Meat Wad

Brexit, WTF

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, LeoV said:

Clean leave without sorting out Northern Ireland and GFA, impossible.

We'll see how it goes. I've nothing invested either way so it's just entertainment for me. All this sort of crap sorts itself out over a couple years. If the UK is prepared to wear the drop in GDP while it gets sorted then fine, do it. Otherwise rescind and slink back like a dog missing its dinner.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That new trade deal mentions wine, they copied EU agreement, as expected, so same tariff. And I presume that goes for the other articles too mentioned. Though the article is not clear on that. Never knew the Au wine tariff for Eu was so low, so not much to gain there...
http://gavinquinney.com/2018/06/29/debunking-brexit-twaddle-about-eu-wine-tariffs/

DflfYwhWkAAY5Pj.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

 Either do a clean leave or rescind the decision, anything else is just tying the UK's hands while removing the ability to influence things. Waste of time & money.

FKT

There is no such thing as a clean leave. Its as meaningless as saying leave on WTO terms.  If the UK can do a "clean leave", other options include: ;

"A dirty leave"

" A win:win leave"

" An international leave"

" A seamless leave"

"A united leave"

"A progressive leave"

"A globally connected leave"

"An integrated leave"

"A blunt force leave"

" A test match leave"

 

Slogans are easy. Its the detail that counts.  The following morning, when the ship pulls up at the docks , what happens?  The following week, when the customer doesn't pay his bill and complains the goods were not up to standard, how do you sue him for payment? Where do you sue him? When your goods are not released from bonded warehouse, what do you do?   When your installation engineer is not granted a visa? These are the things that matter in the real world.

"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain is an island nation. It has always depended on trade and relished trade.  A no-deal exit is just not an option. It must have trade agreements in place before pulling out of the EU. Man cannot live on Australian wine alone

(Hmmm Australian wine?...on the other hand......not a bad way to go.....emetic fans can always go the the Hobart Muddy)

 

Share this post


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

 

Slogans are easy. Its the detail that counts.  The following morning, when the ship pulls up at the docks , what happens?  The following week, when the customer doesn't pay his bill and complains the goods were not up to standard, how do you sue him for payment? Where do you sue him? When your goods are not released from bonded warehouse, what do you do?   When your installation engineer is not granted a visa? These are the things that matter in the real world.

"

for sure but getting things out to other countries will be far more difficult ( UK exports without trade deals) getting things in is up to the UK gov, if they make it easy its will be easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

for sure but getting things out to other countries will be far more difficult ( UK exports without trade deals) getting things in is up to the UK gov, if they make it easy its will be easy

 UK exports matter because then if you cannot pay for your imports by selling your own goods abroad in exchange then very quickly your currency collapses, inflation takes off and you become a South American basket case economy. Venezuela is not a great role model.

Imports are actually tricky because if you have zero tariffs, you expose your manufacturing industry to Chinese dumping and your agricultural base to American agriculture. No farms can survive competing with the US. Our agriculture production is by far the most efficient industrial agriculture in the world. Our grain and livestock production costs are a factor lower than the UK and Europe. The UK is very sensitive about its rural landscape. Rightly so, its beautiful and Im guessing they are not going to be happy about tearing up hedgerows and merging farms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK doesn't channel its EU farm subsidies into production. It spends it on maintaining the countryside so it looks like 1952. Frozen in an All Creatures Great and Small time warp. Part of the joys of a crash Brexit for the no-dealers is that it will supposedly override all that nonsense and force farming into a massive consolidation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argh!!! Fucking Trump is driving me nuts!

Sorry, nothing to do with this thread, but I had to release. Catharsis. 

Share this post


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

 UK exports matter because then if you cannot pay for your imports by selling your own goods abroad in exchange then very quickly your currency collapses, inflation takes off and you become a South American basket case economy. Venezuela is not a great role model.

Imports are actually tricky because if you have zero tariffs, you expose your manufacturing industry to Chinese dumping and your agricultural base to American agriculture. No farms can survive competing with the US. Our agriculture production is by far the most efficient industrial agriculture in the world. Our grain and livestock production costs are a factor lower than the UK and Europe. The UK is very sensitive about its rural landscape. Rightly so, its beautiful and Im guessing they are not going to be happy about tearing up hedgerows and merging farms.  

yes thats the issue, having each farmer have 5 acres to farm, makes the countryside look good but also makes it expensive.
Lots of stuff comes into the EU zero rated but they have quotas then tariffs which is what the UK is going to need to protect industries just like the EU, question is what deal can you do with with the other guys re UK exports.

I wonder what EU quota items are for the UK only, will they hand that over to prevent a flood of goods to a market the EU no longer needs or attempt to absorb it to spite themselves?

Will the exporter of those quota items assuming the UK takes them give the UK the same access as the EU had for UK exports, my guess is yes asap.

Share this post


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

Argh!!! Fucking Trump is driving me nuts!

Sorry, nothing to do with this thread, but I had to release. Catharsis. 

Stop fucking him. Easy peasy. You might want to get that cold sore looked at though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IPLore said:

 Our agriculture production is by far the most efficient industrial agriculture in the world.

Rubbish, utter bullshit. It that were true, you wouldn't have tariffs and quotas on agricultural imports. You have both.

Look at your sugar industry for a starting point.

As for your grain exports they're heavily subsidised - you know, the same activity that you bitch so mightily about when the Chinese do it with manufactured goods.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, IPLore said:

I suspect there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the minds of many UK voters of what the WTO actually is.

 

10 hours ago, Laser1 said:

I'm sure it has been covered upstairs by Leo or Jack but please give it to me like an 8 year old.

 

9 hours ago, IPLore said:

Leo understands WTO better than most. I know what he meant but he used language that might be misinterpreted.

@LeoV has covered tarriffs well but the genisis to misunderstanding about the WTO is largely because of the language and acronyms they employ.

Starting with their own name, the WTO. There is nothing "world" about it with currently 164 member countries and a couple of dozen lined up or "observers" looking to be included subject to modification of their trading mechanisms. Has anyone actually said the UK can change its membership status of the WTO being sans EU at the flick of a switch?

Another example. There is no such thing as a Free Trade Agreement or FTA. The best it can be called is an "agreement that makes trade a bit more free".

Having regard for the UK enjoying membership of the EU and the leverage that brings, then going alone from a standing start? The UK simply has no idea what is entailed and how long it takes to negotiate and settle agreements via the WTO. FTA's take many years, in fact some still in negotiation after a decade.

Despite the two year period of transition preparation nearly expired, the UK still doesn't have the necessary bureaucracy and nor have advisory industry representative bodies acquired the resources to operate in this new EU Free World.

A clusterfuck ready to be unleashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IPLore said:

 Imports are actually tricky because if you have zero tariffs, you expose your manufacturing industry to Chinese dumping and your agricultural base to American agriculture. No farms can survive competing with the US. Our agriculture production is by far the most efficient industrial agriculture in the world. Our grain and livestock production costs are a factor lower than the UK and Europe.  

Where do you get this drivel from?  Just last week I watched on TV where some American farmer was complaining because the government shutdown means he wont get his subsidy for his crops and he may not survive.

New Zealand has no subsidy for farmers and no tariffs on imports just strict quality controls.

The USA is too scared to lift quotas on New Zealand farm products because their industry can't compete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

New Zealand has no subsidy for farmers and no tariffs on imports just strict quality controls.

 

Which is why customs union is as important as tariff and quota alignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, IPLore said:

Currently the UK's delegation at the WTO has proposed to mirror the existing EU schedule with respect to market access for goods and services. No better (sorry Brexiteers), no worse (sorry Remainers) than the current schedule of Tariffs.  However several WTO member nations have objected in two areas. (1) Several WTO members have said that the UK's proposals for agricultural tariffs and quotas are unacceptable and (2) The UK will need to sign its own Government Procurement Agreement and several countries want concessions in this area. 

rereading the stuff, you got it better then me, I just repeated it later :) Should have read your post better.

Yep, no deal break, UK 3rd country to the EU, and beggar under WTO.
So short term gains impossible, long term gains uncertain as the EU wants their divorce money, other countries wants their concessions.
And the WTO power is limited. Countries can ignore WTO as national rules go first. Example the chloride chicken is banned in the EU, under WTO that is not allowed, but EU ignores it. As many countries do ignore the WTO baselines.
Funny is that under WTO the UK still has to deal with the EU, as it acts as a block (Lisbon Treaty) not as separate countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Seems some deals are getting done just in case.....

https://www.smh.com.au/national/new-trade-agreements-secure-australian-exports-to-britain-post-brexit-20190119-p50sf3.html

So - shrug - who knows what'll happen after March 29.

Fah if anyone here reads that Aust Govt PR nonsense all the UK has to do is a quick ring around to its existing trading partners and say "hey guys let's just agree that post Brexit we continue trading as is pretending we are still in the EU". I quote the Australian Trade Minister that implies exactly that.

“This will mean Australian exporters can continue to benefit from existing arrangements for mutual recognition as they do currently, even if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement,” Mr Birmingham said.

“These agreements provide assurances to Australian exporters that they will be able to get their goods into the UK post-Brexit, whether it be wine, medical devices or automotive parts, without additional trade barriers or regulations."

Somehow he missed some words like UK exports to Australia to preserve a trade balance so they can pay for imports, an interesting list by the way beyond Land Rovers? Somehow he has only referenced stuff Australia currently exports to the UK that could fit in the back of a Land Rover. What about the rest?

Funny about that. There are a lot of people being conned courtesy of Brexit and just not in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poignant letter from German leaders to the UK . .

In part . .  "After the horrors of the Second World War, Britain did not give up on us," it read. "It has welcomed Germany back as a sovereign nation and a European power. This we, as Germans, have not forgotten and we are grateful."

https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-german-leaders-write-emotional-letter-to-britain/a-47132376

Kinda reminds me of what the Canadian people did when the Quebec independence referendum was afoot. 

(See 1995 Unity Rally) https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/28/world/150000-rally-to-ask-quebec-not-to-secede.html

Contrast all this with the ugly narrow nationalism/racism of the modern Reich . . . i.e., The Drumph and his ilk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFU (National Farmers Union) are waking up to reality.  A bit late in the piece.

  • EU legislation could effectively result in a trade embargo on the export of UK animal based products such as meat, eggs and dairy to the EU. These products can only be imported by the EU from approved countries, and it could take months for such status to be granted to the UK. The lamb industry would be particularly impacted. In 2017, 31% of domestic sheep meat production, the equivalent of 4.5 million sheep, was exported and 94% was destined for the EU.
  • The UK government could avoid charging tariffs on imports to prevent a rise in food prices, which could have a negative impact on domestic food production and consumer choice, as well as an increase in imports of products produced to lower standards.
  • Export tariffs could be imposed on the 60% of UK food, feed and drink that go to the EU, increasing export tariffs to an average of 27% on chicken, 46% on lamb, 65% on beef, and range from €172 to €1,494 per tonne in pork.

https://www.nfuonline.com/news/brexit-news/eu-referendum-news/a-no-deal-brexit-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-uk/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Laser1 said:

The NFU (National Farmers Union) are waking up to reality.  A bit late in the piece....

Not late. To be fair agricultural producers in the UK are streets ahead of many industries. The reason being they both feed a nation and one of most impacted upon by a Brexit. They have been preaching but no one listening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Poignant letter from German leaders to the UK . .

In part . .  "After the horrors of the Second World War, Britain did not give up on us," it read. "It has welcomed Germany back as a sovereign nation and a European power. This we, as Germans, have not forgotten and we are grateful."

https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-german-leaders-write-emotional-letter-to-britain/a-47132376

That is a good example of a country finally recognising (or cynics may say PR spin) that a bunch of older so less educated and probably doing it tough (who remember first hand what an air raid shelter looked like as a kid or if not described by a parent) accross the Channel feel.

Those UK people in essence voted in 2016 to strike Germany's GDP down by around 0.5% now when Germany's current economy can least afford to see that happen. 

Begs the question about May's negotiating where with all, where she failed to leverage off that feeling in Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Substantial amounts of anti German rhetoric in the last week. Getting worse as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a callow yoot in Europe 50 years ago (Holy Shit ! That long?) 

the Germans were amazingly welcoming and gracious (I was a punk GI). 

But actually, the Brits were too  . . 

It's totally fair to criticize German trade policies, as well as Albion nationalist stupidity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 12:54 AM, rgeek said:

The UK doesn't channel its EU farm subsidies into production. It spends it on maintaining the countryside so it looks like 1952. Frozen in an All Creatures Great and Small time warp. Part of the joys of a crash Brexit for the no-dealers is that it will supposedly override all that nonsense and force farming into a massive consolidation.

Not correct. Most of the subsidy goes to large arable producers, scaled according to land ownership https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21641/agriculture/farming-subsidies-in-the-uk/

As for looking like 1952, dream on. Around here, 40 years ago we had mixed farming and arable spring sowing. Huge flocks of lapwings. Now the mixed farming is gone, we have large scale arable farms with autumn sowing, no lapwings (autumn sowing did that). No mixed farming means practically no insects, far fewer insect-eating birds. Far fewer working the land either, come to that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Poignant letter from German leaders to the UK . .

In part . .  "After the horrors of the Second World War, Britain did not give up on us," it read. "It has welcomed Germany back as a sovereign nation and a European power. This we, as Germans, have not forgotten and we are grateful."

https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-german-leaders-write-emotional-letter-to-britain/a-47132376

Kinda reminds me of what the Canadian people did when the Quebec independence referendum was afoot. 

(See 1995 Unity Rally) https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/28/world/150000-rally-to-ask-quebec-not-to-secede.html

Contrast all this with the ugly narrow nationalism/racism of the modern Reich . . . i.e., The Drumph and his ilk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia and NZ forming their own EU equivalent?

Australia's Meat and Livestock associations Aust Day adverts for lamb have become bit of an institution. This year's has just been released.

Begins with the nation’s first PM finalising the constitution. This includes New Zealand becoming part of the Commonwealth. Then fast forward to today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Australia and NZ forming their own EU equivalent?

Australia's Meat and Livestock associations Aust Day adverts for lamb have become bit of an institution. This year's has just been released.

Begins with the nation’s first PM finalising the constitution. This includes New Zealand becoming part of the Commonwealth. Then fast forward to today.

 

She'd probably be a hell of an improvement over the current clown car brigade here.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogwatch said:

Not correct. Most of the subsidy goes to large arable producers, scaled according to land ownership https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21641/agriculture/farming-subsidies-in-the-uk/

As for looking like 1952, dream on. Around here, 40 years ago we had mixed farming and arable spring sowing. Huge flocks of lapwings. Now the mixed farming is gone, we have large scale arable farms with autumn sowing, no lapwings (autumn sowing did that). No mixed farming means practically no insects, far fewer insect-eating birds. Far fewer working the land either, come to that. 

 

Goes as far as dictating the colour you can paint the windows where I'm from. 1952 vernacular only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LeoV said:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/101227/jacob-rees-mogg-hints-brexit

Ree Mogg qoute;
“It is high time for the Tory party to come together in the national interest.”

You mean his mates have bottomed the market and are now going long?

He wants locking up.

Love how this is an internal matter for the Torys to sort out. Just revise their plans to appease Eurosceptics and everything is grand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, rgeek said:

Goes as far as dictating the colour you can paint the windows where I'm from. 1952 vernacular only.

And that is related to agricultural subsidies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Harrington, the business minister, has already said he will resign from the government if Theresa May opts for a not-deal Brexit. Other ministers, including some in cabinet, think that same, but Harrington has been the most explicit about this. And this morning, in an interview on the Today programme, he went further. He said a no-deal Brexit (something May has refused to rule out, and something which Tory Brexiters insist would be manageable, if not ideal) would be “an absolute disaster”.
Asked what he thought about the prospect, he said:
You said, “Does [the prospect of no deal] bring shivers?” It does bring more than shivers, because I have examined in depth what might happen, I’m part of the government’s plans for Brexit. I’ve seen what may well happen with this cut-off date. Crashing out in my view ... is an absolute disaster. It’s not a road to a free trade agreement, it’s not a road to anything. It’s an absolute disaster for the country and it’s supported by a minority of a minority of people.

Harrington said he was not just worried about the tariffs that would be in place in the event of a no-deal Brexit. He was worried about the impact of friction at the border, particularly on the car industry, which is dependent on just-in-time supply chains. He said he was “afraid” of Jaguar and Mini closing in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Claiming that the UK would be able to manage trading with the EU on WTO terms was “fanciful nonsense”, he said. And he ended the interview saying: It says on my business card “minister for business and industry”. I’m not prepared to sell business down the river for other people’s political dogma.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/jan/21/brexit-latest-news-mays-statement-mps-commons-deal-will-be-absolute-disaster-says-business-minister-as-may-prepares-to-address-mps-politics-live

Share this post


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

And that is related to agricultural subsidies?

EU funded farm payments, which are based on maintaining the countryside so that it looks pretty for commuters driving buy in their cars and the odd footpath society nutter. No arable round there. On LeoV chart it would be upland grazing of livestock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colour me sceptical on whether the colours you can paint your windows is about farming subsidies. I live in a conservation area, which limits house colours etc. Nothing to do with EU or farm subsidies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

Colour me sceptical on whether the colours you can paint your windows is about farming subsidies. I live in a conservation area, which limits house colours etc. Nothing to do with EU or farm subsidies.

First, as I understand it, the UK decided the detail of how the money is spent. Not the EU. The UK decides to spend it on maintaining the countryside in a certain style rather than on production. Really it's just a land ownership subsidy with a few bells on but that a different discussion.

Broadly the same UK bureaucracy also decides what the acceptable style is.

Don't get me wrong. The local bods are very good at going round to farms, doing a review of what unsightly fallen down dry stone walls might benefit from the UK decided EU funded grant they have campaigned to have set up and then assisting in the application. But in the end, what they're doing is creating an antiseptic monochrome version of the English countryside frozen in the time the decision makers remember most fondly. Kind of like a beige painted living room with brown shagpile carpet, that is none the less kept scrupulously neat and clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rgeek said:

 The UK decides to spend it on maintaining the countryside in a certain style rather than on production.

Not so. The UK mostly spends it on arable land barons, the amount being linked to acreage owned. Check out the link I posted earlier. Or this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-farming-subsidies-billionaires-high-uk-rich-list-recipients-brexit-james-dyson-earl-rosebery-cap-a7815871.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit late with this, but in the piece about the UK-Aus deal on meat, wasn't there something about the UK accepting Aus standards in their entirety, rather than requiring EU standards, or their UK equivalent?

Is this a special case because the Aus standards already meet the EU standards, or is this the first case of the UK accepting the suppliers standards? Will this be extended to the US foods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hump101 said:

Is this a special case because the Aus standards already meet the EU standards, or is this the first case of the UK accepting the suppliers standards? 

It has always been a bit of both. Australia as a producer has inspection, verification and certification services for its export meat industry. This export certification is then matched to the requirements of Australia’s various trading partners. The EU is one of those current partners, albeit not large quantities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Looks like to takes one meeting to make a trade deal along the lines of what exists today?

Is it really that simple?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

Looks like to takes one meeting to make a trade deal along the lines of what exists today?

Is it really that simple?
 

Looks to be a letter of intent rather than a deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, rgeek said:

Looks to be a letter of intent rather than a deal

I think the ozzies have done the same or maybe yes intent and on 30th they are deals?

Share this post


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

Looks like to takes one meeting to make a trade deal along the lines of what exists today?

Is it really that simple?

Off course, on quota free trade it is easy. And smart to copy EU agreements. Nothing changes and business will trade, NZ is not stupid. Trade will not grow more, as the rules are the same etc. And that is the premise of Brexit, we will trade more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS on the referendum, I did not see it as good and short described as this comment in the Guardian;

Bony Tony;
I think it bears repetition: it was an advisory referendum. The House of Commons Library’s Briefing Paper 07212 on the EU Referendum Bill, issued in June 2015 to brief MPs prior to their debating the Bill, makes it abundantly clear. It said, in section 5, that the Bill ’does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented.’

What was clearly expected to happen, by everyone, including the MPs who voted on the Bill later in 2015, was that the referendum would provide MPs with a “steer” as to how the country felt. MPs would then take the people’s expressed opinion to inform their subsequent debate and decision making. Parliament would make the decision whether or not to leave the EU.

Cameron started to say to the electorate “this is your decision” after the Bill had become law. He therefore turned a legally advisory referendum into a politically binding one; and furthermore one that only required a majority of 50% + 1. This was certainly not what the HoC had agreed.

A 52:48 result (or 37:35:28 if you include those who didn’t vote) is not a ringing endorsement either to Remain or Leave. It most certainly should not be taken to be the “will of the people.” And that’s before you take into consideration the lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and illegal over-spending.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Off course, on quota free trade it is easy. And smart to copy EU agreements. Nothing changes and business will trade, NZ is not stupid. Trade will not grow more, as the rules are the same etc. And that is the premise of Brexit, we will trade more...

sure, same on day one and can change after that, why not?

( I think you will find the uk via the EU is on the receiving end of quota deals with NZ and OZ)
Once the UK leaves the EU I wonder if the EU is free to cut quota on items to rebalance the trade, if so that volume from OZ and NZ has a place to go, same with all others countries i assume of they want to trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

Once the UK leaves the EU I wonder if the EU is free to cut quota on items to rebalance the trade, if so that volume from OZ and NZ has a place to go, same with all others countries i assume of they want to trade? 

 

Google it, been discussed before. In short, yes if both parties want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LeoV said:

 

Google it, been discussed before. In short, yes.

cheers

how complicated will it get for goods that get shipped to the UK as they are the major recipient of a quota and then part of that gets reshipped to the rest of the EU?

I wonder how much of the cross channel trade does that make up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa May is under pressure to allow ministers a free vote on an amendment intended to rule out a no-deal Brexit, after the Times (paywall) claims that up to 40 members of the government would resign if ordered to vote against it. Sam Coates in the Times reports:

Up to 40 members of the government will resign next week if Conservative MPs are banned from voting for a plan to stop a no-deal Brexit, No 10 has been told.

Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, has demanded that all Tory MPs are allowed a free vote on plans that would clear the path for extending Article 50 — the mechanism by which Britain leaves the European Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sailabout said:

cheers

how complicated will it get for goods that get shipped to the UK as they are the major recipient of a quota and then part of that gets reshipped to the rest of the EU?

I wonder how much of the cross channel trade does that make up? 

reread this topic, or google, discussed before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Theresa May is under pressure to allow ministers a free vote on an amendment intended to rule out a no-deal Brexit, after the Times (paywall) claims that up to 40 members of the government would resign if ordered to vote against it. Sam Coates in the Times reports:

Up to 40 members of the government will resign next week if Conservative MPs are banned from voting for a plan to stop a no-deal Brexit, No 10 has been told.

Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, has demanded that all Tory MPs are allowed a free vote on plans that would clear the path for extending Article 50 — the mechanism by which Britain leaves the European Union.

dont the other 27 have to agree to allow an extension to article 50?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did some calculations on the back of a pub bill this weekend,

No Deal;
1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 export products from the UK will have to find a new home outside the EU.
Within a year. To break even it must be at the same price, both impossible.
So income and production of business will be lower, so will be tax income for the UK.

I can see why so many want the No Deal of  the table.
Instead of calling a second vote cause for mayhem, this is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Did some calculations on the back of a pub bill this weekend,

No Deal;
1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 export products from the UK will have to find a new home outside the EU.
Within a year. To break even it must be at the same price, both impossible.
So income and production of business will be lower, so will be tax income for the UK.

I can see why so many want the No Deal of  the table.
Instead of calling a second vote cause for mayhem, this is...

hows the calculation look for EU products into the UK, remember thats a bigger sum hence the trade deficit the UK runs with the EU?

1 in 7  ( or more) exported German cars will need a new home, along with some Dutch meat, veggie, fuel etc exports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, they will be more expensive, but there are no cheaper producers in the UK, so they will still get sold, but less. Not 1 in 7 less.
Unfortunately the cheap US cars are invisible, the cheap Asian ones are largely produced in eastern Europe. So will they replace them with Brazilian or Mexican cars ?
And you are talking about 1 in 7 Exported cars, internal market is big.With 2d hand cars almost new get exported to the EU countries, not new for tax reasons.
But talk numbers: German car production; 404.6 billion euros worth in 2016, export to UK 19.4 Billion Euro. See how the Brexit lies work ? It is headache nr 25 on the list of problems of the German car makers.

But UK exports of BMW mini will go to the Netherlands, other manufacturers will follow to direct investment from the UK as production country till they tie themselves more in to the EU, means accepting the Euro as proof. Big bosses wants stability and security for big investments. Both the UK are lacking for a decade or so in the future.

Trying to calculate the loss in Europe is very hard, because there is so many competition on the mainland to replace the UK imports.
It is like the UK delivers an egg, and EU is making an omelette with it, try to retract the same egg from the omelette is impossible without a lot of science.

US news on cars and food;
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/americas-food-and-car-giants-demand-trump-administration-bargain-down-uk-standards-for-post-brexit-trade-deal/

Share this post


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

hows the calculation look for EU products into the UK, remember thats a bigger sum hence the trade deficit the UK runs with the EU?

1 in 7  ( or more) exported German cars will need a new home, along with some Dutch meat, veggie, fuel etc exports

Yeh but the UK is going to drop all tariffs to zero, right?

Share this post


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

Yeh but the UK is going to drop all tariffs to zero, right?

they could do zero tariff with quota on EU products,  and any other country they choose where they need the goods but also need to protect local industry so just add quota then tariffs, just the like the EU does today that the UK is a recipient of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeoV said:

Wrong, they will be more expensive, but there are no cheaper producers in the UK, so they will still get sold, but less. Not 1 in 7 less.
Unfortunately the cheap US cars are invisible, the cheap Asian ones are largely produced in eastern Europe. So will they replace them with Brazilian or Mexican cars ?
And you are talking about 1 in 7 Exported cars, internal market is big.With 2d hand cars almost new get exported to the EU countries, not new for tax reasons.
But talk numbers: German car production; 404.6 billion euros worth in 2016, export to UK 19.4 Billion Euro. See how the Brexit lies work ? It is headache nr 25 on the list of problems of the German car makers.

But UK exports of BMW mini will go to the Netherlands, other manufacturers will follow to direct investment from the UK as production country till they tie themselves more in to the EU, means accepting the Euro as proof. Big bosses wants stability and security for big investments. Both the UK are lacking for a decade or so in the future.

Trying to calculate the loss in Europe is very hard, because there is so many competition on the mainland to replace the UK imports.
It is like the UK delivers an egg, and EU is making an omelette with it, try to retract the same egg from the omelette is impossible without a lot of science.

US news on cars and food;
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/americas-food-and-car-giants-demand-trump-administration-bargain-down-uk-standards-for-post-brexit-trade-deal/

Whats the brexit lie of German cars?

1 in 7 made in Germany

https://fullfact.org/europe/german-cars-uk/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/888853/Brexit-news-cars-German-car-exports

Guess what Germans want to sell them and Brits want to buy them
I think there will be a deal on cars on day one as parts go everywhere then come back in cars, same problem the EU has with the USA

I think lots of EU trade is derived from skewed subsidised markets and also non parallel rules.

Stuff is broken down to enter the EU using the different vat rates on different items then reassembled and sold, not ideal.
The there are the dodgy items made in non EU countries, but the label gets applied in an EU country so its an EU product.

I always hear UK fishermen complaining about net mesh sizes used by spain portugal etc, that allow smaller fish to be caught but legally landed in spain which can then be processed and shipped for legal sale in the UK where the UK fishermen cant legally catch and land them. The guys I knew used to swap catch at sea with Dutch fishermen to get over the issue.

Building an Airbus must be the worst possible logistic story in manufacturing but it suits the EU "we will spread your money around" ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the realities are in place and they know that Boris, UKIP, and that creep Farange pushed straight up lies seemingly with a hint of borscht it is only right to have a re-vote. 

Share this post


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

dont the other 27 have to agree to allow an extension to article 50?

Yes, unanimous consent is required.

Extending Article 50 would most likely mess up the upcoming EU election at the end of May (The month :rolleyes: ) and for obvious reasons that is really not a popular idea in Europe.
Biggest problem though is that -as we all know- there is no idea what would be an acceptable deal to UK parliament. May just repeating the same demands all over again was not very popular with the EU heads of state she spoke to this weekend.

The best thing about Brexit so far is that it has an almost firm date.

Share this post


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

dont the other 27 have to agree to allow an extension to article 50?

Sailabout is correct that EU council would have to agree to an extension Article 50 and would likely set terms for doing so.

HOWEVER,  the European Court of Justice ruled in December that the UK can revoke Article 50 without permission from the EU 27.  "The UK is free to unilaterally revoke the notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU" – Case C-621/18 Wightman

It would be much more advantageous for the UK to revoke article 50 rather than ask for an extension.  The EU would not be able to impose any conditions and the UK would then be in charge of its own Brexit timetable.

Contrary to popular opinion, revoking Article 50 does not prevent the UK continuing to plan for Brexit. The only requirement for revoking Article 50 is :   "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council."    In other words, the government cannot take this decision, it would have to be passed by the House of Commons.

The UK would then regain control of the timetable and strengthen its negotiating position.

Logical leavers should support this because the Leaver Conservative government could then proceed to negotiate prospective global trade agreements, test the technology for friction less borders and come up with a solution for Ireland so that second time around the UK was (a) Prepared and (b) In a much stronger bargaining position with the EU 27.

The Remainers should support because they could make a last ditch effort to persuade the EU to make radical reforms in its institutions so that the UK could change its mind and decide to stay.

The People's vote faction should support it because it provides an opportunity for all the terms of withdrawal and remaining to be negotiated and in place so the the VOTER ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR.

The SNP should support it because any vote whether to break away from the UK can be decided from withing the EU.

Corbyn (Labour leader) would probably prefer for May just to fail and go into an immediate general election.....but a delay via revoking article 50 gives some additional time for Corbyn to step in front of a bus, which is the dearest hope of 170+ labour MPs..

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought revoking is end of Brexit, even a notification is enough to stop it.

https://theconversation.com/article-50-can-be-revoked-heres-what-it-means-for-brexit-108522

However, it’s important to note that the court added that the decision to revoke Article 50 must be “unequivocal and unconditional”. This means that the member state has to make it clear that it wishes to maintain its EU membership. This is not about extending the Article 50 process to extend the Brexit transition period beyond March 2019. That would still require agreement from the EU member states. Rather, a notification revoking Article 50 means not leaving the EU at all. In other words, it would stop Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailabout, 1 out of 7 exported cars, even if all does not get sold in the UK, the defence of the internal market is more important then Brexit for Ger car makers.
For the rest Face palm... end of discussion with me, ignore list you made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a leading supporter of Brexit, with cash and words, admits you can not run a global company from the UK, nice...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LeoV said:

I thought revoking is end of Brexit, even a notification is enough to stop it.

https://theconversation.com/article-50-can-be-revoked-heres-what-it-means-for-brexit-108522

However, it’s important to note that the court added that the decision to revoke Article 50 must be “unequivocal and unconditional”. This means that the member state has to make it clear that it wishes to maintain its EU membership. This is not about extending the Article 50 process to extend the Brexit transition period beyond March 2019. That would still require agreement from the EU member states. Rather, a notification revoking Article 50 means not leaving the EU at all. In other words, it would stop Brexit.

If the UK backs out of article 50 the expectation is that they'll will just trigger article 50 again. Sooner or later. 

The crux is still the same. Both extending article 50 and revoking it requires decision. UK politicians would have to vote for(!!!) something. The majority of them, at the same time, for the same thing. :)
The last relevant decision they agreed on was to trigger article 50. Leaving the EU on a set date without any agreements whatsoever. [Unless something more sensible can be agreed on. That did not happen. Not even within parliament.]

They sure know what they don't want but that ain't enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chasm said:

They sure know what they don't want but that ain't enough.

763?appId=93a17a8fd81db0de025c8abd1cca12

But a future Art 50 exit could be possible, can not find an opinion about it though. Will take a while though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeoV said:

However, it’s important to note that the court added that the decision to revoke Article 50 must be “unequivocal and unconditional”. This means that the member state has to make it clear that it wishes to maintain its EU membership. This is not about extending the Article 50 process to extend the Brexit transition period beyond March 2019. That would still require agreement from the EU member states. Rather, a notification revoking Article 50 means not leaving the EU at all. In other words, it would stop Brexit.

There is a misconception being spread around by certain UK commentators that "unequivocal and unconditional" means that the UK must state that it does not wish to leave the EU .  In other words, Brexit would be off the table.  Legally that is incorrect.

If the UK wishes to revoke Article 50 then it must :

1) state unequivocally that it wishes to revoke Article 50.  The notice to revoke Article 50 must be clear, unambiguous and leave no doubt that the UK is revoking article 50. In effect that the UK is maintaining its membership of the EU . Legally this is an objective test.  The court cannot and will not examine the motive of the UK for deciding to maintain its membership. There will certainly  be a court challenge from some hard Brexiteers - (The irony of hard Brexiteers appealing to the ECJ is delicious!) - but the court cannot determine whether the UK decided to remain a member because it wished to be a member of the EU for ever - it can only determine if the decision (for whatever reason) was made in accordance with the UK constitution (majority vote in house of commons) and if the decision is unambiguous.

2) There can be no conditions attached to the notice to revoke.

Most important of all, the sovereign right of the UK to issue a subsequent article 50 notice cannot not be removed under any circumstances.  The UK could deliver its second article 50 notice a year later if it had its ducks all lined up in a row . 

In this lawyer's  mind (not a constitutional lawyer but I have been involved in  two cases that were taken to the ECJ )  , revoking article 50 would be a much smarter option for the UK than asking for a postponement.  

FWIW, I think the base case is that the hardline Brexiteers fall in line and support a May deal and if the DUP dont get behind it , then there is probably a general election.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, IPLore said:

revoking article 50 would be a much smarter option for the UK than asking for a postponement.  

They are not even in the same ball park. Revoking easy now with benefit of EU court ruling it can be done unilaterally by UK without 27 member state agreement. Postponment requires unanimous 27 EU member state approval and even if extension granted is will have to be no later than the forthcoming EU elections in May.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iplore, thanks,  I think youre right, revoking is default being a member again, no statement needed, and as long as "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" it can use article 50 to leave again and again.

Share this post


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

FWIW, I think the base case is that the hardline Brexiteers fall in line and support a May deal and if the DUP dont get behind it , then there is probably a general election. 

Could be.
Last election CP lost seats, so making the DUP important, and blocking May's deal. How delightful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are potentially enough opposition members that would cross the house to make up for 10 from the DUP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rgeek said:

There are potentially enough opposition members that would cross the house to make up for 10 from the DUP

Yes also possible......BUT....only 3 Labour members crossed the house to vote for the May deal in the first round.  If they sense she has not got enough votes , are they likely to support her or do whatever is necessary to provoke a general election?  The wild card is that the vast majority of Labour MPs  dislike Corbyn as their leader and are not excited about the prospect of being led by him going into the next election. However I guess they would rather be in power than out of power even with  a leader they would not have chosen (They might want to check in with congressional republicans to see how that works out in practice).

Bottom line, its very hard to forecast how the dice land ....but here are some possibilities

An Amended May deal with some symbolic (but largely meaningless) concessions from EU gets passed by a majority in the Commons.   Less unlikely than all the other options but well below 50% probability.

May narrowly fails to get amended deal passed Commons and returns once more to the ballot box for a general election solely based on her Brexit Deal. The Labour party win. Corbyn's cabinet nationalizes the trains, energy industry, all private schools  and the banks. Salary caps are introduced for publicly traded companies and the highest marginal rate of tax goes to 72%. Lottery funding for sports is ended .

May fails to get an amended deal through the Commons.  She concedes that there is not time for an orderly Brexit and revokes article 50 but immediately shakes up the cabinet and enters all new 2 year negotiations with EU and rest of world.  The government trials new technology at 5 Irish crossing points proving that there can be a friction-less border even if the Uk leaves.    In 2021, the Government announces a detailed withdrawal agreement covering every angle, an Irish border that the DUP like and prospective trade deals with every  major trading bloc in the world.  A smiling May submits the detailed plan to the British electorate for final confirmation in a second referendum 5 years after the first one. All the opinion polls indicate a brilliant leave vote victory.    The pundits forget about the "Wimbledon effect". The Brits always support the under dog. The vote is to remain .  May resigns. Steve Kinnock becomes prime minister and the first lady is the former president of Denmark.  :)   The British keep calm and carry on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 11:37 AM, hump101 said:

I'm a bit late with this, but in the piece about the UK-Aus deal on meat, wasn't there something about the UK accepting Aus standards in their entirety, rather than requiring EU standards, or their UK equivalent?

Is this a special case because the Aus standards already meet the EU standards, or is this the first case of the UK accepting the suppliers standards? Will this be extended to the US foods?

I won’t be buying any chicken! that’s for sure. 

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/buying-and-supplying/food-safety/chlorinated-chicken-explained-why-do-the-americans-treat-their-poultry-with-chlorine/555618.article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mad said:

I won’t be buying any chicken! that’s for sure. 

 

Do you have a prejudice against acidified sodium chlorite ? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hump101 said:

More bad news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46962093

Dyson (a Brexit supporter) moves his company headquarters to Singapore. Won't change their investment in the UK - for now....

just doing a starbucks, apple etc, low tax global headquarters saying that there is a large factory in Singapore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

moving to the the EU to ensure they get the EU tax breaks is what P&O said in the press.

https://cyprus-mail.com/2018/12/18/uks-po-re-flagging-two-vessels-to-cyprus-ahead-of-brexit/

At first glance it is not the full explanation. The UK introduced a tonnage tax in 2000 as an alternative to corporation tax in line with the rest of Europe.  The tonnage tax in Cyprus is the same as it is in the UK.  The whole idea was to make it equally attractive to flag a ship in the UK as anywhere in Europe . Ironically P&O offered to bring back 55 ships to the British flag as a result of the tonnage tax.  Each time a company commits to the tonnage tax and a British flag, the Uk receives the  taxes + (more importantly) the ship commits to a Minimum Training Obligation where for each 15 officers, the company must train one trainee per year, a British or EEA national ordinarily resident in the UK.  

I suspect the rationale for leaving the UK is more around the need for certainty to comply with loan covenants on the ship. If the UK leaves the EU then the tax system could change to be different from Europe at short notice.....but also the EU flagged ships can be redeployed anywhere in the EU without enormous hurdles.  The UK of course cannot afford to be offended, they will need every channel ferry they can get their hands on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sailabout said:

Looks like to takes one meeting to make a trade deal along the lines of what exists today?

Is it really that simple?
 

That is not a trade deal. All it is is a mutual recognition agreement that existing  regulatory requirements only won't change post Brexit. Has nothing to do with tarriffs etc.

NZ /UK trade is less than NZ$3 billion annually. A drop in bucket.

Share this post


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

Common as mud world wide and proven to be more effective than water only for bacterial treatment of carcasses. It is in fact a cute way of protecting EU producers from competition. Outside UK if you don't like this you go down to the Organic section in the supermarket and pay 30% more for chicken that has been water washed only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sailabout said:

Building an Airbus must be the worst possible logistic story in manufacturing but it suits the EU "we will spread your money around" ideal.

How is that different to Boeing that employs more than 140,000 people across the United States and in more than 65 countries?

So it obviously makes perfect sense for a Boeing factory in California to ship parts to Seattle. Then according to you if California was to cede from the United States that is suddenly a shocking manufacturing logistics story.

Do you have a pharmacy close by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for Rees Mogg's children. They must get shit at school. Though the 6th one Sixtus and his brother Anselm are probably accustomed to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Home Office has launched the public test phase of the EU settlement scheme, before its full launch on 29 March 2019.

EU nationals who have lived for a continuous period of five years in the UK AND have the following, can now start to use the EU settlement scheme to secure their residence rights:

an email address,

a current EU passport,

a debit or credit card, and

an Android Phone with near-field communications (NFC) settings enabled - to scan EU passports.

So if you own a IPhone and don't have a email address you are pretty much fucked and get frog marched to the border. 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/immigration/press-release/national-federation-builders/101248/nfb-eu-settlement

<