Brexit: Now What? Part IV

[Garrison]

Not if you see what David Davis has stated about the bill

To me it looks like giving the rest of Parliament the opportunity to own the disaster of a no-deal Brexit.

If Parliament rejects the deal, then there is a no-deal Brexit. So Davis can blame Parliament for denying the British People the opportunity of the Fantastic (TM) deal that he brokered.

If it accepts his deal, then that shows that he had the backing of Parliament.

That's Davis' version, no guarantee parliament will see things the same way, not mention that as May and co. are clearly on the ropes more concessions are likely.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not if you see what David Davis has stated about the bill

To me it looks like giving the rest of Parliament the opportunity to own the disaster of a no-deal Brexit.

If Parliament rejects the deal, then there is a no-deal Brexit. So Davis can blame Parliament for denying the British People the opportunity of the Fantastic (TM) deal that he brokered.

If it accepts his deal, then that shows that he had the backing of Parliament.

It's a double whammy. If Parliament vote against then it's their fault. If they vote in favour and the deal turns out to be a total lemon they get the blame for voting for it.

 

[jimbob]

It's a double whammy. If Parliament vote against then it's their fault. If they vote in favour and the deal turns out to be a total lemon they get the blame for voting for it.

That't the not so subtle intent.

As an aside, I heard Kier Starmer on the Today programme this morning, and he came across very well.

The difference between him and the government actually seemed to be more than the difference between New Labour and Major's government in 1996, when New Labour did seem like the ones in the driving seat

 

[The Don]

Not if you see what David Davis has stated about the bill

To me it looks like giving the rest of Parliament the opportunity to own the disaster of a no-deal Brexit.

That's what I thought. Once again a piece of legislation where it's heads I win, tails you lose. There is still no indication that there is any contingency plan for the event that the offered deal (or no deal) is so bad that it will destroy the country.

The will of 52% of the people (many of whom had no idea what they were voting for - heck we still don't know 18 months on) will be used to wreck the UK.

 

[Craig B]

Payback can be a female dog. It wouldn't shock me to find that there are a lot of countries who have an historical score to settle with the UK and post-Brexit trade deals may be one way to do that.

In Queen Vic's day John Bull^WP knew "how to deal with Johnnie Foreigner". Now we'll find out if Johnnie Foreigner knows how to deal with John Bull.

 

[wobs]

A new study into the impact of Brexit finds that the impact would not just hit the UK, but the EU-27 as well:
https://feb.kuleuven.be/drc/Economics/research/dps-papers/dps17/dps1713.pdf

Our findings indicate that there are no winners from Brexit, but only losers. Both parties involved would suffer substantial losses if denied free trade access to each other's market. However, while the current belief surrounding Brexit is that especially the UK has a great deal to lose, our sector-level input-output approach clearly shows that the EU-27 also stands to lose substantially and considerably more than previously thought.

See conclusion

 

[The Don]

A new study into the impact of Brexit finds that the impact would not just hit the UK, but the EU-27 as well:
https://feb.kuleuven.be/drc/Economics/research/dps-papers/dps17/dps1713.pdf



See conclusion

They consider a Norway-style "soft" Brexit and a "hard" Brexit where the UK enjoys most favoured nation status.

The impact looks bad.....

both for the UK

Our model predictions indicate that the UK is hit relatively harder than the rest of the EU-27 in both scenarios. In either case, Brexit reduces economic activity in the UK around three times more than in the EU-27. The UK will experience a drop in value added production as a percentage of GDP of 1.21% under a soft Brexit and up to 4.47% under a hard Brexit scenario. This corresponds to UK job losses of 139,860 jobs in the “soft” Brexit and 526,830 jobs in the “hard” Brexit scenario.

...and for the EU-27

For the EU-27, the absolute job losses are larger, with the numbers of EU-27 jobs lost from Brexit varying between 284,440 jobs and 1,209,470 jobs respectively which corresponds to value added losses as a percentage of GDP of 0.38% for the “soft” and 1.54% for the “hard” Brexit. The losses in value added and jobs differ substantially across EU-27 member states. EU-27 member states that stand to lose most from Brexit are countries with close historical ties to the UK (e.g. Ireland, Malta) and small open economies on the European continent (e.g. Belgium and the Netherlands).

Which still poses the questions:

Why the hell is the UK pushing ahead with something so damaging ? Why do we seem determined to head for the hardest possible Brexit ? Why do we seem to have put our least competent and laziest people in charge of the most important negotiations of my lifetime ?

 

[Tolls]

Because the people in charge have the statesmanship of a gnat.

 

[Aber]

Why the hell is the UK pushing ahead with something so damaging ?

Because the electorate voted for it.

Why do we seem determined to head for the hardest possible Brexit ?

Because the EU has a say in the process too.

Why do we seem to have put our least competent and laziest people in charge of the most important negotiations of my lifetime ?

Because it has to be lead by politicians.

 

[The Don]

Because the electorate voted for it.

If they believed the Leave campaign, they were voting for an immeasurably brighter economic future, £350m a week for the NHS and being able to trade with the EU on the same (or even more favourable terms) as before.

Because the EU has a say in the process too.

It's not the EU forcing the UK down the cul-de-sac of hard Brexit as far as I can see.

Because it has to be lead by politicians.

Then why did the PM seemingly pick the least competent ones for the job ?

 

[ceptimus]

It's not the EU forcing the UK down the cul-de-sac of hard Brexit as far as I can see.

I don't think you can see quite far enough. Maybe some binoculars would help you see that this is exactly what the EU "negotiating" team is doing.

 

[Amazer]

I don't think you can see quite far enough. Maybe some binoculars would help you see that this is exactly what the EU "negotiating" team is doing.

And what might that be?

 

[GlennB]

Then why did the PM seemingly pick the least competent ones for the job ?

Because she was hardly spoiled for choice?

 

[Andy_Ross]

This deadline date that will be set by legislation.

What happens if a deal is finalised but needs a few extra days to sign. Will it be scrapped because it will over run a deadline set by law?

 

[jimbob]

This deadline date that will be set by legislation.

What happens if a deal is finalised but needs a few extra days to sign. Will it be scrapped because it will over run a deadline set by law?

Details...

You have to look at the big picture and not get bogged down in minor matters.

Like how the UK can be outside the customs union and have an uncontrolled land border with the customs union without a massive smuggling problem.

 

[Garrison]

The thing to bear in mind is that as far dealing with Parliament goes conceding the final vote is just the latest in a string of retreats by May and co. I expect the pattern to continue with the current firm position of a 'take it or leave it' vote crumbling as the Tory Remainers threaten to line up with Labour to force changes. May is in the very same position as Cameron was with the poles reversed, now its the Remainers forcing concessions as May desperately tries to cling to her job and hope she can get through a week without another minister falling on their sword...

This deadline date that will be set by legislation.

What happens if a deal is finalised but needs a few extra days to sign. Will it be scrapped because it will over run a deadline set by law?

I wouldn't worry about it, May probably couldn't get a Brexit bill through parliament if she included a 100% pay rise and unlimited expenses for MPs in it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Brexit no-deal could stop Aston Martin production

Aston Martin has said it may have to halt production if the UK fails to strike a Brexit deal with the EU.
All new cars in the UK must have Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) approval, which is valid in the EU.
Without a UK-EU deal, that validity would cease for new cars from March 2019.

"Recertifying to a new type of approval, be that federal US, Chinese or even retrospectively applying to use the EU approval, would mean us stopping our production."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41983342

It might serve them right, the new model is bloody awful.

 

[ceptimus]

If it's true then it's another example of EU intransigence.

The vehicle is already produced in the EU and is therefore 100% compliant with all the necessary EU regulations. Unless the vehicle regulations change on the day of Brexit then the reissuing of a valid compliance certificate should be a formality.

If the rules change after that date and complying with the new rules requires temporarily stopping production to make changes, then that would still have been the case without Brexit.

 

[Amazer]

If it's true then it's another example of EU intransigence.

Don't be silly. If anything it's another example of the UK not thinking things through.

The vehicle is already produced in the EU and is therefore 100% compliant with all the necessary EU regulations. Unless the vehicle regulations change on the day of Brexit then the reissuing of a valid compliance certificate should be a formality.

On the day of Brexit the manufacture will by definition no longer take place within the EU. There is a different procedure for vehicles produced outside the EU than for vehicles produced in the EU. That on that day you still "might" be compliant with EU rules is nice but is not a reason for the EU to abandon procedures that it currently employs.

If the rules change after that date and complying with the new rules requires temporarily stopping production to make changes, then that would still have been the case without Brexit.

Yes, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[jimbob]

If it's true then it's another example of EU intransigence.

The vehicle is already produced in the EU and is therefore 100% compliant with all the necessary EU regulations. Unless the vehicle regulations change on the day of Brexit then the reissuing of a valid compliance certificate should be a formality.

If the rules change after that date and complying with the new rules requires temporarily stopping production to make changes, then that would still have been the case without Brexit.

Can you explain how to implement this, whilst leaving the customs union and without specific agreements in place to allow this?

There are literally thousands of such nuts and bolts agreements that would need to be in place on the day after we leave the EU.

The two-year timeframe was nowhere near enough to achieve that, even if the broad outline had been agreed.