it would coincide with the end of the current EU multiannual financial framework (2014-2020) which would alleviate a lot of anxiety about the UK having to pay for the budget items they agreed on...
Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?
- Thread starter uppi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit europe united kingdom
- Status
It coincides with the current EU budget neatly solving one issue, should the UK pay what it had already agreed to.
It is not likely anyone in the uk cares about staying until that timeline ends. Do you honestly think any party in the uk bothers with that bit? Either the uk pays or not, no one would seriously care to stay up until the time paid for officially ends.
On the other hand, nearing a new election is something potentially decisive and putting more pressure as well as dealing a hand to all kinds of remain aspirations and politicians basing their existence on such.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
Demanding that a country create an internal border as part of trade deal is totally unacceptable. That demand was meant to be rejected.
Why did they assume this?
The issue was what would be part of a customs union. The EU was demanding that the UK automatically accept any and all EU legislation and regulations, which was really a BINO, and would be politically impossible to maintain in the UK.
I know Corbyn kept talking about a customs union, but it was talk for the domestic politics, to "avoid splitting the party". It couldn't be done.
It was that or break the Good Friday Agreement.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
No it wasn't. The GFA does not set an open border for the EU, only that the UK and Republic of Ireland will allow each other's citizens in Ireland unimpeded crossing and the right to work across the border and be mostly treated as a local.
The UK leaving the EU does not prevent the UK from fulfilling its obligations under the GFA. Whether the RoI will fulfill hers is a problem for them to sort out with the EU.
Last edited:
You know well that the good Friday agreement doesn't cover goods because the single market already existed and the parties didn't need to and practically couldn't as it was an EU competence.
You know that the UK is required to control its border or risk being in default of WTO rules.
You know well that the UK is the one changing the relationship, the UK is the one with the disputed region that it has had to deploy troops into.
I'm not sure why I bothered to type that out - you just don't care - the EU is always wrong.
For what it's worth the GFA doesn't even do what you claim - the right to live work and passport free travel predates it by a lot.
Corbyn was talking about his 6 points and a comprehensive Customs Union.
How much was politics is difficult to judge from a distance.
A limited Customs Union, limited in scope of products, strict (no "have your cake and eat it"), will however do a lot of good for the UK.
And ofc for that same scope the UK loses it freedom in FTA agreement with others: a product is free or in the customs union.
The Car Industry does come under huge pressure without "just in time" transport and when burdened with tariffs. There are some other industries as well that are very interwoven.
A developed country without a car industry (most countries in the world), has a trading balance issue !!! => Has a current account issue, has a currency issue.
Do consider: the level of prosperity of developed countries means that the people want their car (import), their TV set, their PC like stuff, their smart phone (import from Korea, Asia), their energy (for now fossil imports), their cheap footwear, clothing (Asian import), etc, etc.
=> any developed country starts with an sizable amount of import as % of GDP.
=> and is forced to have or to develop economical sectors capable to export with sizable comparative advantages !!!
Without real domestic perks, or with too little perks compared to the size of your population, you have to "force" your economy to have them.
Developed countries with some special mineral resources, in logistical advantegeous locations, with some (historical) high level & high economy of scale activity, attractive for tourism, etc, etc have some leeway. And if not (enough), the only choices left are decreasing your labor cost for export (with your currency devaluation and not austerity), increasing your investments in humans and capital AND build up economy of scale in some high-level niche, or hook off from the first league of consumerism prosperity (currency devaluation) to wall off for your people the expensive levels of latest luxury models of TV's, PC's, cars etc, etc.
The UK needs about 2.5 million cars per year and builds around 1.5-2.0 million cars per year (with some import of components).
Considering all the attached jobs and techs of automotive suppliers, considering all the (innovation, productivity) synergies with the rest of metal industry... keeping or losing your car industry is a pivotal choice.
As from an earlier post: trade nowadays, especially between neighboring regions, countries, is no longer dominated by some mineral resources for industry and completed products for consumers.
B2B components and related services cross border all the time. The 60% UK import needed for their domestic economy, the UK export for for 30% components made from import.
Proximity, called gravity are enabling more niche B2B trade and enabling (faster, cheaper) more innovation synergies, increasing the level and efficiency of the economies.
This is the very reason that economical activities are more and more clustering since decades: gravity slowly pulling the activities closer to each other. Far away dots more likely to be closed, start-ups more likely close to clusters.
With a Customs Union you can specify which products are part of that union and which not. This happens with the EU-Turkey Customs Union.
The EU will certainly not want to create another complicated paper and high maintenance monstrum like with Switzerland, but if this Customs Union scope is very clearly limited (for the UK minus NI) it is do-able.
But restricted to car industry and car components (NOT the equipment to assemble and produce components) as part of a normal FTA, this is doable and very important for the UK.
Aerospace (from military to civil and aircraft engines) is also interwoven. It could be considered for a Customs Union, but the recent issues around Saudi Arabia show that the difference in geopolitical human rights & peace positioning could already be a problem too big to want to engage there.
Chemical industry is strongly interwoven: could be considered, also because of the high innovation synergies. Medicin production industry adjacent.
Even making a "simple" comprehensive FTA, means going into all these details with high involvement of your domestic companies and civil servants responsible for industrial government policies. And if that is restricted to just the Big Corporates that get all the newsmedia, you screwed long term your domestic economy, because so many of the benefits is coming from smaller, often niche companies, often strategic suppliers of big companies, often the start ups for new sub-sectors, and so much of the innovation synergies is coming from those small companies.
Here a recent article of Reuters where UK industry is proposing a limited Customs Union.
Whereby I do not believe it will work for food, unless the UK gives up its self-determination on food (no Singapore food deals) and just hooks on to the EU train on food including the ECJ etc (economical, human standards, UK business) it would be common sense, but considering the hyped politics at the moment not wise to add to that Customs Union for now.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...-solve-brexit-impasse-employers-idUSKCN1G0010
Last edited:
Gossip, a feint, or real ?
The Tories are accumulating party donations. Word is that meetings are held to prepare for elections (during the last months).
The last election was June 2017. This means the next normal election is due June 2022. (5 years).
This leaves after a May-deal or a no-deal on March 29 a window of 3 years for the running Tory government to get decent level WTO deals fitting the Tory policies and strategies with trade partners. The same for simple FTA deals with bigger trading partners.
However, for FTA deals that 3 years is really short to get good deals and the other countries will use that deadline.
How do the Tories maximise their influence on the future UK and solidify that into WTO and FTA deals, transforming domestic policies alligned to that, locking in the UK in that Tory future ?
One way would be to hold new snap elections, extending that 3 year window to a 5 year window of Tory control over the future in a pivotal transformation phase for the UK.
Because of rules the Tories cannot force themselves elections and need help of Labour.
But can Labour refuse ?
And would the Tories take the risk of losing elections ?
(they have that 3-year control in their pocket)
The Tories are accumulating party donations. Word is that meetings are held to prepare for elections (during the last months).
The last election was June 2017. This means the next normal election is due June 2022. (5 years).
This leaves after a May-deal or a no-deal on March 29 a window of 3 years for the running Tory government to get decent level WTO deals fitting the Tory policies and strategies with trade partners. The same for simple FTA deals with bigger trading partners.
However, for FTA deals that 3 years is really short to get good deals and the other countries will use that deadline.
How do the Tories maximise their influence on the future UK and solidify that into WTO and FTA deals, transforming domestic policies alligned to that, locking in the UK in that Tory future ?
One way would be to hold new snap elections, extending that 3 year window to a 5 year window of Tory control over the future in a pivotal transformation phase for the UK.
Because of rules the Tories cannot force themselves elections and need help of Labour.
But can Labour refuse ?
And would the Tories take the risk of losing elections ?
(they have that 3-year control in their pocket)
Will the erg (acronym for elect reese-mogg) gain anything by this?
I doubt the tories are fit to run for re-election.
The secure way forward for the Brexiteer Tories is to get the May-deal + that 3-year window in control.
Rees-Mogg is already back-peddling from his theological purity against the backstop. Better 1 bird in your hand than 10 in the sky.
In exchange he demands in public internal Tory elections for a new Tory PM (May can have "her" deal if she resigns).
But to your question more explicitly: I just don't know. It would depend also on whether a new Tory PM favored by Rees-Mogg is the good kind of profile for a general election.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Frankly, i still don't see Brexit happening.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
The right to work does not predate the GFA by a lot. It was a very contentious issue for a long time. It still may be for citizens of the RoI.
That right is implicitly guaranteed in the (rather short) text of the GFA as both governments "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."
As NI natural can hold both nationalities they can avoid any legal barriers to employment and are not subject to restrictions. This however does not avoid problems such as delays on border crossings that do place practical difficulties to people working across the border. But prior agreements that are not threatened (at least by the UK) also keep that freedom of movement in place.
The UK leaving the EU by itself in no way undermines the provisions of the GFA.
As for alleged WTO rules, that is false. It it were true then countries such as Canada or Japan (or indeed the EU) could not do "trade deals" either, favoring certain countries over others. Controls can be "eased if a deal is done, and a deal for these issues can very easily be signed. It hasn't already because the EU wants to extract far more from the UK.
As for the UK keeping troops in a territory that is an integral part of the UK, I don't see how that is a problem. But then again I'm big on states being sovereign on their own territory. The RoI has already relinquished its stupid claim over the territory hasn't it?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I don't think you could have any more strongly how little you understand the situation in Northern Ireland if you'd pointed at a mural of King Billy and asked "so that's the Pope, then, is it?"
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
Yes, I think their plan is to hold another GA shortly after a no deal brexit. And depict Labour as a party incapable of leading the UK outside the EU as it fought (or was supposed to fight) to keep it within. That has been the plan of a large faction within the conservatives for a long time. Not all is going according to plan, Corbyn is not fighting very much to keep the UK inside the EU so far.
What is the situation then?
Rees-Mogg is part of that group. They will have their brexit without a deal. The one interests group within the UK that might have told some of them to stand down has already secured what it wanted from the EU. Politics until the exit is just a game of taking credit and not taking blame.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The Nationalists feel very strongly that they are Irish, to the exclusion of being British. The Unionists feel very strongly that they are British, to the exclusion of being Irish. (At least, not without strong qualification.) Declaring that both communities can simply enjoy the benefits of dual-citizenship seems to suggest, not simply that you're unsure why people might feel strongly enough about this that it should lead to armed conflict, but that you don't quite grasp that they do.
Last edited:
- Status
