Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Don said:
You're right regarding the Trump Administration's expertise but the advantages that the US has over the UK in the trade negotiations are:

  • A very clear set of requirements which have already been communicated ahead of time
  • Clearly defined red lines which cannot be broken
  • The upper hand in terms of the economic muscle they wield
  • No real urgency - the UK desperately needs a deal before the end of 2020, the US has no such deadline

OTOH the UK has no clear idea of what it wants, its red lines are pretty malleable, we'll be very much the junior partner in any relationship and Boris Johnson needs a deal to trumpet when negotiations with the EU fail - as the inevitably (and possibly intentionally) will.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. That is a problem.

Yes he can try to become the 51st state but unlike the current relationship with the EU, the UK/US deal will not be mutually beneficial, the US is clear that the intent is to increase US exports to the UK and if anything reduce trade in the other direction. The UK/US deal will also kill any trade with the EU and this is several times the trade with the US - it'll be an unmitigated disaster IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes. But the US House already stated they're unwilling to ratify an agreement that would be too one-sided against the British ally. Again, there isn't that much time at all, it's rather questionable if Trump can be reelected. Of course a major deal with the UK might help that.

The most dangerous thing is if BJ willingly sells the UK to the USA to curry favor with Trump. If that does not happen, if BJ has a shred of concern for his country, the deal is dead in the water unless Trump wins 10 months from now.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Yes. But the US House already stated they're unwilling to ratify an agreement that would be too one-sided against the British ally.
Click to expand...

I thought that their only concern was whether any UK/US deal might jeapordise the Good Friday agreement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...-good-friday-deal-harmed-pelosi-idUSKCN1V419I

As long as the GFA is safe, the deal can be as weighted towards the US as they like.

McHrozni said:
Again, there isn't that much time at all, it's rather questionable if Trump can be reelected. Of course a major deal with the UK might help that.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think that President Trump currently has a much greater than 50% probability of being reelected. This will only change if some or all of the following were to happen:

  • The impeachment process starts to scare some GOP senators
  • There is a severe economic downturn
  • The Democratic Party manages to find a charismatic candidate

OTOH the sabre-rattling with Iran is playing to his advantage, especially if it turns into an all-out shooting war.

McHrozni said:
The most dangerous thing is if BJ willingly sells the UK to the USA to curry favor with Trump. If that does not happen, if BJ has a shred of concern for his country, the deal is dead in the water unless Trump wins 10 months from now.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any evidence for the highlighted. Like President Trump, Boris Johnson is only concerned about his personal welfare.
 
The Don said:
I thought that their only concern was whether any UK/US deal might jeapordise the Good Friday agreement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...-good-friday-deal-harmed-pelosi-idUSKCN1V419I

As long as the GFA is safe, the deal can be as weighted towards the US as they like.
Click to expand...

Hm, maybe. It's been a while since I've read the report.

I disagree, I think that President Trump currently has a much greater than 50% probability of being reelected. This will only change if some or all of the following were to happen:

  • The impeachment process starts to scare some GOP senators
  • There is a severe economic downturn
  • The Democratic Party manages to find a charismatic candidate

OTOH the sabre-rattling with Iran is playing to his advantage, especially if it turns into an all-out shooting war.
Click to expand...

We'll see, it's too early to say. The Iran thing is probably a major foreign policy failure, so a "true" in the 13 keys turnes to "false". The implication is he will do a little worse in the election than he would have if it didn't happen.

The thing is, his policy towards Iran is nothing new. Trump has a fanatical but narrow base and has done exactly nothing to expand it. His base alone won him one election, barely - relying on razor-thin margins in three key states. Some 6% of the electorate has been replaced since 2016, the loyal right-wing voters died off and were replaced by younger voters that are less well inclined towards the Republicans. The minorities grew ever so slightly, the already aging base aged a little more.

In short, the 2020 election is not a simple rerun of the 2016 election but with Trump having the incumbent advantage.

I have yet to see any evidence for the highlighted. Like President Trump, Boris Johnson is only concerned about his personal welfare.
Click to expand...

Well yes, I agree with that. However too slavish a deal might imperil his own reelection chances too. BJ therefore should care about the wellbeing of UK at least a little, if only as an extension of caring about himself.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Well yes, I agree with that. However too slavish a deal might imperil his own reelection chances too. BJ therefore should care about the wellbeing of UK at least a little, if only as an extension of caring about himself.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

The deal would have to be so bad that it splits the Conservative Party into two separate, but still electable parties.

The LibDems are an electoral irrelevance, the Brexit Party will have had its guns comprehensively spiked by Boris Johnson's no-deal Brexit and Labour are two or three elections away from being electable so a Conservative split aside, Boris Johnson is as safe as houses - even moreso if Scotland achieves independence.
 
The Don said:
The deal would have to be so bad that it splits the Conservative Party into two separate, but still electable parties.
Click to expand...

You have ten months to negotiate and ratify one - without knowing what you want or having people capable of telling you what you might want, let alone delivering it. And you're negotiating against a man whose 'negotiating' strategy is making a demand and expecting you to bend the knee.

I'm reasonably sure any agreed upon deal will be horrible.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
You have ten months to negotiate and ratify one - without knowing what you want or having people capable of telling you what you might want, let alone delivering it. And you're negotiating against a man whose 'negotiating' strategy is making a demand and expecting you to bend the knee.

I'm reasonably sure any agreed upon deal will be horrible.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

For sure it will be horrible, but it would have to be so bad that half the party that negotiated and agreed to it in the face of a no deal Brexit would have to be prepared to disown it.
 
McHrozni said:
There's no doubt any serious deal will take place after the Novermber elections in the US though. BJ is the one running against the clock for a change.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Certainly true. Assuming a new POTUS, it will take at least six months to find the loo so any hopes for a quick deal reside in fantasyland.
 
I have a question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. The House of Commons voted today on the final approval of the Brexit Bill, which is now sent to the Lords. All the news articles are saying that this means Brexit is a done deal. What happens if the House of Lords were to vote against it? Boris doesn't have a majority there, so what's stopping the Lords from still blocking the deal? I'm American and not overly familiar with the British government system. I assume there's some reason to think that the Lords can't block the bill from passing but I don't understand why.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
For sure it will be horrible, but it would have to be so bad that half the party that negotiated and agreed to it in the face of a no deal Brexit would have to be prepared to disown it.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a recent precendens with this whole "Brexit" thing, so I wouldn't discount it as a very real possibility.

McHrozni
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
I have a question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. The House of Commons voted today on the final approval of the Brexit Bill, which is now sent to the Lords. All the news articles are saying that this means Brexit is a done deal. What happens if the House of Lords were to vote against it? Boris doesn't have a majority there, so what's stopping the Lords from still blocking the deal? I'm American and not overly familiar with the British government system. I assume there's some reason to think that the Lords can't block the bill from passing but I don't understand why.
Click to expand...

There is a convention that the lords don't block legislation that forms an important part of the government's manifesto. The lords may well amend the bill, but the commons will vote against any such amendments and bounce the bill back to the lords; the lords will then pass the bill unamended.

In theory the bill can bounce back and forth more than once. The commons have powers to override such nonsense if necessary, but they won't have to use them. The lords know that if they ignore convention and oppose a government with a strong majority then the next action of the commons would be to introduce new bills reforming and diminishing the power of the House of Lords.
 
ceptimus said:
Another disappointment for remain supporters.
Click to expand...

The people who should be disappointed are the ones expecting an easy trade deal with the US. Do you think the US will just say: “that’s fine you can go ahead and block sales of US products any time you like?” Good luck with that. Nor is the US going to change it’s own rules to accommodate the UK, and wont want to implement new inspection programs to accommodate UK product rules.

Furthermore, should the deal with the US allow poultry exports to the UK what do you think happens with an EU trade deal? Do you think the EU will just say “don’t worry about our regulations, feel free to repackage dung encrusted chicken and sell it into the EU”. Again, good luck with that.

This is a good example of why trade deals are really hard to negotiate when you don’t have common product regulations. It’s only one product but there are tens of thousands of product classes where you need to be considered where the two sides must agree on common regulations or agree on how to compensate the other side for restricting their products.

It’s also quite literally impossible to negotiate a deal with multiple partners without solid borders and customs checks in place to track not just products but the entire supply chain that goes into those products, because this still needs to follow the trade and product regulations of whatever country you sell them to. You will not be able to bypass EU tariffs on US made products simply by taking a bunch of US made parts assembling them and slapping a “made in the UK” sticker on the final product and export it to the EU tariff free.

This is why the type of trade deal Brexiters are promising take a decade of negotiation and can’t possibly be done in a year like they are promising. Furthermore, as things stand now without customs checks are either the Irish border or leaving Northern Ireland in the EU and performing checks at the North Sea ports the trade deals you are being promised are impossible.
 
ceptimus said:
There is a convention that the lords don't block legislation that forms an important part of the government's manifesto. The lords may well amend the bill, but the commons will vote against any such amendments and bounce the bill back to the lords; the lords will then pass the bill unamended.

In theory the bill can bounce back and forth more than once. The commons have powers to override such nonsense if necessary, but they won't have to use them. The lords know that if they ignore convention and oppose a government with a strong majority then the next action of the commons would be to introduce new bills reforming and diminishing the power of the House of Lords.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that clarifies it. I appreciate the explanation.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Thank you, that clarifies it. I appreciate the explanation.
Click to expand...

Boris Johnson and the Tories have also threatened the House of Lords with abolition or reform unless they stop doing their job and start rubber stamping the brexit agenda


Link

Link

Link

Link

I have some sympathy with a reform of the House of Lords, perhaps quite a lot of sympathy. However I want a fairer HoL unlike the political parties, Labour have also opposed the HOL, who want a means to control the 2nd chamber.

There is no need for hereditary peers, certainly no need for the 26 Lords Spiritual.
I think the 2nd house should be elected but it should represent the people in a fairer system than first past the post. I think there should also be some qualification required to sit in the Lord's. A lot of what they do is scrutinise legislation. There should be some legal competence.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Boris Johnson and the Tories have also threatened the House of Lords with abolition or reform unless they stop doing their job and start rubber stamping the brexit agenda
Click to expand...

Convention is that the House of Lords doesn't block manifesto commitments of a party which has won a general election. The "threat" is implicit after all elections.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom