Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[Yeekim]

Took their sweet sweet time.

So they can point their finger at Tories for all the mess no-deal will bring with itself and exonerate themselves, I guess.

 

[Hrothbern]

just as fun to read:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...d-brexit-united-ireland-second-referendum-dup

"The year is 2025 and the prime minister, David Lammy, has just phoned the Sinn Féin leader, Mary Lou McDonald, to congratulate her on victory in Ireland’s unification referendum. The deputy prime minister, Nicola Sturgeon, tweets that she hopes Scotland will follow suit in the referendum she secured at the last election for taking the Scottish National party into coalition with Labour. Gerry Adams gives the dedication as a statue of Jacob Rees-Mogg is unveiled in Crossmaglen. The Tory leader, Amber Rudd, refuses to publicly blame her predecessor Boris Johnson for the breakup of the union but, like the rest of what’s left of the country, she knows the truth.

As anyone involved in the Good Friday agreement will tell you, principles guarantee no deal. It’s why the current Brexit negotiations between the UK and itself are going so well. Theresa May has red lines, the European Research Group (ERG) has absolute red lines, the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) has blood-red lines, and Jeremy Corbyn has blurred lines featuring Pharrell. If they all hold firm, we’re heading for a hard Brexit. And a united Ireland."

 

[EnglishEdward]

This is just more of stupid...

A referendum by now will require an extension. An extension requires not only the Westminster manages to agree on it, but also that the EU accepts it. For the EU to accept it there might be some concessions required and it also requires that everyone agrees on the length of such an extension!

And if the extension is granted, the different choices in the referendum must be decided on – and also the number of choices!

In fact, some requirements for those choices might be a requirement for any side to approve of the extension, so then the referendum must also be fought out before an extension can be agreed on!

Quite so. It looks like it is goodbye on 29 March 2019.

 

[Ironsided]

So they can point their finger at Tories for all the mess no-deal will bring with itself and exonerate themselves, I guess.

Good and rightfully so. Tories owns the Brexit saga from start to finish. The fact the whimpering British public started flailing their frustrations in all directions is not making it any less so.

 

[Silurian]

Quite so. It looks like it is goodbye on 29 March 2019.

Where are you off too.

 

[Kyriakos]

Funny how the eu is so self-respecting (let alone respected by others or even its own members) that it still hopes uk will stay even despite obvious antipathy which will not go away.

 

[Arakhor]

May is now on her feet in Parliament lying as usual. She's apparently committing to extra votes if her deal fails just two weeks before Brexit Day and then has the gall to say that we can trust these commitments based on her prior record. Why the Commons didn't erupt into laughter, I don't know.

 

[Silurian]

@Arakhor there was laughter.

 

[Cheetah]

Now May will have a vote on an extension if her deal fails?

First, she will hold a “meaningful vote” on a deal by Tuesday 12 March.

Second, if the government does not win that vote, it will table a motion to be voted on by 13 March at the latest asking MPs if they approve leaving the EU with no deal.

Third, if MPs reject leaving with no deal in that vote, she will give them a vote on 14 March on whether parliament wants a short, limited extension to article 50. If MPs pass that motion, the government will seek to get that extension.

Does the UK government or UK MPs expect the EU to accept a two month extension??

The EU has considered going for a 21 month extension. Which means she'll have to go back to Parliament -- on the week Brexit happens!

Strong. and. Expletive. Stable!

 

[Arakhor]

@Arakhor there was laughter.

I just went and watched the video footage. You're right, but I was expecting much more for such bare-faced cheek.

 

[Hrothbern]

Now May will have a vote on an extension if her deal fails?



Does the UK government or UK MPs expect the EU to accept a two month extension??

The EU has considered going for a 21 month extension. Which means she'll have to go back to Parliament -- on the week Brexit happens!

Strong. and. Expletive. Stable!

lol
I had my own laughter about that !

It's still "my deal" or "no-deal"

That two months delay will hardly be enough for better preparations, the legislation hassle, etc.
anyway... the EU so far indicated not to accept a delay for just that......unless it was a very short delay of perhaps a week, two weeks.
But as such... why not ?

The twist I think to see is that third vote:
Yes would mean: Yes we want a no-deal with 2 months delay
But what means "no" on that third vote ?

First, she will hold a “meaningful vote” on a deal by Tuesday 12 March.

Second, if the government does not win that vote, it will table a motion to be voted on by 13 March at the latest asking MPs if they approve leaving the EU with no deal.

Third, if MPs reject leaving with no deal in that vote, she will give them a vote on 14 March on whether parliament wants a short, limited extension to article 50. If MPs pass that motion, the government will seek to get that extension.

 

[Silurian]

I just went and watched the video footage. You're right, but I was expecting much more for such bare-faced cheek.

Maniacal laughter often does not last long.

 

[Hrothbern]

Funny how the eu is so self-respecting (let alone respected by others or even its own members) that it still hopes uk will stay even despite obvious antipathy which will not go away.

Do you really think that the EU hopes that the UK will stay (highly divided as the UK is) ?

With all the idiocy of Westminster and Theresa May there is a feeling of sadness, like about a friend in problems leaving town because $%^&.... and an awarenes of damage and how to mitigate diminish that.

Are there articles in Greek newsmedia on the economical damage of Brexit on Greece ?
I guess not.
And yes, it will affect Greek students going to the UK and Greek immigrants.... but that's not economy. That's part of the European Project.

Does Greece hope that the UK stays in the EU for economical reasons ?
Or Estonia, or Finland, or most EU countries ?
There are only a few members really economically hurt as % of GDP: the smaller members near the UK..... do you hear them "hoping" on a Remain ?
What I hear, from their PM's and Ministers, is respect for a sovereign decision... and pointing out politely that a no-deal cliff edge would be "stupid" for everybody.

 

[EnglishEdward]

So they can point their finger at Tories for all the mess no-deal will bring with itself and exonerate themselves, I guess.

Yes; I rather think that is the Labour plan. More critically it also enables Jeremy Corbyn to appear to have tried to placate his Remainiac wing.

What I hear, from their PM's and Ministers, is respect for a sovereign decision... and pointing out politely that a no-deal cliff edge would be "stupid" for everybody.

That does't mean it won't happen.

The way I see it, the UK public (who bothered to vote) voted on balance to Leave despite all the ostensible circumstances (status quo, government propaganda etc)
being most favourable to a nominally Remain (really a proceed with unification of Europe and in the process abolish the UK) vote. The great majority of us would
prefer Leave with a deal, but the EU has not, is not and will not offer us a deal. Mrs May's so called deal is the European Commision's attempt to negate withdrawal.

It is unclear whether we will leave on 29 March 2019 or there will be some extension, abortive negotiations and possibly even a referendum; but it is about Leaving.

I doubt the House of Commons will vote to Leave without a Deal, but it does not matter; if the House of Commons does not vote to Remain or Vassilage, we Leave.

It will be chaotic and disruptive because the BINO government prevented planning for a No deal exit, for which many are now realising they will be blamed.

 

[Arakhor]

When I'm feeling particularly masochistic, I do sometimes wonder what BINO people consider a real deal, but since it will almost certainly be something along the lines of "give me all the benefits", I'm not sure I should bother asking.

 

[Kyriakos]

Now May will have a vote on an extension if her deal fails?



Does the UK government or UK MPs expect the EU to accept a two month extension??

The EU has considered going for a 21 month extension. Which means she'll have to go back to Parliament -- on the week Brexit happens!

Strong. and. Expletive. Stable!

21 months?

 

[AmazonQueen]

21 months?

So that they don't end up having to extend it another 2 months.
It would be better for business in both the EU and the UK to have at least some stability, although I fear businesses that have already decided to leave the UK or not invest here won't even consider changing their mind until after there is a final settlement.

 

[Hrothbern]

Hrothbern said: ↑
What I hear, from their PM's and Ministers, is respect for a sovereign decision... and pointing out politely that a no-deal cliff edge would be "stupid" for everybody.

That does't mean it won't happen.

It's all in the crystal ball.
Including the amount of the damage to the Tories.

The way I see it, the UK public (who bothered to vote) voted on balance to Leave despite all the ostensible circumstances (status quo, government propaganda etc)
being most favourable to a nominally Remain (really a proceed with unification of Europe and in the process abolish the UK) vote. The great majority of us would
prefer Leave with a deal, but the EU has not, is not and will not offer us a deal. Mrs May's so called deal is the European Commision's attempt to negate withdrawal.

It is unclear whether we will leave on 29 March 2019 or there will be some extension, abortive negotiations and possibly even a referendum; but it is about Leaving.

I doubt the House of Commons will vote to Leave without a Deal, but it does not matter; if the House of Commons does not vote to Remain or Vassilage, we Leave.

It will be chaotic and disruptive because the BINO government prevented planning for a No deal exit, for which many are now realising they will be blamed.

Such negotiations are neither a kindergarten nor a charity event.


For me the backstop solution on the Irish border issue proposed by the EU was good enough: NI in the (Ireland) trade EU-zone and the border to the UK in the Irish Sea: three ports involved with on average 9 inspections per day according to the rulebook.
Theresa May is the one who killed that and proposed as backstop to put the whole UK inside that special arrangement for that 2% of GDP that NI is.... and that is then the argument that the EU locked the UK in ?
With the original EU proposal accepted, we could have started in March/April 2018 already on a sound WTO split + the first steps for a FTA.
Anyway... we will for certain disagree on this.

My government got before the referendum an official report from the CPB giving some rough estimates on the posibble Brexit impact, likely scenarios and advices for our position in the negotiations/deliberations between the 27 PM's in the EU-28 Council.
(CPB, the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis and the government body to do the math etc on all the plans and moots of our Cabinet and political parties (or proposal plans from Civil Society and/or movements))

That report never assumed anything else to happen than WTO and 10 years negotiations to get a comprehensive FTA finished. Plus a warning to our PM that not every member would be that interested in a FTA. (=> some lobbying to do there for him, because NL is hit harder than most members: so he got a list of the damage per country + the NL economical sectors).

And no... that report was not written as a sneaky conspiracy report to influence the UK people or UK MP's. No fear mongering intended. Just our own damage report.
It was primarily for our PM and our Parliament, as a high level overview, based on a detailed economical math report made public at the same time.

Looking back at the report below... it is where we are now... and what did that report overlook beside the political issue of the Irish border ?

and I do not blame the EU at all that Theresa May choose a very bad and opaque position and handling of that 2 year Art 50 period.

Here below the executive summary and the chapter dismissing all the Brexit variants that kept Westminster MP's occupied.
It was Theresa May and Westminster struggling with their own positions towards that 52% who confused matters: with an agreement on the Withdrawal deal in March 2018, describing the WTO interim, all countries could have properly informed the businesses involved in trade and the UK-EU could have started the FTA talks.
And IF... if Westminster would not have a majority for that FTA, and a compromise with Labour was inevitably needed (that Customs Union), imo the EU would have gladly changed tack for a Customs Union, already in March 2018. It would have put much less pressure on a lot of investments in the UK especially around the "just in time" car industry needing that Customs Union.



The part of the report Google translated:

Summary
A Brexit will hit the economy of the Netherlands relatively hard because the Dutch economy, compared to the EU, more with the United economy Kingdom (UK) is intertwined through trade.
In 2030 the costs for the Netherlands may rise to 1.2% of GDP, which amounts to some 10 billion euros. If we comply with recent conditions images from literature also assume that growth depends on trade-driven innovation,
then the costs for the Netherlands of 10 billion euros can even be 65% higher.

The majority of British voters can choose to leave the EU. We take that in that case the actual exit of the UK from the EU will take two years. In addition, there will be a process of (re) negotiating possible for the UK trade agreements. This process will take a number of years, with the result that there is over the next few years there is uncertainty about the end point of the relationship between the EU and the UK. This will affect business. The economic damage due to this uncertainty is the largest in the short term and is already visible in the run-up to the referendum.

After a possible Brexit, the UK will become less attractive as a gateway to the EU foreign investments. The EU can benefit from this because foreign investments move from the UK to other countries within the EU. Larger losses in the UK and the EU only occur in the long term due to adjustments the economy, caused by the rise in trade costs and non-tariff trade barriers between the UK and the EU. Non-tariff trade barriers arise from differences in technical specifications or environmental requirements to which traded products must meet before they can be sold within the EU.

The Dutch costs of the Brexit are sector-specific. The 'other transport' sectors and 'Transport vehicles' are not very sensitive to a Brexit, because they are more with the EU than be connected to the UK. But this does not apply to the chemical, plastic and chemical sectors rubber ',' electronic equipment ',' motor vehicles and parts', 'food processing' industry 'and' metal and minerals' (together 12% of Dutch GDP). There will be production losses there of about 5%. This production loss can be reduced by 40% brought by a new free trade agreement with the UK.

After a possible Brexit there are several options regarding trade agreements between the UK and the EU. On the one hand, there is the fall-back option, namely the standard WTO regulation. This is a scheme whereby the UK has to comply with the higher external EU rates. If the UK also decides to use its own standards and regulations that deviate of those in the EU, non-tariff barriers to trade arise. On the other hand, there is the possibility to come to a new free trade agreement that substantially lowers trade costs. Such a treaty bypasses trade tariffs and states standards and regulation are firmly established where the UK and the EU must comply. The treaty howevert will not be able to restore full access to the internal market.
If the EU and the UK can come to a free trade agreement, the economic consequences of Brexit for the Netherlands will be about 20% lower. An important element of such a FTA is that non-tariff barriers to trade increase by only 6% instead of the 13% increase in the WTO scheme, the second element of the Free trade agreement is that the trade tariffs on goods between EU and UK remain absent.

A new free trade agreement poses a dilemma for the EU. On the one hand, the EU wants prevent a precedent action from the Brexit or that there is free shopping becomes the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership. It will therefore cost the to make the exit as large as possible. On the other hand, the EU itself is also confronted with higher costs and a new trade treaty makes these costs for the EU - but thus also for the outgoing country - smaller. Moreover, the costs of Brexit are relatively low for countries from Eastern and Southern Europe, because they are less connected to the UK. These countries therefore benefit less from a new free trade agreement than the Netherlands, Ireland or Belgium.
It could also be that those countries that have a major economic interest in a new free trade agreement with the UK, do not get the support of all EU countries.


2. After the Brexit: WTO or FTA
With a Brexit, the UK will lose free access to the internal EU market after two years goods, services and people. The UK will also fall outside the trade agreements that the EU with third countries. Trade to and from the UK will only be on the conditions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). But the UK and the EU can choose to make certain agreements about access to the internal EU market. In addition, the UK can conclude new trade agreements with non-EU countries. A number of scenarios are conceivable that allow different access to the internal EU market. The options that give the most access (EEA and customs union) are probably not acceptable for the 'leave' camp, because interference by the EU in the UK keeps existing. This leaves two possible scenarios: a free trade agreement (Free Trade Agreement or FTA for short) or the standard fallback option whereby the UK is a member remains of the WTO, but otherwise does not regulate.

European Economic Area (EEA): A number of European non-EU countries have signed a treaty with the EU that in more or less degree of access to the internal market. Countries like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) and are free to do so movement of goods, capital, services and persons within the EU. In exchange for this these countries make a substantial contribution to the EU budget and have to comply with the European budget standards and regulations, without being able to influence future amendments.
Joining the EEA is probably not negotiable for the proponents of one Brexit. The proponents do not want to make any more payments to the EU budget. They do not want it EU interference in UK regulations. And they want the UK to own migration does not and does not accept a treaty that allows free movement of persons between the UK and the EU arranges.

Customs union or bilateral trade agreements Switzerland and Turkey have a more limited treaty with the EU. Turkey has a customs Union with free movement of goods and a uniform trade policy compared to third countries.
Switzerland has signed a dozen agreements with the EU (including Schengen) that it access to the internal EU market in certain sectors. In addition, it has more then two hundred trade agreements are concluded. Because of these agreements, Switzerland is close linked to EU law, but can not cooperate with European decision. Switzerland also contributes to the EU budget. For similar reasons as in the case of the EEA this option does not therefore fit the wishes of the 'leave camp'.

The Turkish option is not advantageous for the UK. Agricultural products and services are excluded the internal market and Turkey must comply with EU law, without any control over the rules. Turkey also needs to join with EU policies on trade agreements; it can not conclude its own trade agreements with third countries. The proponents of a Brexit wants the UK to no longer be bound by EU standards and regulations, and want the UK to be able to determine its own trade policy. This therefore also excludes the Turkish model.

So two scenarios remain:
1. World Trade Organization (WTO)
If the UK does not regulate anything, then the UK will fall under the rules of the WTO. Because there is no precedent for this scenario, it is unclear whether the UK automatically remains a member of the WTO. It remains to be seen whether the agreements with third countries, which the UK has as a member of the EU closed, stay upright. If the latter is not the case, then it will be for the UK a lot harder, because it has to start long and complex negotiations with the WTO and new agreements must conclude with 58 non-EU countries.

We assume that the UK will remain a WTO member and that trade agreements with third parties countries remain. The UK will have to comply with the external EU rates. We assume that these will be approximately 3% across the board, comparable to the rates that the EU uses with the other countries. These trade tariffs lower trade See the conversation that the Director-General Azevêdo of the WTO had with the Financial Times on May 26, 2016. link between the UK and the EU. The UK does not have to adhere to the standards and regulations from the EU. But there will also be non-tariff barriers to trade arise, which increases the trade costs for goods by 13%. Also the costs of trade in services will increase by about 13% .

2. Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
The UK can conclude a free trade agreement with the EU, making tariff barriers bypasses. The treaty regulates the standards and regulations to which the UK and the EU apply must keep. An agreement does not ecessarily mean full access for services (including financial services). In our calculations, we assume that the UK and the EU do not have any trading tariffs impose. An FTA treaty will only be part of all standards and regulations
the UK is free to deviate from EU rules. That's why we assume that there will arise so-called not immediately visible trade barriers. It goes with this to differences in technical specifications or environmental requirements for traded products must meet. We assume that these trade costs for goods increase by 6%. The costs of trade in services (such as tourism, financial services) also start our calculations with an average of 6% up.

https://www.cpb.nl/sites/default/fi...erlandse-kosten-Brexit-door-minder-handel.pdf

 

[Yeekim]

Good and rightfully so. Tories owns the Brexit saga from start to finish. The fact the whimpering British public started flailing their frustrations in all directions is not making it any less so.

Indeed. Although the image of Corbyn playing violin on the Titanic remains painfully accurate despite this last-minute stunt.

 

[Kyriakos]

If a 21 month expansion is actually the eu 's idea (and not just a typo) then would it coincide with the end of current gov time line?
At any rate imo the suggestion is beyond ridiculous. Pretending & extending.