Brexit Thread VI - The Knockout Phase ?!?

[uppi]

My thoughts:
Johnson moves the backstop border back to the Irish sea, goes for a Free Trade Agreement for the rest of the UK, then goes for a general election having delivered Brexit to be rid of the DUP and the Brexit party.

The above is based on nothing of substance other than it is what I would try to do to keep power.

The intentions could be negotiated in the political declaration - but the withdrawal agreement would have to be passed.

I don't think he can do that as long as he depends on the DUP to keep him in power.

 

[Cheetah]

I find it highly unlikely, seeing how arrogant and detached from reality the Tory Brexiteers are, but it would be the best move to secure a Brexit.

Labour isn't doing well in the polls either, and could probably accept such a Brexit and make them not vote for no confidence until Brexit is over. That would make the DUP irrelevant.

 

[really]

He would probably need a few votes/abstentions from Labour and yes the deal with the DUP would be dead but I imagine Labour would be happy to take the wind out of the Brexit party's sails too.

The deal with the DUP being dead wouldn't matter all that much if he is going for a general election straight after.

 

[Cheetah]

I moved my reply to the Brexit thread. Hope you don't mind.

This analogy doesn't make much sense to me. Brexit is supposed to be a negotiation between the UK and the EU. Failing to prepare for all the potential outcomes of the negotiation is irresponsible, and gives the EU massive leverage as the UK will need to avoid at all costs the outcome it hasn't prepared for.

(Please remember that while I think the UK is harming itself in leaving the EU, I think the EU will be better off with the UK out and in a close relationship, so I would really prefer that Brexit went through.)

It's true that in general, all outcomes should be prepared for. As such, Cameron was an irresponsible fool not to prepare for Brexit winning marginally – or even by a landslide – in the referendum.

However, there is always a context. In this case, there is a fully viable fallback option: cancelling Brexit*. Granted, this would be far less than politically ideal for certain people, but the UK's current political situation within the EU isn't really bad, all things considered. Especially when considered against the situation of a no-deal. If the UK Parliament is unable to agree on what they want, and thus being unable to negotiate with the EU – or even just make a consistent, non-ridiculous statement of what the want, then wouldn't the prudent thing be to cancel Brexit*, calm down, and first agree on what they want?

Actually "preparing" for no-deal is hard. As @uppi points out, there are quite a few effects that will result from a no-deal Brexit. Just considering what the UK needs to import to keep functioning, is staggering. And many of those things can't be stockpiled, because they expire! In the case of a no-deal, the top five imports to prioritize are, officially, as follows:

1. Life-saving drugs
2. Medical devices
3. Fresh food
4. Nuclear power plant parts
5. Chemicals to purify drinking water

Notice that: Clean drinking water is priority five!

There's absolutely no guarantee that any of those will be easy to keep importing. Even half a day's extra delay could make some drugs and medical devices useless, so all trucks carrying those must somehow be identified and given priority through customs.

Is it really responsible to expose people to these kinds of risks just because the UK Cabinet, the UK Parliament, and the EU can't agree on a deal, or would it be more responsible to cancel Brexit*, and later find a way through it? And if no-deal isn't as responsible as revoking, why spend this much resources on a less responsible fallback option?

* (Yes, revoking A50 is only valid if it is sincere, but realistically I don't think anyone will feel like stressing that point if the alternative is a sudden no-deal situation.)

It seems to me the only way that the UK could rule out no-deal Brexit, for real, is to give the EU whatever it wants to ensure that a deal is made...but no one has seemed willing to say that out loud.

This looks like you've been listening too much to Brexiters, if I may say so. Do you really find the positions of the EU to be unreasonable?

Making sure the UK covers pensions and such for British EU civil servants, protecting the rights of people who will end up on the wrong side of the borders, protecting the internal market of the EU, and maintaining the Good Friday Agreement seems like very sensible positions to me. During negotiations the EU even accepted the British demand that all of the UK should be included in the backstop.

The very easiest way to guarantee Brexit would be for the current UK government to accept that only Northern Ireland is in the backstop and get enough Labour MPs to vote for that. They'd lose the DUP support, but after a-deal Brexit, could hold new elections claiming that they delivered Brexit, and probably take back many (most?) of the voters that have run of to the Brexit party. Labour could probably do the same with LibDem voters.

But if they can't agree on a Brexit they want, the responsible thing would be to revoke instead of going for no-deal.

 

[Lexicus]

Actually "preparing" for no-deal is hard. As @uppi points out, there are quite a few effects that will result from a no-deal Brexit. Just considering what the UK needs to import to keep functioning, is staggering. And many of those things can't be stockpiled, because they expire! In the case of a no-deal, the top five imports to prioritize are, officially, as follows:

Fortunate for Britain that I'm not in Number 10, but what I can think of now is that I would have started figuring out how to produce all those things domestically, or seriously tried to negotiate an agreement with someone other than the EU, the day that Leave won the vote.

This looks like you've been listening too much to Brexiters, if I may say so. Do you really find the positions of the EU to be unreasonable?

No, I was stating that in a value-free way. Whether the position of the EU is reasonable or not has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Cheetah]

Fortunate for Britain that I'm not in Number 10, but what I can think of now is that I would have started figuring out how to produce all those things domestically, or seriously tried to negotiate an agreement with someone other than the EU, the day that Leave won the vote.

Which are all somewhat viable options.

Making the entire supply chain for all these things domestically can be done, but it would not be commercially viable, so would need state backing. That would probably run afoul of some anti-subsidy rules within the EU market, but that could also probably be solved with some payouts to the affected parties.

Furthermore, it would take time to get all the processes and expertise up and running. Much more than two years, at the very least, so such preparations would have to have been started years before triggering A50.

Negotiating with others isn't too much of a problem: There are currently tariffs and standards to follow, but otherwise the UK state (usually needs public bids, however) and companies can buy from anywhere. Physical distance is a problem however, especially for the fast-perishable goods. A reliable, nearby location would have to be the supplier, and as it is, there's only one options for that: the EU. I suppose that for the right price some of the stuff could be flown in from the US or Canada, and I don't think there's really anything stopping the UK from doing so right now if they wanted to.

All this doesn't change the fact that all experts who actually know what they're talking about has made it clear that a no-deal will be a disaster, and that it's really not possible to prepare for. The counter-arguments to this comes from people who said they'd make dozen of trade deals within two years, and have found that it really wasn't possible to do so. Check this CBC article on how well rolling over the CETA deal with Canada went.

 

[innonimatu]

1. Life-saving drugs
2. Medical devices
3. Fresh food
4. Nuclear power plant parts
5. Chemicals to purify drinking water

Of course they will be easy to keep importing. The UK may have parceled out and sold ICI to foreigners, but many of those installations are still in production within the UK, as a country it is still very important in the worldwide chemical industry. Producing some still that EU countries desperately need for their own industry (catalysts, etc). The idea that it would be unable to purify water is scrapping the bottom of the fear-mongering barrel.

The UK also happens to be one of the world's main producers and exporters of those life-saving drugs. Meaning: if the EU were to decide to play dirty and embargo (that will be a political decision, never a technical one) exports of drugs to the UK, the UK can retaliate: it won't be just brits dying for lack of medicine. That scenario is impossible, more fear-mongering.

As for fresh food, South America has lost of it to sell, cheaper than the EU.

And finally, from your list, nuclear power plans: it would be a blessing for the UK if the new ones being built were cancelled, they are ruinous. Areva or whatever the french are calling it now can go bankrupt again, the world will lose nothing useful.

The problem for the UK to manage is not whether it can import what it needs: it can, and if the EU directorate in Brussels were foolish enough to try to do an embargo on it, several countries would break it. It would be no more successful than Napoleon with is silly continental system. Besides now there is a world being Europe eager to sell. The UK only has to temporarily wave what in needs through if it really has an emergency on some item, UK customs be damned. The idea of somehow threatening to embargo the UK, threaten it with scarcity of imports, is so foolish than even those useless parasites in Brussels won't attempt it.

The problem is where the UK will export its non-essential products to, if the EU decides to play though and raise barriers to its exports quickly. But they can't block everything or several critical industries within the EU would be paralyzed also, so an accommodation will necessarily have to be reached.


Edit:
Just because this fear-mongering is getting me riled up. Look up Areva, the bankrupt french company on government support that the French absolutely need (it is strategically vital to maintaining France's nuclear plants) to keep working. Look up how desperate they still are to build Hinkley Point C in the UK. And then tell me who has the leverage.
It's not just the new reactors, mind you. EDF is also managing the current ones, and really, really needs the business.

Donald Trump could actually learn some things from you people on fear-mongering and creating false narratives for political gain!

 

[Ajidica]

Making the entire supply chain for all these things domestically can be done, but it would not be commercially viable, so would need state backing. That would probably run afoul of some anti-subsidy rules within the EU market, but that could also probably be solved with some payouts to the affected parties.

What's the EU going to do if the UK started violating state subsidy rules, kick them out?

 

[Cheetah]

What's the EU going to do if the UK started violating state subsidy rules, kick them out?

What's with the mocking tone?

What would happen is the same as just happened with the way the UK broke the rules when they awarded the extra ferry contracts: the affected companies sue the UK, and the UK ends up paying for the damages.

There's nothing unique or special about this. Violating rules about public bids happens quite a bit. And it's not a super-special EU rule, either. All functioning modern states have these rules, in one way or another.

 

[Lexicus]

What's with the mocking tone?

It's a playful mocking tone!

 

[Ajidica]

What's with the mocking tone?

What would happen is the same as just happened with the way the UK broke the rules when they awarded the extra ferry contracts: the affected companies sue the UK, and the UK ends up paying for the damages.

There's nothing unique or special about this. Violating rules about public bids happens quite a bit. And it's not a super-special EU rule, either. All functioning modern states have these rules, in one way or another.

First off, what Lexicus said it was a playful mocking tone.
Second, surely the UK could argue in court they have leeway in seeking to explicitly develop domestic industries for when leave the EU. I was under the impression the Seaborn kerfuffle was partly due to the UK government not soliciting bids from other UK companies.

 

[innonimatu]

What would happen is the same as just happened with the way the UK broke the rules when they awarded the extra ferry contracts: the affected companies sue the UK, and the UK ends up paying for the damages.

There's nothing unique or special about this. Violating rules about public bids happens quite a bit. And it's not a super-special EU rule, either. All functioning modern states have these rules, in one way or another.

You know who will get to make the rules for the UK after a no-deal brexit? Have a guess. Hint: it won't be the EU.

Funny how your attempted argument to fear exit is instead an argument for brexit.

 

[Cheetah]

First off, what Lexicus said it was a playful mocking tone.
Second, surely the UK could argue in court they have leeway in seeking to explicitly develop domestic industries for when leave the EU. I was under the impression the Seaborn kerfuffle was partly due to the UK government not soliciting bids from other UK companies.

Well, apologies for taking it the wrong way then. It's rather hard to tell in text sometimes.

Yes, iirc the company that sued was British, but afaik any company in the single market would have been able to sue as well. At least one of the contracts was awarded to a Danish company.

Personally I'd think such an argument would have merit, but IANAL. It's probably legally grey territory, at least until a transitionary period after a withdrawal deal has begun.

 

[FriendlyFire]

You know who will get to make the rules for the UK after a no-deal brexit? Have a guess. Hint: it won't be the EU.

Is it Iran ?
Iam pretty sure that there will be some disruption with supply chains, the EU intends to collect its tarrifs and inspect goods.

 

[Takhisis]

As for fresh food, South America has lost of it to sell, cheaper than the EU.

No, they've just agreed on a free trade deal with the European Union, which the UK is doing its best to abandon without an FTA of its own.

Good luck squaring that circle.

 

[Arakhor]

You know who will get to make the rules for the UK after a no-deal brexit? Have a guess. Hint: it won't be the EU.

No, instead it will be the US, India, Russia or whomever else we wish to (desperately) negotiate with. For someone frequently railing against uneven trade arrangements, you should know how this works.

 

[EnglishEdward]

No, instead it will be the US, India, Russia or whomever else we wish to (desperately) negotiate with. For someone frequently railing against uneven trade arrangements, you should know how this works.

The way it works best is if politicians abandon fantasies of complicated trade agreements, and let businesses do business.

Establishment (shared between Remainer Establishment and some, but not all, leading Brexiters) myth.

2. Trade only occurs if we as our government sign a complicated and lengthy trade agreement with their government.

 

[brennan]

Ah, this is a myth myth - something someone claims is a myth despite the fact nobody is dumb enough to believe it in the first place.

OTOH the vast majority of countries do actually engage in trade agreements - so there must be reasons why they are useful: Trade agreements are put in place to reduce or eliminate protectionist tariffs, harmonise bureaucracy, address quota systems, unify currencies, ban limitations on movement of capital etc. etc. The notion that this can be done through the magic of 'free trade' without a substantial amount of governmental coordination is absurd.

 

[really]

The most complicated possible trade agreement is goods arriving at a border and having to be inspected for conformity with local laws and valued for import taxes.

Any agreement that simplifies any of the above is better.
As an example in a previous life I managed infrastructure projects in various places.
Deploying around Europe was seamless.
Equipment was dispatched as needed with a short turn around.
When we wanted to ship stuff into Angola we had to marshall everything first, count and document every single screw and then we chartered an antonov to transport it all in one go. Complicated, expensive, slow. There was no trade agreement at the time.

Why did we still do it if it was expensive?
The customer had to pay for it.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Trade agreements are put in place to reduce or eliminate protectionist tariffs

WTO exists for that.

harmonise bureaucracy, address quota systems, unify currencies, ban limitations on movement of capital etc. etc.

Those are of questionable value.

The most complicated possible trade agreement is goods arriving at a border and having to be inspected for conformity with local laws and valued for import taxes.

Your sentence is a contradiction in itself; in that the latter narrative does NOT reflect a trade agreement.