Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think the idea is that they'd have both. A large operation in mainland Europe and a smaller one based in the UK focused solely at the UK market. The additional cost of the extra plant might be offset by avoiding tariffs.

Can't see the economies of scale working. They are the experts of course but surely the first FTA we sign with a significant producer of cars closes that window of opportunity?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There is already a large automotive supply chain in the UK.
It should be possible to source everything they need from UK existing manufacturers.

Not sure. You may find significant gaps and or have to redesign certain parts or at the very least screw up existing sourcing arrangements.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Don't get me wrong. I don’t think it would be practical for them to do it. For a start existing manufacturers will all be supplying other UK car plants. There would need to be a lot of ramping up production which is OK for some suppliers that produce in batches but others would need to put in new production lines or re-tool.
It would take months at least to re source from UK production.

 

[Planigale]

Posting inconvenient facts and analysis = bias!!!!!!!
Posting anything agreeing with my side = impartial and only truth!!!!!!!

I agree with the cyborg, it clearly supports me.

 

[Klimax]

I agree with the cyborg, it clearly supports me.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Don't get me wrong. I don’t think it would be practical for them to do it. For a start existing manufacturers will all be supplying other UK car plants. There would need to be a lot of ramping up production which is OK for some suppliers that produce in batches but others would need to put in new production lines or re-tool.
It would take months at least to re source from UK production.

And may not work out cheaper than having to pay the tariff on their existing imports. Remember as well that they would have to keep the EU parts in their EU models (otherwise they face tariffs going the other way) and only change the UK parts over.

So rather than buying a million widgets from France you are now buying 900,000 widgets from France and 100,000 from the UK and potentially paying more on both.

 

[McHrozni]

The House of Lords passed a second amendment to the bill, saying Parliament must have the final say on the deal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39200658

Brexiteers are up in the arms and will fight tooth and nail to take the soverignty away from the elected Parliament and into the loving hands of the appointed PM. But remember, leaving the EU was all about Parliamentary soverignty and democracy.

McHrozni

 

[imodium]

heseltine sacked as advisor, tories are getting bitchy.

 

[ceptimus]

The Lords amendment seeks to weasle out of Brexit. It allows parliament a veto on any deal and also a veto if there is no deal. The idea is that the only remaining option will be to remain in the EU. Talk about handing ammunition to the opposite side! The EU negotiators will have our side over a barrel if this stupid amendment is allowed to stand. Hopefully the government can defeat it or further amend it so that any "meaningful vote" is only to choose between accepting the deal or crashing out of the EU with no deal.

The decision that we are leaving has already been made. It's shameful that the unelected lords can't accept that.

 

[Amazer]

The House of Lords passed a second amendment to the bill, saying Parliament must have the final say on the deal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39200658

Brexiteers are up in the arms and will fight tooth and nail to take the soverignty away from the elected Parliament and into the loving hands of the appointed PM. But remember, leaving the EU was all about Parliamentary soverignty and democracy.

McHrozni

I think it's a meaningless amendment... once Article 50 is invoked then the only option for the UK is to leave the EU.

I don't see how the UK could expect to remain a member, with it's current privilidged status, of the EU without consequences if the results of the brexit negotiations are not to its liking.

 

[McHrozni]

I think it's a meaningless amendment... once Article 50 is invoked then the only option for the UK is to leave the EU.

True, but it is up to the Parliament to decide whether the deal is good enough or whether Theresa May should negotiate a different deal. It actually empowers the UK negotiators - they can always agree to a demand in principle, but say that the Parliament would never allow it. US negotiators do that all the time.

Without it, UK government negotiates alone.

I don't see how the UK could expect to remain a member, with it's current privilidged status, of the EU without consequences if the results of the brexit negotiations are not to its liking.

How about if it subscribes to an ever closer union, abandons the rebate, joins Shengen and agrees to join the ERM and eventually the Euro? I'm sure Germans would love it, and would be able to secure the necessary votes. As impalpable as this may be to the UK, it is obviously vastly superior to WTO rules, a trade war and tax and regulatory race to the bottom promised by the PM. Not all of these concessions would be necessary to keep UK in EU, I suspect. Shengen and maybe a reduced rebate would be enough. There is no reason for UK not to be a part of Shengen any more anyway.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The decision that we are leaving has already been made. It's shameful that the unelected lords can't accept that.

Yeah, by an equally unelected PM. It's curious how being unelected only matters when people disagree with what you want.

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

May has been elected, many times.

Most world leaders aren't elected directly. Even those who are, like Trump, the voters only get to choose between very few candidates after those candidates have been selected by less democratic methods.

 

[Amazer]

True, but it is up to the Parliament to decide whether the deal is good enough or whether Theresa May should negotiate a different deal. It actually empowers the UK negotiators - they can always agree to a demand in principle, but say that the Parliament would never allow it. US negotiators do that all the time.

Without it, UK government negotiates alone.

I think that it would work if there weren't a deadline looming. However, with that 2 year deadline to get a deal in place or otherwise going back to WTO rules doesn't leave a lot of room to play with.

How about if it subscribes to an ever closer union, abandons the rebate, joins Shengen and agrees to join the ERM and eventually the Euro? I'm sure Germans would love it, and would be able to secure the necessary votes. As impalpable as this may be to the UK, it is obviously vastly superior to WTO rules, a trade war and tax and regulatory race to the bottom promised by the PM. Not all of these concessions would be necessary to keep UK in EU, I suspect. Shengen and maybe a reduced rebate would be enough. There is no reason for UK not to be a part of Shengen any more anyway.

Sure, if they'd agree to become a regular EU member like Germany or The Netherlands then that might be a possibility. I just rate the chances of something like this happening almost non-existant.

 

[Planigale]

I think it's a meaningless amendment... once Article 50 is invoked then the only option for the UK is to leave the EU.
I don't see how the UK could expect to remain a member, with it's current privilidged status, of the EU without consequences if the results of the brexit negotiations are not to its liking.

A number of legal opinions disagree with this.
1) Article 50 is poorly written and it is not clear that once notice to withdraw is made it is irrevocable - it is ambiguous
2) A general principle in contract and international treaty law is that entering into negotiations does not commit one to an outcome.

There is a legitimate legal view that if negotiations are not agreed by both parties the withdrawal is not inevitable. There is no mechanism for the EU to eject a member; the EU cannot sack the UK.

There are contrary opinions, politically it is of course difficult for a UK government not to withdraw given the referendum. A UK government could certainly decline to withdraw from EU if the EU has not agreed a deal by the 2 year limit. The EU may find it difficult to come to an agreement. In the event of the UK declining to withdraw I suspect there may be a court case; If the EU fails to come to an agreement, and the UK tries to withdraw there may be a court case since withdrawal may be argued to be dependant on an agreement being reached.

 

[Planigale]

I think that it would work if there weren't a deadline looming. However, with that 2 year deadline to get a deal in place or otherwise going back to WTO rules doesn't leave a lot of room to play with.




Sure, if they'd agree to become a regular EU member like Germany or The Netherlands then that might be a possibility. I just rate the chances of something like this happening almost non-existant.

The UK is a regular EU member like e.g. Ireland or Sweden or Denmark.

 

[McHrozni]

May has been elected, many times.

But never, ever to a PM spot. She was appointed there by her party.

McHrozni

 

[Planigale]

True, but it is up to the Parliament to decide whether the deal is good enough or whether Theresa May should negotiate a different deal. It actually empowers the UK negotiators - they can always agree to a demand in principle, but say that the Parliament would never allow it. US negotiators do that all the time.

Without it, UK government negotiates alone.



How about if it subscribes to an ever closer union, abandons the rebate, joins Shengen and agrees to join the ERM and eventually the Euro? I'm sure Germans would love it, and would be able to secure the necessary votes. As impalpable as this may be to the UK, it is obviously vastly superior to WTO rules, a trade war and tax and regulatory race to the bottom promised by the PM. Not all of these concessions would be necessary to keep UK in EU, I suspect. Shengen and maybe a reduced rebate would be enough. There is no reason for UK not to be a part of Shengen any more anyway.

McHrozni

That went well last time!

 

[McHrozni]

I think that it would work if there weren't a deadline looming. However, with that 2 year deadline to get a deal in place or otherwise going back to WTO rules doesn't leave a lot of room to play with.

It works regardless. If EU doesn't want a deal with UK, it can simply stall until the deadline passes, and UK will be unceremoniously dumped out of EU. It's the UK that must convince enough member states that the deal UK wants will be better for them than UK going by WTO rules.

If, however, EU wants a deal, having the ability to fall back to Parliament gives UK negotiators an extra tool to extract a little bit of extra from EU.

UK is no worse off in either case. The only reason one would be against it is because the amendment leaves the possibility of backtracking on Brexit at a later date, because the elected parliament has judged the result would be too disastrous for UK. How is that a bad thing for UK is beyond me.

Sure, if they'd agree to become a regular EU member like Germany or The Netherlands then that might be a possibility. I just rate the chances of something like this happening almost non-existant.

It's not going to happen with the current Parliament, that's for sure.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

May has been elected, many times.

Most world leaders aren't elected directly. Even those who are, like Trump, the voters only get to choose between very few candidates after those candidates have been selected by less democratic methods.

May hasn't been elected by the people she wants to take out the EU or even by her own party. She is PM by default.

If her being an MP is enough for you then many of the lords are formed MPs as well and were elected many times.

I wouldn't stress anyway. None of the Tories have the balls to oppose her and do the best for the country. Not it seems does much of Labour.