Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Tired Tyres]

How do you figure that one?

Literally the news today seems like a long term benefit for the EU and a long term and lasting negative for the UK.

News today? Really. London's grip on financial clearing for the EU having to move to within the EU has been known for a very long time. Why it looks like they have an agenda to push doesn't it.

 

[baldgye]

News today? Really. London's grip on financial clearing for the EU having to move to within the EU has been known for a very long time. Why it looks like they have an agenda to push doesn't it.

Well, that particular bit is, but the general trend of business going to the continent isn't news and was promised before the vote.
From today's news;

The lobby group Frankfurt Main Finance released the figure after it was confirmed that 30 banks and financial firms had chosen the city as the site of their new EU headquarters.

But with several banks – including JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley – planning to spread their operations across a number of cities including Dublin and Paris, the lobby group believes the number of firms committed to expanding or setting up offices in Frankfurt will be closer to 37.

“All in all, we expect a transfer of €750bn to €800bn in assets from London to Frankfurt, the majority of which will be transferred in the first quarter of 2019,” said Hubertus Väth, the managing director of Frankfurt Main Finance.

 

[PzR Slim]

PM thinks the same rules we are trying to impose on the rest of the world will not be imposed on us by the EU after Brexit. What is she smoking! This is worse than Raab admitting he hadn't realised how much trade was done through Calais. What have this lot been doing since the referendum. Never been more disillusioned with this country.



Edit: And check #vicargate on twitter. BBC planting actors in their news programming now.

 

[TenEightyOne]

BBC planting actors in their news programming now.

No. She's a genuine (if apparently quite mad) pastor who also acts. In this case she and the BBC are quite clear that she was appearing in her pastoral capacity. Whether she was a good choice as a guest is another question but she wasn't playing a character for the programme.

What should have been questioned was her wearing a dog collar. I'm also a Reverend and I know that it does not entitle me to wear that very specific symbol... indeed to do so would be considered legally fraudulent in certain circumstances.

 

[PzR Slim]

No. She's a genuine (if apparently quite mad) pastor who also acts. In this case she and the BBC are quite clear that she was appearing in her pastoral capacity. Whether she was a good choice as a guest is another question but she wasn't playing a character for the programme.

What should have been questioned was her wearing a dog collar. I'm also a Reverend and I know that it does not entitle me to wear that very specific symbol... indeed to do so would be considered legally fraudulent in certain circumstances.

I read all that before I posted and don’t buy it for a second. She became a pastor on the internet of a made up Facebook church. She’s also a rampant racist looking at her Twitter output. Has also appeared in a couple of BBC dramas in the past. It stinks.

 

[baldgye]

She became a pastor on the internet of a made up Facebook church. She’s also a rampant racist looking at her Twitter output.

To be fair, this makes her seem pretty legit, also aren't all churches "made up"?

 

[Touring Mars]

How do you figure that one?

I specifically meant in relation to No Deal and how the UK could stand to benefit from no longer being hamstrung by any agreement with the EU that would not allow us to strike our own trade deals, as looks very much like what Theresa May has agreed to.

Literally the news today seems like a long term benefit for the EU and a long term and lasting negative for the UK.

This is exactly the kind of short term cost that we should expect - bear in mind that this was likely to happen under any Brexit scenario, not specifically a No Deal scenario.

-

Meanwhile, the EU have reacted with some consternation at May's assertion that the deal would need to be renegotiated (e.g. if the UK requested an extension to Article 50) - clearly the idea that there is anything left to negotiate is one that the EU flatly disagrees with. In other words, the EU will not accept any other possible outcome other than the deal Theresa May has agreed. Ironically, this should go some way to strengthening her case insofar as there really isn't any chance of any other deal, and hence there is no point in extending Article 50 - the idea that there is still more than one possible deal on the table is only likely to 'split the vote', hence May's/the EU's stance is 'this is the deal, take it or leave it'.

 

[baldgye]

I specifically meant in relation to No Deal and how the UK could stand to benefit from no longer being hamstrung by any agreement with the EU that would not allow us to strike our own trade deals

Hamstrung? I don't quite understand how the world largest economy getting us trade deals hamstrings us, and how we'd be able to get better deals solo.... if my trading partner went from being the biggest to the 7th biggest and asked for a new deal, I'd not be keen to give them the same one...

This is exactly the kind of short term cost that we should expect - bear in mind that this was likely to happen under any Brexit scenario, not specifically a No Deal scenario.

I agree, but it's not just a short term cost.
Banking and finance has helped make London and the rest of the country matter, without that the UK is being bled dry as the companies, money and talent all move abroad. This is especially problematic for British workers in the short and long term because of horrible inadequate foreign language skills at school.

 

[Touring Mars]

Hamstrung? I don't quite understand how the world largest economy getting us trade deals hamstrings us, and how we'd be able to get better deals solo....

Forgive me for saying this, but you need to get your head around the idea that the UK is leaving the EU.

I'm not saying that the UK will be better off than we might otherwise be if we had voted to stay (I voted to stay, remember), but we are leaving, hence we need to move on and think about what comes next.

As a non-member of the EU, we will necessarily become less dependent on trade with the EU and thus more dependent on trade with the rest of the world - that is pretty much the only plausible plus side of leaving the EU, but unfortunately the Withdrawal Agreement that has been agreed by May and the EU is very likely to leave the UK in a position where new trade deals between the UK and other countries are not possible or are severely restricted, because of the caveats written into the Withdrawal Agreement to guarantee 'a level playing field'. Ironically, if the EU is so much more powerful and better at striking trade deals, why does it need legal guarantees from the UK that will prevent us from making our own trade deals?

So yes, the UK will be hamstrung by its future commitment/legal obligations to the EU because it will not be able to sign full trade deals with other countries, while at the same time we will not benefit from any new trade deals struck between the EU and other countries either (since we'll no longer be in the EU...) It seems like a very one-sided arrangement that all but guarantees that the UK will not be able to benefit from new trade deals, simply because we wish (quite reasonably) to be able to trade as efficiently as possible with both the EU and the rest of the world. In contrast, having to trade with the EU under WTO rules but being free to trade with the rest of the world under whatever conditions we can agree with other countries seems like a better option.

 

[baldgye]

Forgive me for saying this, but you need to get your head around the idea that the UK is leaving the EU.

I'm not saying that the UK will be better off than we might otherwise be if we had voted to stay (I voted to stay, remember), but we are leaving, hence we need to move on and think about what comes next.

I've gotten my head around it, although I personally don't think it'll happen. But my comments where in relation to if it did happen.

As a non-member of the EU, we will necessarily become less dependent on trade with the EU

But this, isn't a realistic eventuality. We are geographically linked to the EU, that isn't something that can ever change, regardless of what trade agreements we have. We do the vast majority of our trade with EU nations, that isn't something that can be simply chopped and changed with other nations.

What ever happens when(if) we leave and regardless of any kind of agreement we make, we'll still need to do the bulk of our trading with the EU.

 

[Touring Mars]

But this, isn't a realistic eventuality. We are geographically linked to the EU, that isn't something that can ever change, regardless of what trade agreements we have. We do the vast majority of our trade with EU nations, that isn't something that can be simply chopped and changed with other nations.

What ever happens when(if) we leave and regardless of any kind of agreement we make, we'll still need to do the bulk of our trading with the EU.

Less dependent on trade =/= less trade. We could in fact trade more with the EU but become less dependent on trade with the EU if we also end up trading far more with non-EU states.

However, higher tariffs and new controls at the border will definitely mean less trade (or at the very least more costly trade) with the EU, and that is what is currently on the table - it is not merely a realistic eventuality, it is virtually guaranteed unless the EU changes its attitude, which it won't.

 

[baldgye]

We could in fact trade more with the EU but become less dependent on trade with the EU if we also end up trading far more with non-EU states.

However, higher tariffs and new controls at the border will definitely mean less trade (or at the very least more costly trade) with the EU, and that is what is currently on the table - it is not merely a realistic eventuality, it is virtually guaranteed unless the EU changes its attitude, which it won't.

Personally, I don't see how we can do anymore trade with non-EU nations (become less dependant on EU trade).
The deregulation needed and the increase in cost (due to being physically further away for example) would be more costly than just continuing to deal with the EU.

 

[Touring Mars]

Personally, I don't see how we can do anymore trade with non-EU nations (become less dependant on EU trade).
The deregulation needed and the increase in cost (due to being physically further away for example) would be more costly than just continuing to deal with the EU.

The fly in the ointment here is that we are leaving the EU - so the converse of what I said above applies - we don't need to do any more trade with non-EU nations to become more dependent on it if the EU will not agree to maintain frictionless trade with the UK, thus making our current trade with the EU more difficult and more expensive. If that happens (and it looks inevitable) then by default our trade with non-EU states becomes more significant. The saving grace is that the UK can make trade with non-EU states easier by agreeing new trade deals that will make existing trade less expensive and easier, but the Withdrawal Agreement (as it currently stands) appears to deliberately prevent this because the EU perceive it as giving the UK an unfair advantage.

 

[baldgye]

The fly in the ointment here is that we are leaving the EU - so the converse of what I said above applies - we don't need to do any more trade with non-EU nations to become more dependent on it if the EU will not agree to maintain frictionless trade with the UK, thus making our current trade with the EU more difficult and more expensive. If that happens (and it looks inevitable) then by default our trade with non-EU states becomes more significant. The saving grace is that the UK can make trade with non-EU states easier by agreeing new trade deals that will make existing trade less expensive and easier, but the Withdrawal Agreement (as it currently stands) appears to deliberately prevent this because the EU perceive it as giving the UK an unfair advantage.

The point I'm disagreeing on, is I don't think we can shift our trade around. Who else can we trade with that we don't already?

 

[Touring Mars]

The point I'm disagreeing on, is I don't think we can shift our trade around. Who else can we trade with that we don't already?

And my point is that we don't necessarily have to - it's also a question on the cost and efficiency of our existing trade. If trading with the EU becomes harder, then we will need to make trading with other countries easier - but as it stands, our ability to do that is being curtailed by the Withdrawal Agreement, and so we could likely face a scenario whereby trade with the EU becomes harder and our ability to mitigate the negative impacts of this change is deliberately hampered.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Personally, I don't see how we can do anymore trade with non-EU nations (become less dependant on EU trade).
The deregulation needed and the increase in cost (due to being physically further away for example) would be more costly than just continuing to deal with the EU.

Did you miss this?

https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampprojec...errer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

 

[baldgye]

Did you miss this?

https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-45780889?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

I did, but this and also, Japan is a lot further away than the EU is.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I did, but this and also, Japan is a lot further away than the EU is.

The point being that being out of the EU opens other opportunities. Yes they will inevitably be further away, but we do half our trade out there anyway.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Personally, I don't see how we can do anymore trade with non-EU nations (become less dependant on EU trade).
The deregulation needed and the increase in cost (due to being physically further away for example) would be more costly than just continuing to deal with the EU.

There's a reason why China is able to ship all over the world and still be more competitive than manufacturing locally and that's because shipping over water is dirt cheap. It costs the same amount of money to ship a case of wine from Chile to London as it does from Chablis to London when shipping in bulk.

 

[Robin]

So another day another resignation, Science and Universities Minister - Sam Gyimah.



Surely we should be nearing the number of letters required to trigger a vote of no confidence by now. Maybe after MP's refuse the Brexit deal she will finally go.

 

[Tired Tyres]

So another day another resignation, Science and Universities Minister - Sam Gyimah.



Surely we should be nearing the number of letters required to trigger a vote of no confidence by now. Maybe after MP's refuse the Brexit deal she will finally go.

Only a total moron would actually want her job right now.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Only a total moron would actually want her job right now.

Since they'd need someone that truly believed in Brexit, that could be quite apt.

 

[Imari]

Only a total moron would actually want her job right now.

That's sort of the problem, right? If they get rid of May, who is going to take her place that would be better? You're correct that no politician in their right mind would even think twice about accepting, it's the ultimate poison chalice. Whatever the ultimate result ends up being, they'd be committing career suicide.

Frankly, I think the UK has been fairly lucky to get May who seems to still somehow be genuinely engaged in getting the best result she can for the country given the restrictions. Given that even people on internet forums are looking for excuses and ways out, I strongly suspect that she's the only person left in the UK that can actually get the job done instead of weaseling out. Should they somehow find a lunatic somewhere that wants her job, I highly doubt that they could stop dribbling and licking windows for long enough to have any functional input on the process.

Surely we should be nearing the number of letters required to trigger a vote of no confidence by now. Maybe after MP's refuse the Brexit deal she will finally go.

Any other time no confidence would have turned up well before this. But everyone knows that there's no one dumb enough to replace her.

It's one thing for people to be quitting because they don't want to be personally associated with the cluster:censored: that Brexit could turn out to be. That makes sense for their personal careers, and perhaps they have personal opinions that they wish to express also. It's another to call for the Prime Minister to step down knowing that there's no qualified replacement. That would leave the country without leadership in a time that it needs it most, and even the most cynical of politicians usually have more respect for their country than to do something that could be so obviously counterproductive.

You might not like the General, but you don't have him shot the night before the battle. There will be plenty of time for that afterwards.

 

[Dotini]

That's sort of the problem, right? If they get rid of May, who is going to take her place that would be better? You're correct that no politician in their right mind would even think twice about accepting, it's the ultimate poison chalice. Whatever the ultimate result ends up being, they'd be committing career suicide.

Frankly, I think the UK has been fairly lucky to get May who seems to still somehow be genuinely engaged in getting the best result she can for the country given the restrictions. Given that even people on internet forums are looking for excuses and ways out, I strongly suspect that she's the only person left in the UK that can actually get the job done instead of weaseling out. Should they somehow find a lunatic somewhere that wants her job, I highly doubt that they could stop dribbling and licking windows for long enough to have any functional input on the process.



Any other time no confidence would have turned up well before this. But everyone knows that there's no one dumb enough to replace her.

It's one thing for people to be quitting because they don't want to be personally associated with the cluster:censored: that Brexit could turn out to be. That makes sense for their personal careers, and perhaps they have personal opinions that they wish to express also. It's another to call for the Prime Minister to step down knowing that there's no qualified replacement. That would leave the country without leadership in a time that it needs it most, and even the most cynical of politicians usually have more respect for their country than to do something that could be so obviously counterproductive.

You might not like the General, but you don't have him shot the night before the battle. There will be plenty of time for that afterwards.

Good points.

...victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan....

A nation, bent, cracked and broken, is facing a crisis of self-esteem.

 

[Touring Mars]

Tuesday December 11th is the big day as far as the UK-EU Brexit deal is concerned... it looks very likely that it will be voted down by the UK parliament, and Theresa May will face a vote of no confidence. May has one card left to play in that scenario, and that is to call a snap General Election. That will force her own MPs to back her, but it is a huge gamble that May has already tried and lost once - a snap election over the Xmas holidays could result in total chaos with a hung parliament that would put paid to any plans to either renegotiate the Brexit deal or to hold a second referendum.

Even if it were voted in favour of tomorrow, a second referendum could not legally take place until some 6-8 weeks after the Brexit date (March 29th, 2019), but it is all but impossible to legally permit a second referendum before January, meaning that it could only take place in June 2019 at the earliest... for that to even be possible, it would require the EU to agree to extend Article 50 to beyond the EU elections in May, and there is simply no way that is going to happen - nor is it likely (or even possible) for the EU to delay the elections. In other words, a second referendum is not going to happen.

 

[Robin]

Well things really have hit the fan now. The attorney general has all but confirmed that May's deal is fatally flawed regarding the backstop and we will very likely be indefinitely tied to a customs union with the EU. That's exactly what she swore we were leaving.

MP's are calling for the full legal advice to be published or they may seek to find government in contempt but it's still being held back, likely because it reveals this deal is basically nonsense. It's going to be voted down and she'll be out before Xmas.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The Speaker has just ruled that the government are EDIT: very likely to be* in contempt of Parliament by publishing the redacted version of the legal advice rather than the full advice. Which @Touring Mars had pretty much pointed out anyway.

* He feels there's a case for a parliamentary vote on whether or not to refer the matter to the Standards Committee. Their findings would in certain cases have to be approved by another parliamentary vote.

 

[Touring Mars]

Apparently the ECJ's top adviser, the Advocate General, has said that he believes that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally... this contradicts advice from the EU's lawyers last week, but the Advocate General advises ECJ judges directly - things could be getting interesting.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apparently the ECJ's top adviser, the Advocate General, has said that he believes that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally... this contradicts advice from the EU's lawyers last week, but the Advocate General advises ECJ judges directly - things could be getting interesting.

I said that! Well, via an expert on Radio 4. Although experts' opinions vary the Advocate General does, as you say, advise the ECJ. It's not going to happen though.

 

[Touring Mars]

I said that! Well, via an expert on Radio 4. Although experts' opinions vary the Advocate General does, as you say, advise the ECJ. It's not going to happen though.

If the ECJ rule that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, it could be a disaster for the EU irrespective of Brexit.

The irony would be immense - the UK, who sincerely requested to leave, will finally be allowed to stay in if we decided to, but (as you say) we won't.

But, by ruling that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally, it will allow any other EU member states to invoke Article 50 at will, whether they really intend to leave or not.