Jump to content

Consequences of brexit [part 6] read first post before posting

Recommended Posts

John Inman  David Davis has announced that a plummeting pound under a no deal Brexit 'might not be such a bad thing'

 

https://news.sky.com/story/david-davis-pound-plummeting-under-a-no-deal-brexit-might-not-be-such-a-bad-thing-11634361

 

Boris Johnson seems to think that the rest of the world is looking on with admiration at the UK leaving the EU:

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/boris-johnson-brexit-uk-radio-4-today-show-latest-news/

 

Make of that what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mister M said:

John Inman  David Davis has announced that a plummeting pound under a no deal Brexit 'might not be such a bad thing'

 

https://news.sky.com/story/david-davis-pound-plummeting-under-a-no-deal-brexit-might-not-be-such-a-bad-thing-11634361

 

Boris Johnson seems to think that the rest of the world is looking on with admiration at the UK leaving the EU:

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/boris-johnson-brexit-uk-radio-4-today-show-latest-news/

 

Make of that what you will.

Talking out of his arse as usual :rolleyes:

 

the rest of the world are looking on and laughing with bewilderment at us bunch of clowns

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hobinfoot said:

The uk shouldn't be given a deal that is better than anyone else. But why do people just dismiss having a deal for the sake of argument? 

Who does that?

 

47 minutes ago, mafya said:

The UK already did that with Israel a good while back.

 

Superficially, it's good news for the UK, in a 'catching a life vest' sense (those continuity agreements with Switzerland (there's 4 or 5) only apply if there is a no deal Brexit).

 

The fly in the ointment lies with what's traded, and in what volumes:  UK is CH's 6th supplier, CHF 6.1bn's worth, and 11th client, CHF 11.4bn  (2017 figures).

 

It's far from enough to even begin to balance trade volumes and values at risk with the EU, US, Japan (collectively, hundreds of £ bn).

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

To understand how that would work look at the EU-Japan deal (or in fact any deal for any country with the EU) and the convergence aspects on a wide variety of elements such as regulations, standards, dispute resolution etc...

 

We can’t have a trade deal with the EU and not converge on those things. Convergence in practical terms for us would be pretty much like being in EFTA/EEA at least because of our proximity, levels of trade and need for cooperation in hundreds of other areas.

we don't need to converge, we are already converged and have been for years.

As you mentioned, Japan doing it, so it is possible. Plus that country called China, seem to have managed to sell one or two things in UK and EU............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, woodview said:

we don't need to converge, we are already converged and have been for years.

As you mentioned, Japan doing it, so it is possible. Plus that country called China, seem to have managed to sell one or two things in UK and EU............

I believe I1L2T3's point was that you'll need to stay converged post-Brexit, hence the parallel with EEA/EFTA countries (which are outside the EU, but toe EU directives in areas of pooled sovereignty - those being fewer/smaller in scope for them, relative to 'full fat' EU member states).

 

Which kinda flies in the face of the "regain full control" mantra, unfortunately for Leavers who don't understand how the world works, nor the 'Brussels effect'.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, L00b said:

Which kinda flies in the face of the "regain full control" mantra, unfortunately for Leavers who don't understand how the world works, nor the 'Brussels effect'.

What most Brexiteers repeatedly fail to grasp is that we operate in an incredibly integrated world now, where even isolationist states such as North Korea have to trade with many countries (other than China).

 

We are gradually sliding down the table of world economies as what we used to call 'third world' countries are gradually climbing.

 

This is a really dumb time in our history to go it alone! 🙄

 

We risk being absolutely mullahed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hobinfoot said:

The uk shouldn't be given a deal that is better than anyone else.

The UK has already dismissed all deals that are comparable to what everyone else enjoys.

 

Quote

But why do people just dismiss having a deal for the sake of argument? 

The only deals being dismissed are the UK's cake and eat it ones (for obvious reasons)

 

 

 

5 hours ago, mafya said:

 

Yay! 2.5 years of effort, cost and uncertainty to get what we already had... slow clap time!

 

'Basic questions unanswered' on Swiss trade deal:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46854002

Edited by Magilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, L00b said:

In either case, "not at any price". Which is why the current draft agreement is the best on offer for the parties, and won't be renegotiated until and unless one side (the UK) gives in on some or all of its red line(s).

 

Whereby it is perfectly possible (current estimates have it at 60% likelihood) that no deal gets signed before 29 March, mutually beneficial or otherwise. Even though the answer is yes, always has been, and still is, of course.

 

There's your problem: your political class (still) doesn't know the UK's place (hint: it is resolutely not the EU27's equal; that's how and why the ball is in the UK court to row back on its red line(s)).

 

But fear not. Your political class is learning it fast, at the minute.

 

The EU is helping, as usual.

Tell that to the french farmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, L00b said:

I believe I1L2T3's point was that you'll need to stay converged post-Brexit, hence the parallel with EEA/EFTA countries (which are outside the EU, but toe EU directives in areas of pooled sovereignty - those being fewer/smaller in scope for them, relative to 'full fat' EU member states).

 

Which kinda flies in the face of the "regain full control" mantra, unfortunately for Leavers who don't understand how the world works, nor the 'Brussels effect'.

I get that. My point is non-eu countries such as Japan, China, USA manage to trade with the eu just fine. This is happening and has happened for a long time. We sell to usa without being part of nafta and without our economy and regulations being fully converged with theirs.

Goods we export to the eu need to be compliant with their regulations, and goods we export to the usa need to be compliant with theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, woodview said:

Goods we export to the eu need to be compliant with their regulations, and goods we export to the usa need to be compliant with theirs.

Yet another lie from the Leave campaign was that UK businesses would prosper once they were no longer subject to EU regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, L00b said:

I believe I1L2T3's point was that you'll need to stay converged post-Brexit, hence the parallel with EEA/EFTA countries (which are outside the EU, but toe EU directives in areas of pooled sovereignty - those being fewer/smaller in scope for them, relative to 'full fat' EU member states).

 

Which kinda flies in the face of the "regain full control" mantra, unfortunately for Leavers who don't understand how the world works, nor the 'Brussels effect'.

Yes, exactly the point.

 

We’re 23 miles away with our economy heaviliy integrated into the EU/EEA/EFTA

 

The scope for divergence is minimal. If the hardline Brexiteers try to use us as a bridgehead into the EU for substandard US produce for example, then we’ll get a very quick taste of what problems divergence will cause.

33 minutes ago, woodview said:

I get that. My point is non-eu countries such as Japan, China, USA manage to trade with the eu just fine. This is happening and has happened for a long time. We sell to usa without being part of nafta and without our economy and regulations being fully converged with theirs.

Goods we export to the eu need to be compliant with their regulations, and goods we export to the usa need to be compliant with theirs.

They do but with a high degree of convergence.

 

This is completely at odds with the divergence that hard Brexiters want. The problem for them is the EU is our biggest trading partner.

 

We have to stay converged. Even Corbyn fully gets that fact

Edited by I1L2T3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, woodview said:

I get that. My point is non-eu countries such as Japan, China, USA manage to trade with the eu just fine. This is happening and has happened for a long time. We sell to usa without being part of nafta and without our economy and regulations being fully converged with theirs.

Goods we export to the eu need to be compliant with their regulations, and goods we export to the usa need to be compliant with theirs.

China and the USA manage to trade with the EU 'just fine', Japan will now trade with the EU 'better than fine', and all because norms, standards and practices of the respective parties converge towards one another; with the strongest parties doing the least converging towards the others and setting the most convergence targets for those others.

 

This is the 'Brussels effect', and it will take you all of 5 minutes' worth of Googling to find out how Japan, China, the USA (etc) have long and very gradually been converging towards the EU's norms, standards and practices, some (Japan, Korea, Canada) faster than others (China, USA), with the respective sizes of economies involved (and political strength of their domestic industries/lobbies) strongly influencing the differential in speed of convergence.

 

That explains for instance why much trade with the US is 'fine' as you say...but then you just try to import chlorinated chicken from the US into the EU ;)

 

Now you were highly influential in setting those EU norms, standards and practices. Yet you've decided not to be anymore. OK, fine.

 

So the question before you, is how much convergence with future EU norms, standards and practices can you afford to ignore, if you want to maintain economic relevance relative to the rest of the world converging on them?

 

Objectively, not a whole lot, because whenever you don't converge, or converge slower than competing countries, you'll be losing both EU business and non-EU (but EU-converging) business.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.