed by poison, shooting, or hanging.

 

[Garrison]

No need to sneer over whether or not I understand WTO tariffs. I do understand them thank you.

Can't prove it by anything you've posted here. Based on those you seem to have gotten your idea of trade and diplomacy from playing Civilization.

 

[Craig B]

...changes we want to make ourselves (e.g. to enhance animal wellfare)

What do you have in mind here? I haven't seen that raised before as a Brexit issue.

 

[abaddon]

What do you have in mind here? I haven't seen that raised before as a Brexit issue.

Somhow, Brexit enhances animal welfare. Well that came out of left field.

 

[The Don]

What do you have in mind here? I haven't seen that raised before as a Brexit issue.

Somhow, Brexit enhances animal welfare. Well that came out of left field.

The UK is free to set its owns standards for animal welfare and reportedly the UK's are higher than the EU minimum in many regards. Higher welfare standards do cost money and so in a commiditised food industry this puts UK producers at a commercial disadvantage (unless the customer can be persuaded that local sourcing and/or higher welfare standards are worth paying for - IMO possible if you're selling raw ingredients, less so in the case of ingredients for ready meals).

In a post-Brexit future, the UK could protect its producers by placing higher tariffs on, or even refuse to import food with low welfare standards which could (would ?) then percolate into Europe. Of course that would mean extra costs for UK food producers and UK consumers and expensive certification and monitoring but that's typical of the Brexit "benefits"

 

[McHrozni]

There is no best path, it's like being asked if you would rather be executed by poison, shooting, or hanging.

With hard Brexiters it's like you had an option of these three and then opting for quartering, because reasons.

McHrozni

 

[Strawberry]

The UK is free to set its owns standards for animal welfare and reportedly the UK's are higher than the EU minimum in many regards. Higher welfare standards do cost money and so in a commiditised food industry this puts UK producers at a commercial disadvantage (unless the customer can be persuaded that local sourcing and/or higher welfare standards are worth paying for - IMO possible if you're selling raw ingredients, less so in the case of ingredients for ready meals).

In a post-Brexit future, the UK could protect its producers by placing higher tariffs on, or even refuse to import food with low welfare standards which could (would ?) then percolate into Europe. Of course that would mean extra costs for UK food producers and UK consumers and expensive certification and monitoring but that's typical of the Brexit "benefits"

Of course in a non-Brexit future, the UK could have not only raised standards of animal welfare in Britain but also used its position in the Council of Ministers to push for those standards to become EU wide standards, and thereby improved animal welfare all across Europe without leaving British food producers at a competitive disadvantage.

That wouldn't be Brexity enough though, it wouldn't be sticking it to Johnny Foreigner and taking back control. Plus, immigrants.

 

[MCel58]

Tell me what you think will happen once we abolish freedom of movement and stop making EU payments. 'Crashing out' with WTO rules is what I'm advocating as the most realistic option.

I think the 1.2 million Brits in the EU will be up the creek without a paddle, that thousands of businesses will find themselves with no patent or trademark coverage in the EU, that businesses like The Don's will find it very difficult to meet the work visa rules for non EU nationals in most EU countries and will be out of business, that British students studying in the EU will suddenly find themselves with a huge bill for fees, that research funded and carried out jointly with EU institutions will stop, that farmers will have no subsidies, that there will be no financial passporting or air travel passporting, that the TUCON agreement in Calais will be rescinded and alll the refugees will be let on the next ferries for the U.K. to deal with at Dover, the U.K. will need to increase public sector spending to include all the things they have paid the EU to have oversight of, that we will need to spend money on technology, people and ships etc to patrol our borders and ensure payment of tariffs, and that there will have to be a hard border in Ireland.

If we don't negotiate these things there can be no agreement on them. This is not just about Trade.

Each of the points above will mean concessions by the U.K. in terms of the 4 freedoms and in terms of payments for inclusion or a payment due because of existing arrangements being cancelled. This is not a win-win negotiations this is a divorce. Also, I don't trust the Tories to replace funding for anything at the commitment level they have had to meet because of being a member of the EU.

I suspect everything which is at present funded by our EU contributions will face a cut in funding in the post Brexit future and the Tories will continue to fund tax cuts and support to Middle and South East England and the idea of any increase in the Public sector and the PSBR is an anathema to Tories and has been since Thatcher.

 

[3point14]

You really don't have a clue. Brexit is like watching the Dunning-Kruger effect on a nationwide scale.

Why do you think FTAs take years to negotiate? How long do you think the queue is for countries wanting to negotiate a FTA with the EU? Because in two and a half years time, the UK will be joining the back of that queue, and it could take years to reach the front never mind get a deal.

Exactly. It's the inability of the EU to negotiate anything in a timely manner that means we're better off ignoring them as far as is possible and concentrating our negotiating efforts on other countries who can negotiate meaningfully.

Sadly, this is what we're dealing with. Every single difficulty will be attributed to those damn foreigners, rather than to the utter cock-up that is the UK government at the moment.

Keep saying things often enough and people believe it, this is the tactic of lying scum like Boris and Farrage. Just keep saying it and those who lack the capacity for critical thinking will nod along like plastic dogs in the back of cars while cheerfully advocating and voting for economic disaster

 

[3point14]

Well now you're just back to pointing out obstacles.

Because not pointing out obstacles magically makes them go away?

 

[Tolls]

Because not pointing out obstacles magically makes them go away?

In Brexit-land there are no obstacles between us and the glory of WTO rules, which will not result in the economy collapsing in on itself and we all end up in cardboard boxes. And if we do it'll all be the fault of the EU anyway...bastards!

 

[3point14]

You're not suggesting how we should proceed. Just pointing out how difficult things may be achieves nothing.

We're leaving the EU and we have to start somewhere. Where do you suggest?

Not leaving the EU.


Anything else is a stupendously expensive mess.

 

[Tolls]

Oh...lokk!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-to-eu-jobs-government-position-a7478771.html

But it's all OK.
We don't need those jobs anyway.
It's all fine.
Besides, they're foreign...

Christ on a bike.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Aren't international bankers the enemy though?

Surely it's a good thing they want to leave.

 

[Lothian]

Oh...lokk!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-to-eu-jobs-government-position-a7478771.html

But it's all OK.
We don't need those jobs anyway.
It's all fine.
Besides, they're foreign...

Christ on a bike.

As I understand it the hard brexit favoured by many would not have passporting so these job losses along with many others in the City of London are already factored into their solutions.

Don't take that as a reason to worry however. There is a plan to make Britain great again. Once more the clacking of looms will ring out and the glow of pit helmets will shine like a beacon telling the world that Britain has gone back to the glory days of the past.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes. I agree with this.

When the EU changes its rules we can decide whether or not we think it's sensible for us to adopt them - and if we decide not to we'll be non-compliant.

Some of the changes we want to make ourselves (e.g. to enhance animal wellfare) will still be compliant with EU rules - it's just that we'll chose to exceed their minimum standards.

And we may chose to make other changes ourselves that will make us non-compliant. I assume we'll consider the implications concerning EU standards before we make any such changes and only make them if and when we think it's worth the hassle.

It will take a long time for us to fully disentangle ourselves from the EU octopus - we'll have to take it one tentacle at a time.

If you accept this you also accept the implications of this? We cannot trade with someone if we don't comply with their standards. Manufacturers will be faced with the choice of producing to the UK spec or the EU spec increasing costs for everyone.

It's not a simple pick and mix as you suggest.

 

[Craig B]

... Don't take that as a reason to worry however. There is a plan to make Britain great again. Once more the clacking of looms will ring out and the glow of pit helmets will shine like a beacon telling the world that Britain has gone back to the glory days of the past.

It wasn't only the clacking of looms but also the clicking of rifle bolts; not only the wearers of pit, but of pith helmets, who won Great Britain these long departed glories.

So unless we can find another Empire in which we can display our military might to spear-wielding fuzzy wuzzies, to replace the EU, I fear that the "glory" must remain where you say it is now - in the past.

 

[Tolls]

Aren't international bankers the enemy though?

Surely it's a good thing they want to leave.

Of course!
Hmmm...but we need to replace those jobs with something.
Now what could that be?

Don't take that as a reason to worry however. There is a plan to make Britain great again. Once more the clacking of looms will ring out and the glow of pit helmets will shine like a beacon telling the world that Britain has gone back to the glory days of the past.

Ahhh!
ISF, is there no problem you can't solve?