The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[ENG601PM]

Someone isn't reading the fine regulatory print, as usual.

 

It's the same fine print under which the UK is looking at full short-term paralysis of its car industry (no more type approvals), chemicals industry (no more REACH), aeronautics industry (no more EASA), etc, <etc.> in case of no deal. See Richard North's blog for a taste (a very long time Leaver, and one of the better-informed, -thought-out and -referenced).

 

As usual therefore, I'm happy to let facts (well, statutes and their conditional operation) educate you in due course.

Same again.

 

The EU27 heard that 'tax haven off the EU27 shores' loud and clear the very first time it was first mooted as part of the UK's cake strategy, months ago. But then, the UK already is one of the world's foremost (remaining) tax havens

 

And yet, we are where we are...aren't we?

 

The balance of the forces is simple: the UK desperately needs enhanced access to foreign markets through FTAs; said markets are busy trying to stem profit offshoring and assorted tax dodges from their internationalised heavyweights (none more so than the US about the likes of Apple, Nike, M$oft, Google).

 

So if you think the EU, the US, China, India <etc.> are going to give the UK any sort of FTAs without clauses nuking its potential for 'going tax haven', you are more naïve than I thought.

 

I fully expect to see the UK beaten down by the EU27 about its Caribbean dependencies as part of the negotiations. Whether the current Brexit ones, or any FTA ones to follow.

I had you above shooting messengers. Especially when they're simply reporting words from the horse's mouth. My bad, and would you kindly supply a list of 'approved publication' for future debating use

 

I pity cancer patients in the UK now. Barnier has shut down yet another door on the UK in his speech last night (@ ENG: the actual horse's mouth good enough now?):

That means no EURATOM membership, no access to the EMA, etc.

 

And that will have huge consequences on 30th March.

 

Come on Loob, your Stockholm Syndrome is kicking in far too quickly again.

 

I'll just take the one example - the upcoming repatriation of 130 tonnes of EU nuclear waste at Sellafield, or the eye watering future bill for its storage, OR the compromise on EURATOM. Unwinding issues around individual bodies like EURATOM isn't simple but don't throw in the towel because Barnier makes some mid-negotiation pronouncements that he can't stand by.

 

Brexit is happening and no amount of moaning from the sidelines is going to help anyone and you can surely differentiate political posturing from upcoming hard reality that all parties are going to have to compromise. The UK's compromise is giving the cash that the EU institutions need and the EU's compromise is accepting the cash and giving the UK what it wants. There's your very first trade deal right there.

 

But we're out and that's it. No more single market, no more customs union, no more freedom of movement, and all that goes with it. This was all explicitly promised before the referendum, and it is what the majority voted for.

Edited November 21, 2017 by ENG601PM

[L00b]

Come on Loob, your Stockholm Syndrome is kicking in far too quickly again.

You're going to have to explain how and why I'm the Stockholm Syndrome sufferer, when I exhibit none of the signs - to the exact contrary of your political class.

 

Do you even know what that Syndrome is, or are you just reprising media soundbites here?

I'll just take the one example - the upcoming repatriation of 130 tonnes of EU nuclear waste at Sellafield, or the eye watering future bill for its storage, OR the compromise on EURATOM. Unwinding issues around individual bodies like EURATOM isn't simple

Which is the whole point of my posts in this thread to date: contrary to politicians' guff and MSM headlines since before the referendum and to date, there is nothing remotely 'simple' about the UK leaving "in an orderly manner".

 

What is 'simple' however, is to forecast what happens if and when the UK leaves the EU absent an exit deal (not an FTA): EU laws, directives, regulations, agreements cease to apply to the UK jurisdiction at 23:01 GMT on 29 March 2019. Instantly. Just like that. That includes all various memberships, advantages, benefits <etc.> which the UK has enjoyed for 44 years as an EEC/EU member state, under all EU legal constructs, institutions, systems, <etc.> Everything remotely connected to the EU in one way or another, whether private or public. Including EURATOM, the EBA, the EASA, passporting rights, automotive and aeronautics type approvals, trade agreements with Canada, Korea and more.

 

In that context, the scope of the exit deal (if there is one, and depending on its terms) is to keep some of these "memberships, advantages, benefits, <etc.>" going for a little while longer post-March 2019, to avoid shock trauma in the UK and the EU. Once the deal is known, it's easy enough to determine what keeps going for a short while (what's in the deal) and what falls off the cliff on 29 March 2019 (what's not in the deal). Without a deal, everything falls off the cliff on 29 March 2019. Easy enough to understand, I'd have thought.

 

That's the beauty of familiarity with (national and EU) law and practice, given the fact that Brexit is a legal process first and foremost: the multifarious consequences of each different version of Brexit are fully mappable, and predictable by reason of same. Nothing to do with politics or other subjective concepts whatsoever: if no deal then white; if deal A (e.g. EEA), then this particular shade of grey; if deal B (e.g. no EEA, still CU), then that other particular shade of grey, <etc.>, if no Brexit then black.

 

That is how and why Barnier (i) can make his pronouncements 'mid-negotiation' and (ii) does not have to 'stand by' such pronouncement whatsoever: these pronouncements are fully based on the unavoidable legal effects of Brexiting and will happen irrespective (save perhaps for whatever form the deal eventually takes, for some of these pronouncements...if there is a deal).

 

I haven't thrown the towel in at all, btw: I'm still on here explaining real issues, what options and outcomes mean in practical terms for the UK. You can heed them or ignore them or challenge them. But you never get to claim that unfolding consequences (actual and to come) were unexpected.

but don't throw in the towel because Barnier makes some mid-negotiation pronouncements that he can't stand by.

It's the UK that threw the towel in alright. When the Commons voted to trigger Article 50 and May eagerly did the deed.

 

It's May and hard line Brexiters who are still not on-message, failing to understand on a very fundamental level what the EU is and how it works. Never more typified than by today's Times headline asking May to "exploit Markel's domestic political issues": those have sod all to do with the other EU25 who Barnier also represents, who have just as much of a veto about the exit deal, and their own self-interests, as Germany does.

 

Merkel's political issues actually make matters worse for the UK in the Brexit negotiations, because (i) it's Merkel and her party which have been keenest (amongst other German political movements) to achieve a 'good' Brexit for both the UK and Germany (and we can all witness how much that 'influence' is reaching, so far), and (ii) her inability to form a government slows down or even freezes Germany's capacity to change its position (as one of the EU26) in the negotiations. Regardless of her issues at home, Merkel will still be Chancellor by the 14 December Council meeting, btw. You really wouldn't want Schutz to replace her before 2019, either: now he's a hardline Brexiter (as in: cast the UK out yesterday, without a deal).

Brexit is happening and no amount of moaning from the sidelines is going to help anyone and you can surely differentiate political posturing from upcoming hard reality that all parties are going to have to compromise. The UK's compromise is giving the cash that the EU institutions need and the EU's compromise is accepting the cash and giving the UK what it wants. There's your very first trade deal right there.

Aside from the hand-waving wholly unrelated to the preceding paragraph of your post and the points I made [plus the fact I'm not 'moaning' (I really haven't got anything to moan about: haven't for a long time now ) but trying to focus minds, here]...How's that going so far?

 

We've had £20bn, now we've got £40bn.

 

That 'trade deal' of yours isn't sealed yet, either: looks to me like the UK blinked twice now. Up, up, up....

But we're out and that's it. No more single market, no more customs union, no more freedom of movement, and all that goes with it. This was all explicitly promised before the referendum, and it is what the majority voted for.

Oh boy, are you in for some disappointment! Edited November 21, 2017 by L00b

[melthebell]

I have not denied the generation after me anything, if they were that bothered then they could have, like me, actually voted and changed the outcome and I would have been fine with that

they did? wernt the younguns one of the largest groups that voted remain?

 

---------- Post added 21-11-2017 at 10:50 ----------

 

Channel tunnel renamed Getlink in preparation

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/20/eurotunnel-rebrand-getlink-brexit-channel-tunnel

Edited November 21, 2017 by melthebell

[Magilla]

No that's fine. You may find it hard to believe but myself and many others voted leave to be out of the EU and were not persuaded or conned by promises.

 

Some perhaps, but to suggest most leavers didn't believe them and were voting to make their lives worse is... fanciful.

 

The Leave campaign won because of the promises, there's simply no way to deny it, the Leave campaigns own post referendum analysis shows that is the case.

 

But they can just like manifesto promises can.

 

Nah, this government tried in the last budget and it seriously cost them... Breaking manifesto promises costs serious political capital, in this instance those promises are going to hang around like a bad smell if it goes badly for the UK economy.

 

Who says there will be significant social and political fallout if the promises (according to you) are not delivered.

 

The head of the NHS the other day mentioned the political fallout. There will be social fallout, the country is already split, if it doesn't go well many people will be looking for someone to blame, or at the very least to say "told you so".

 

I guess that could get quite annoying after the first 1000 times you hear it.

 

There is no reason to believe that those that voted leave will cause havoc if those so called promises are not met as most just want Brexit to happen.

 

Odd then that in the analysis by Vote Leave campaign director, Dominic Cummings, he comes to the conclusions that Britain would have voted to remain in the EU without those promises, and particularly the £350m NHS promise:-

 

 

Also, most people didn't vote to leave, they either voted to stay or were agnostic. Odd that you think they won't have a voice in all this.

 

Those people, with hand on heart and for good reason, will be looking for someone to blame their worsened situation if the promises aren't/can't be realised.

 

Parliament agreed Brexit will happen so the only fallout will be if Brexit is not delivered as it will enrage those who voted to leave.

 

That depends on what Brexit looks like in a years time.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Leaving the EU is a one-off event.

The future is (as always) unknown.

So let's see what it brings. Most guesses about anything in the future tend to be wrong!

[tinfoilhat]

Leaving the EU is a one-off event.

The future is (as always) unknown.

So let's see what it brings. Most guesses about anything in the future tend to be wrong!

 

No they arent.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

No they arent.

I guessed that someone would say so- hence you're at least partly right.

[I1L2T3]

Leaving the EU is a one-off event.

The future is (as always) unknown.

So let's see what it brings. Most guesses about anything in the future tend to be wrong!

 

You make it sound like we booked a hotel with some dodgy reviews on tripadvisor

 

The reality is this process could be leading a major country with 65 million people off an economic cliff

 

How can you not at least have a basic vision of where this process would lead

 

It’s crazy. Totally nuts.

[melthebell]

so are you Brexiteers happy with the latest news of buying our way into a deal?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42060183

 

maybe 40bn, twice as much as offered?

 

does this show that the EU needs us more? or does it show that Britain DOESNT hold most of the cards and is desperate for a deal?

[L00b]

Leaving the EU is a one-off event.

The future is (as always) unknown.

So let's see what it brings. Most guesses about anything in the future tend to be wrong!

I guess that's why Leavers never saw fit to provide a detailed breakdown of the advantages to Britain of leaving the EU?

 

I do mean detailed, not the usual vague "Oh we'll get great trade deals", "Oh we'll save money not spent on EU", "Oh we'll trade more with Asia the fastest growing economy" with no substance whatsoever.

 

Take trade deals as an example: the UK government admitted that they are not going to negotiate new trade deals, but try to push for the same deal they had while part of EU (obviously not realizing that the EU offered a significantly larger market for said country to give such a deal) and then, down the line, improve on it somehow.

 

So remove all trade deals, then go back and negotiate to try to get the same deal (as a 65m people economy instead of a 500m one) which you walked away from. And that is supposed to improve UK exports...how?

 

The last year is already littered with a litany of similar u-turns, broken promises and other climb-downs from imbecilic pre-referendum proclamations.

 

So hand-waving earlier predictions as "guesses" (and strongly suggesting as your post does, that they are uneducated) must be tiring, when these earlier predictions are now coming true at a rate of knots.

 

You've been with UKIP for years now, Jeffey. What's your plan for the after-Brexit time?

 

so are you Brexiteers happy with the latest news of buying our way into a deal?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42060183

 

maybe 40bn, twice as much as offered?

 

does this show that the EU needs us more? or does it show that Britain DOESNT hold most of the cards and is desperate for a deal?

May's offer (which she's been "authorised" to make: strong and stable alright! ) is just like haggling over a used car, when a figure plucked out of thin air is absolutely not what the EU is after: what the EU wants is commitment from the UK about which budget lines it will honour and which it will not, with room to manoeuvre for contingencies and discounts here and there.

 

Whatever the <actual> figure ends up being, after following the schedule agreed in the end, is whatever it happens to be: €20bn, €40bn, €60bn...

 

Nor does that answer the other 2 corners of the Stage 1 triangle: citizens' rights and NI border.

 

Back to the drawing board for you and your Brexiteers, Ms May. With the dunce hat.

Edited November 21, 2017 by L00b