Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[Lillefix]

Three Conservatives have quit.

From ITV



https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-20...-leave-party-and-join-ex-labour-independents/

Even including DUP she barely has a majority now.

 

[EnglishEdward]

There was always the possibility of a realignment in UK politics into pro independence and pro EU parties.

However in my view the most appropriate time for that realignment to occur was last year.

Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn and their parties may be concerned of further defections yet to come.

And they will likely recognise that any seeking of an extension regarding Article 50 simply provides
more time for their respective parties to collapse in the UK's House of Commons.

Therefore, unless there is a massive immediate cascade of resignations, the most likely consequence
of the formation of the "The Independent Group" is to harden the resolve for the UK to proceed to
Leave the European Union as scheduled on 29 March 2019.

 

[Hrothbern]

We need an internationally agreed way to deal with the people who dodge taxation on this level. Its spreading rapidly and it is decimating the smaller nations.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/

yes and no

We need a two-pronged approach.
The one prong with consensus international agreements, that cover all countries, and these initiatives will be obstructed without end. With now and then crumbs to satisfy the crowds.
The slow grinding mills of God, just like the Mueller investigation. Getting the rule of law updated, enforcing the rule of law with independant power.

The other prong to the small dots is doing what is self-evident right. And those dots stand no chance to escape, to defend really, except from the help they get in some opaque way from big power entities.
But politically this opaque defense is difficult.

When Monaco is attacked the government of France will be inclined to whine about local French economy benefitting so much from the rich in Monaco (the jobs, the maintenance, the construction companies, etc, etc)
But that is still much more easy than attack the full range of abuse in one of the big financial centres in one of the big countries.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The information is there but it is not used for opinion polls, just in case of double votes and the like.

From the Independent



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-election-2015-explained-voting-10227175.html

I'm sure it's fine then...

 

[Hrothbern]

There was always the possibility of a realignment in UK politics into pro independence and pro EU parties.

However in my view the most appropriate time for that realignment to occur was last year.

Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn and their parties may be concerned of further defections yet to come.

And they will likely recognise that any seeking of an extension regarding Article 50 simply provides
more time for their respective parties to collapse in the UK's House of Commons.

Therefore, unless there is a massive immediate cascade of resignations, the most likely consequence
of the formation of the "The Independent Group" is to harden the resolve for the UK to proceed to
Leave the European Union as scheduled on 29 March 2019.

I guess there is a chance that this re-allignment goes further than this Brexit and independence issue.
I think it is also about leadership style and politics versus common sense to find a way out together.
Still indeed very much related to Brexit. And perhaps the group will evaporate again when the "job" is done or they failed.

As I already said: let's see how the voters polls go.... once the feeling is there that an Independent Group has a fair chance on getting 30% of the votes, the landscape will change. The psychological hurdle effect of FPTP will be lessened. Give it a try.
I stick meanwhile at a possible 30% of the Labour votes and with these three Conservatives in the game as well another 20% of the Tory votes.
Including 50% of the LibDem votes, that is 25%.

Perhaps it is time for May and Corbyn to enjoy a cup of tea together, in order to save their bipolar world, their own parties... and as side effect a less disruptive Brexit.

 

[Silurian]

I'm sure it's fine then...

Hopefully!
They could obviously find out how some individuals voted under cover of a voter fraud inquiry but they would not be able to do it on a large scale.
The constituency returning officers (people who look after the ballot) must talk to each other so if there were voter fraud inquiries every where it would get out.

Central government could get a fair idea how most people voted by monitoring phones, internet etc and far fewer people would know.

 

[777]

So fragile and self-assured. How can anyone resist this kitten? Well, images of the T-May would do it.

Run! T-May is comming! Roar!

 

[Silurian]

From The Guardian

The European Medicines Agency has lost a high court battle to cancel its £500m long-term office lease in London to move to Amsterdam because of Brexit.

It had argued that the lease on its Canary Wharf HQ had been “frustrated” by Britain’s impending departure from the EU, a legal term meaning that owing to an unforeseen event, the basis on which the contract was signed had changed, making it impossible to fulfil.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-agency-loses-bid-to-end-uk-lease-over-brexit

I wonder what impact this ruling will have on other contracts that are effected by Brexit. Will a just in time supplier be unable to avoid penalties if the ferries are disrupted if they can not show that they have made provision to avoid disruption since they have had three years to prepare.

I assume the £500 million bill will be added to the exit bill.

 

[Hrothbern]

From The Guardian



https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-agency-loses-bid-to-end-uk-lease-over-brexit

I wonder what impact this ruling will have on other contracts that are effected by Brexit. Will a just in time supplier be unable to avoid penalties if the ferries are disrupted if they can not show that they have made provision to avoid disruption since they have had three years to prepare.

I assume the £500 million bill will be added to the exit bill.

What I saw in the small print of the Withdrawal deal of March 2018 regarding that divorce bill, that roughly 39 Billion, this kind of situations AFAIK was not covered.
For the EMA I do not expect that to change (I guess as well that the EMA will rent it to others and probably at a loss but not that 500 million over those 25 years. It was a lease back construction).

What it means for companies in general IDK. I guess it will fall under the Act of God clause, unless specifically insured or hedged.

 

[innonimatu]

Will a just in time supplier be unable to avoid penalties if the ferries are disrupted if they can not show that they have made provision to avoid disruption since they have had three years to prepare.

In that specific case I don't think they should be able to avoidt contractual penalties. They knew the risk existed for more than a year, and that kind of contract does not seem to be done so far ahead. Many probably already covered for it in recent contracts.

Perhaps it is time for May and Corbyn to enjoy a cup of tea together, in order to save their bipolar world, their own parties... and as side effect a less disruptive Brexit.

If they do come together, if if they are already, it's not for a less disruptive brexit. Each on its own way wants a disruptive brexit.

 

[Silurian]

What it means for companies in general IDK. I guess it will fall under the Act of God clause, unless specifically insured or hedged.

The trouble it is not an act of god it is a foreseeable event. People have been predicting problems with ferries for years.

In that specific case I don't think they should be able to avoidt contractual penalties. They knew the risk existed for more than a year, and that kind of contract does not seem to be done so far ahead. Many probably already covered for it in recent contracts.

I would not be surprised if many legal departments will be looking at their contracts to see what the risk is, if they have not already done so.

 

[Kyriakos]

Canary wharf, huh? Oh well, it can always relocate to the versailles palace.
500 million lease- austerity is tough. Better move it to nl that was hit so hard and all.

 

[Hrothbern]

Farrage has in mind to call his new political party, to replace UKIP that goes too much fringe with anti-Islam, just Brexit.
But as it looks now, the Tories are becoming that (hard) Brexit party when it comes to a no-deal exit on March 29.
It will depend very much on whether about one-third of the Tories will decide to battle from within the party the hard-Brexiteers striking global Singapore deals after a no-deal, or battle as independents.
And if only 10 of those 100 Tory MP's move out... I guess new elections are inevitable.

Two senior Conservatives have said they are ready to resign from the party if it does not change its direction on Brexit, after three of their colleagues joined eight former Labour MPs in a breakaway group in parliament.
The former attorney general Dominic Grieve and the former education secretary Justine Greening both said they would leave the Conservatives if there was a no-deal Brexit, as the three ex-Tory MPs said a third of the party could be willing to join them.
Greening said she would stay in the party “for the moment”. Asked if she would join the Independent Group, she said: “It is something that I’ve considered, but I’ve reached a different conclusion for the moment. I want to challenge my own party. I think we can step up to the plate. I know that many activists and members of parliament feel exactly as I do on social mobility.”

She told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “If we simply become the Brexit party, then I do not believe we have a successful future ahead of us …. I don’t think I would be able to stay part of a party that was a Brexit party that had crashed us out of the European Union.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...esign-if-may-fails-to-change-brexit-direction

 

[Silurian]

New elections are only inevitable if the defectors decide to support a no confidence vote. They may think that it is better to fight the government rather than put everything on hold for six weeks.

If there is an election it is the Lib Dems have indicated that it is likely that they would not contest their seats.

 

[Hrothbern]

New elections are only inevitable if the defectors decide to support a no confidence vote. They may think that it is better to fight the government rather than put everything on hold for six weeks.

If there is an election it is the Lib Dems have indicated that it is likely that they would not contest their seats.

yes

I saw that election first of all after a no-deal exit, even if more leave before March 29.
And when it would come to a May deal Brexit (FTA) and the majority of the Tories would go to much in the direction of Singapore like FTA's, and those on-third Tories feel they cannot win the internal fight to mitigate extremes (after all in the internal Tory vote they are outnumbered), they can decide at that moment to leave and force elections.

 

[EnglishEdward]

New elections are only inevitable if the defectors decide to support a no confidence vote. They may think that it is better to fight the government rather than put everything on hold for six weeks.

If there is an election it is the Lib Dems have indicated that it is likely that they would not contest their seats.

Quite so.

And I understand that the three conservative defectors are Remainers in Leave voting constituencies.

I can not see the sense in them voting for a no confidence motion,
and likely lose their seats and three years steady money pay as MPs.

The real question is whether they will be joined by many others very soon.

 

[Hrothbern]

And I understand that the three conservative defectors are Remainers in Leave voting constituencies.

Which makes crystal clear that it is not a move for their self-interest: they say what they say and do what they do because of what they believe is good for the national interest.

The real question is whether they will be joined by many others very soon.

Yes
These three have taken the front line of the phalanx and will get all the first blows.
The rest can follow behind their shield wall.
Perhaps right after the no-deal March 29, perhaps when the first month's chaos and tough free marketeer statements of the Rees-Mogg group made opinions among the people change enough.

 

[Silurian]

@EnglishEdward
Well the South Hams which is mostly coincides with Sarah Wolleston's Totnes constituency voted 53% remain. Her Constituency also includes Brixham, a fishing port, which most likely voted leave. There have been a lot of people joining the Conservative Party to deselct Wolleston and others. It does look like Labours problems with militant in the 80s.

 

[EnglishEdward]

yes

I saw that election first of all after a no-deal exit, even if more leave before March 29.

I agree that is the most likely outcome.

And when it would come to a May deal Brexit (FTA) and the majority of the Tories would go to much in the direction of Singapore like FTA's, and those on-third Tories
feel they cannot win the internal fight to mitigate extremes (after all in the internal Tory vote they are outnumbered), they can decide at that moment to leave and force elections.

I do not think that there is any majority in the House of Commons for FTAs, WTO tariffs or even rollover of EU tariffs.

Stepping outside the EU-UK relationship, global exporters (and importers) have already put goods in ships that will not arrive before 29 March 2019.

While they can hedge against changes in the exchange rates, I do not believe that there is any clear mechanism for hedging against uncertain tariffs.

It is a strange business putting a car in a ship in South Korea and sending it to the UK, or vice-versa, without knowing what import tariff will apply
upon its arrival. This particular uncertainty has already contributed to a decline in orders, and therefore UK manufacturing output, as reflected in
December 2018 (after a surge to beat the 29 March delivery date); and I suspect that it is now much more drastically impacting Quarter 1 of 2019.

I doubt that there will be time to negotiate and sign off FTAs; so countries such as Japan or South Korea that have by and large not paid much
attention to Liam Fox's lot on the assumption that the UK would remain in the EU customs union for years; may find that each of them (and not
the UK) may have a very simple choice: (i) agree with UK to roll over current EU tariffs OR (ii) have the standard WTO tariffs apply.

At this stage Japan will likely decode that 0% tariffs on food imports and 0% tariffs on car exports is very good for them, particularly as the UK exports
very little food to Japan. In this circumstance a WTO traiff of 10% on cars would be better for the UK as it would disincentivise the Japanese from
abandoning UK manufacturing. However the not very bright, Liam Fox, has already gone down the wrong track trying to mirror the EU-Japan deal.

 

[Hrothbern]

I do not think that there is any majority in the House of Commons for FTAs, WTO tariffs or even rollover of EU tariffs.

Will a decision on a new made WTO tariff list need a parliamentary approval ?

On Liam Fox
(I do not really get the impression he is competent in anything)

That list is extremely important.
(Note: Tariff % of such a WTO tariff list applies to all trading partners equally, unless a FTA is made)
Once you have made it and do not make any FTA's on top, you can "easily" change it. But once you start making many FTA's, you have to renegotiate every FTA with every change of your base WTO tariff list.

The whole idea of FTA's is a lowering of a specific tariff of a specific productgroup of your partner to improve your own export to that country for that specific product.... in exchange for lowering one of your own tariffs for a specific product of your partner to improve his export for that product. These FTA's allow in fact for unfair competition, making distinctions between countries, but in a regulated way, satisfying a very practical need of everybody.
For example:
You need import of beef and have a surplus of whisky you want to export... you put a high tariff barrier on beef... and you only reduce that tariff in a FTA with a country willing to reduce its tariff on whisky.
=> a zero % WTO tariff list means that no-one is going to reduce its import tariff on whisky and everybody is going to flood your market with beef. => beef is cheap and whisky export is screwed.
In general: a zero tariff list does not give any protection to your domestic economy and you have no leverage to export from a FTA. => all domestic sectors go down and disappear except those few sectors that are competitive on a global scale (the Singapore model)
In general: a too low set of percentages on that WTO tariff list (like the EU list), does not belong to a smaller country (the UK) but can only be used by big economies (economy of scale effect) or narrow specialists (Singapore).

Is that strategic long term decision (on the domestic economy's character and future !) in the hands of a Liam Fox ?

It is a strange business putting a car in a ship in South Korea and sending it to the UK, or vice-versa, without knowing what import tariff will apply
upon its arrival. This particular uncertainty has already contributed to a decline in orders, and therefore UK manufacturing output, as reflected in
December 2018 (after a surge to beat the 29 March delivery date); and I suspect that it is now much more drastically impacting Quarter 1 of 2019.

This is a really weird situation. The same happened with the Trump trade wars with soy etc.
The also big effect on the Pound value can be hedged, but not the tariffs.
Impact in Q1 yes, but not really biting I guess.

At this stage Japan will likely decode that 0% tariffs on food imports and 0% tariffs on car exports is very good for them, particularly as the UK exports
very little food to Japan. In this circumstance a WTO traiff of 10% on cars would be better for the UK as it would disincentivise the Japanese from
abandoning UK manufacturing. However the not very bright, Liam Fox, has already gone down the wrong track trying to mirror the EU-Japan deal.

As already said... Liam Fox, the UK should not mirror the EU WTO list for permanent purposes. The UK economy is differing too much from the average EU economy.
The only quick fix advantage of mirroring is getting easier/faster deals and going towards zero tariff makes the hick up smaller for the price increases for the lower income groups and the inflation going up.
An understandable argument in Westminster politics, but it is a too bad foundation for a new trading strategy. Changing that quick fix list in a relatively short period will only make future trading partners adding risk factors on their future FTA deals with the UK.