BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Surely all regulations are a barrier to some trade - i.e. goods or services that do not meet those regulations. If they didn't provide some sort of restrictions there wouldn't be any point in having regulations. The question is whether a given regulation actually does what it purports to or is really just disguised protectionism with no real benefit for consumers or the wider population.

Your last sentence is my, badly expressed, point.

Conversely, I wonder whether some of the cries of protectionism are really just a wish to sell into a market without all the cost of having to meet the standards.

As various people have pointed out, regardless of where UK regs actually end up, manufacturers looking to export to the EU (and most would be daft to ignore a market on our doorstep) will still need to meet EU regs. It may well turn out to be an illusory freedom.

Yep - and unusually for me had carefully worded my original comment.

EU regs are usually the most stringent and in many ways are de facto world regs, so yes it is an illusory freedom but that will not be apparent to those who care about such things.

briantrumpet

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

So, instead of alignment with EU rules, we'll take all our regulatory cues from the US so we can do a trade deal. "Take Back Control". Yeah, right.

I can't read the link as it's behind the ft pay wall but of course there needs to be some alignment to sell into each other markets in the auto sector - e.g. steering wheel on the correct side etc.

However do you really think it's as simple as falling completely into line with the US? Or could that be
a spot of scaremongering?

Also it seems to be the EU that seems to be insisting on a degree of alignment not normally present in FTAs.

Tell me, who do you think is likely to have greater leverage in trade negotiations? Plucky little UK, or the rather larger US? How do these things normally work out? Do relatively small nations get preferential treatment with the US? If I'm not mis-remembering, there have been some noises about what the UK will have to accept in order to get access to US markets. What leverage have we got? Is it like the leverage we've got with the EU in the 'easiest trade deal in human history'?

I'm not sure specifically what you think is going to be imposed on us that worries you.

Access to markets is the main point of trade deals and if you think of our current arrangement with the EU, a good part of that is a trade deal. Except with lots of other strings attached which the US would not impose. For example the US would never insist on free movement of its citizens into the UK, or have the US Supreme Court have a say in out legal affairs. And yet some people are quite happy to accept the equivalent set up with the EU.

Why is it so much worse for US businesses to market access, compared to European oneshaving access? (Other than the usual anti-US bias).

Here's a better researched list than I would manage. https://www.tjm.org.uk/trade-deals/a-uk-us-trade-deal

Are you going to answer the question about who's got more leverage?

I'll take that as a 'no'.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

So, instead of alignment with EU rules, we'll take all our regulatory cues from the US so we can do a trade deal. "Take Back Control". Yeah, right.

I can't read the link as it's behind the ft pay wall but of course there needs to be some alignment to sell into each other markets in the auto sector - e.g. steering wheel on the correct side etc.

However do you really think it's as simple as falling completely into line with the US? Or could that be
a spot of scaremongering?

Also it seems to be the EU that seems to be insisting on a degree of alignment not normally present in FTAs.

Tell me, who do you think is likely to have greater leverage in trade negotiations? Plucky little UK, or the rather larger US? How do these things normally work out? Do relatively small nations get preferential treatment with the US? If I'm not mis-remembering, there have been some noises about what the UK will have to accept in order to get access to US markets. What leverage have we got? Is it like the leverage we've got with the EU in the 'easiest trade deal in human history'?

I'm not sure specifically what you think is going to be imposed on us that worries you.

Access to markets is the main point of trade deals and if you think of our current arrangement with the EU, a good part of that is a trade deal. Except with lots of other strings attached which the US would not impose. For example the US would never insist on free movement of its citizens into the UK, or have the US Supreme Court have a say in out legal affairs. And yet some people are quite happy to accept the equivalent set up with the EU.

Why is it so much worse for US businesses to market access, compared to European oneshaving access? (Other than the usual anti-US bias).

Here's a better researched list than I would manage. https://www.tjm.org.uk/trade-deals/a-uk-us-trade-deal

Are you going to answer the question about who's got more leverage?

I'll take that as a 'no'.

There's more to it than just size of countries. Depends on various factors such as who wants access to the other markets more etc.

Surely you can model it and let us know the answer.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

As there is no way of knowing if a FTA will be positive or negative then it may as we’ll be done for political reasons

Of course we'd like to think they are beneficial, but as explained very patiently a few times before, we will never know the exact impact compared to the 'do-nothing' scenario. However I suspect you already knew that.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

He’s basically confirmed what they denied in the election re deregulating on things like worker’s rights etc.

As part of a US trade deal?

The “don’t expect any regulatory alignment to the EU” bit

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

As there is no way of knowing if a FTA will be positive or negative then it may as we’ll be done for political reasons

Of course we'd like to think they are beneficial, but as explained very patiently a few times before, we will never know the exact impact compared to the 'do-nothing' scenario. However I suspect you already knew that.

Not all FTAs are equal so it would be very easy to have a harmful one, especially when your exports are dominated by services.

tailwindhome

Thread on alignment and divergence

https://twitter.com/iamian16/status/1218824326021046272?s=19

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

He’s basically confirmed what they denied in the election re deregulating on things like worker’s rights etc.

As part of a US trade deal?

The “don’t expect any regulatory alignment to the EU” bit

We have our own set of workers rights which seem OK. Why copy the EU regs when we can have rules suited specifically to UK circumstances?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

As there is no way of knowing if a FTA will be positive or negative then it may as we’ll be done for political reasons

Of course we'd like to think they are beneficial, but as explained very patiently a few times before, we will never know the exact impact compared to the 'do-nothing' scenario. However I suspect you already knew that.

Not all FTAs are equal so it would be very easy to have a harmful one, especially when your exports are dominated by services.

It could if we didn't really look at about what we agree to. Which is pretty unlikely.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

As there is no way of knowing if a FTA will be positive or negative then it may as we’ll be done for political reasons

Of course we'd like to think they are beneficial, but as explained very patiently a few times before, we will never know the exact impact compared to the 'do-nothing' scenario. However I suspect you already knew that.

Not all FTAs are equal so it would be very easy to have a harmful one, especially when your exports are dominated by services.

It could if we didn't really look at about what we agree to. Which is pretty unlikely.

Are you 100% sure that BoJo would walk away from a deal with the USA because it would be bad for the UK economy

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

He’s basically confirmed what they denied in the election re deregulating on things like worker’s rights etc.

As part of a US trade deal?

The “don’t expect any regulatory alignment to the EU” bit

We have our own set of workers rights which seem OK. Why copy the EU regs when we can have rules suited specifically to UK circumstances?

What specifically is wrong with the EU legislation? Let's start there.

john80

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

He’s basically confirmed what they denied in the election re deregulating on things like worker’s rights etc.

As part of a US trade deal?

The “don’t expect any regulatory alignment to the EU” bit

We have our own set of workers rights which seem OK. Why copy the EU regs when we can have rules suited specifically to UK circumstances?

What specifically is wrong with the EU legislation? Let's start there.

Why don't we start from the position that we have one of the longest running democracies in the world and can let them make the rules and then we vote on whether they have done a good enough job every 5 years or so. You seem to be one of the guys on this forum that thinks you will get better representation for your views at the EU than at your own parliament. Maybe you can explain how this works to the group as I certainly think I can influence UK policy more than I can influence EU policy.

rick_chasey

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

He’s basically confirmed what they denied in the election re deregulating on things like worker’s rights etc.

As part of a US trade deal?

The “don’t expect any regulatory alignment to the EU” bit

We have our own set of workers rights which seem OK. Why copy the EU regs when we can have rules suited specifically to UK circumstances?

What specifically is wrong with the EU legislation? Let's start there.

Why don't we start from the position that we have one of the longest running democracies in the world and can let them make the rules and then we vote on whether they have done a good enough job every 5 years or so. You seem to be one of the guys on this forum that thinks you will get better representation for your views at the EU than at your own parliament. Maybe you can explain how this works to the group as I certainly think I can influence UK policy more than I can influence EU policy.

I don't think it's enormously necessary to go into exactly the value of your vote in different electoral systems, though if you live in a safe seat it's not hard to see how the EU system offers more 'bang for your vote'.

The representation is fairly comparable, once you take into account the EU parliament, the European council (since they are also elected, albeit by their own nations), and then the Council of the European Union which is again, voted on by elected members of the EU. Sure, the votes are diluted slightly but a) it's not either or, you vote in both elections and b) it is a voice at the third superpower structure in the world, alongside the states and China.

Anyway, the charge levelled at the Tory party was they were looking to turn the UK into a "Singapore on Thames" and really go heavy on the regulatory divergence. Plenty of things to dwell on there, but that was refuted in the election. Yet in the chat about international firms who have a lot of cross-EU supply chains etc, Javid basically said 'tough'. This was exactly the kind of thing the Tories were denying would happen but are now saying firms should prepare for.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

As there is no way of knowing if a FTA will be positive or negative then it may as we’ll be done for political reasons

Of course we'd like to think they are beneficial, but as explained very patiently a few times before, we will never know the exact impact compared to the 'do-nothing' scenario. However I suspect you already knew that.

Not all FTAs are equal so it would be very easy to have a harmful one, especially when your exports are dominated by services.

It could if we didn't really look at about what we agree to. Which is pretty unlikely.

Are you 100% sure that BoJo would walk away from a deal with the USA because it would be bad for the UK economy

Who knows what will happen in those negotiations. Overall there will be lots of different issues of differing potential significance; some may be deal breakers; on some there will be 'give and take'. Often there is a fair bit of symmetry in what is agreed - so for example comparable levels of access or lowered tariffs in certain sectors.

I'm not sure what sort of things you foresee as being detrimental to the UK economy that would typically figure in a trade deal? Maybe you could give some examples from the current trade arrangements with the EU that have been bad for the UK.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

He’s basically confirmed what they denied in the election re deregulating on things like worker’s rights etc.

As part of a US trade deal?

The “don’t expect any regulatory alignment to the EU” bit

We have our own set of workers rights which seem OK. Why copy the EU regs when we can have rules suited specifically to UK circumstances?

What specifically is wrong with the EU legislation? Let's start there.

I am talking more generally - one size fits all is not always a good fit being the key point and we have the ability to tailor the rules to suit the UK rather than a set of 27 other economies, some of which are rather different from ours. Not sure why you would see that as a bad thing?

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

As there is no way of knowing if a FTA will be positive or negative then it may as we’ll be done for political reasons

Of course we'd like to think they are beneficial, but as explained very patiently a few times before, we will never know the exact impact compared to the 'do-nothing' scenario. However I suspect you already knew that.

Not all FTAs are equal so it would be very easy to have a harmful one, especially when your exports are dominated by services.

It could if we didn't really look at about what we agree to. Which is pretty unlikely.

Are you 100% sure that BoJo would walk away from a deal with the USA because it would be bad for the UK economy

Who knows what will happen in those negotiations. Overall there will be lots of different issues of differing potential significance; some may be deal breakers; on some there will be 'give and take'. Often there is a fair bit of symmetry in what is agreed - so for example comparable levels of access or lowered tariffs in certain sectors.

I'm not sure what sort of things you foresee as being detrimental to the UK economy that would typically figure in a trade deal? Maybe you could give some examples from the current trade arrangements with the EU that have been bad for the UK.

EU bad - agric

Generally being forced to align with USA to the detriment of our more important trading relationship with the EU.

tailwindhome

The NI assembly has unanimously approved a motion to withhold consent for the WA
Means nothing though

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

The NI assembly has unanimously approved a motion to withhold consent for the WA
Means nothing though

Presumably that is by the power of the veto, rather than giving any meaningful insight as to whether there is a simple majority? That would be interesting in the context of agreeing the extension in four years time.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

The NI assembly has unanimously approved a motion to withhold consent for the WA
Means nothing though

Presumably that is by the power of the veto, rather than giving any meaningful insight as to whether there is a simple majority? That would be interesting in the context of agreeing the extension in four years time.

The motion was approved by all sides of the assembly without even the need for a division.

I wouldn't read anything into it with regard to the extension vote as though every MLA voted against it, they did so for very different reasons and had there been a consequence (or even an alternative) they may have voted differently.

We'll see this in the commons too, all 11 voting MPs from NI will vote against the WA.
The SDLP and Alliance would most likely vote for it if No Deal were a consequence.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Here's that loonie left organisation, CNN, putting it another way: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/business/brexit-us-uk-trade-donald-trump-boris-johnson-intl-gbr/index.html

Yeah, why should I be worried?

Clearly the person who wrote that has modelled it and knows the future outcome.

You would expect a trade deal to have benefits or we wouldn't do them. This still points to your knee jerk view that 'EU = good, US = bad' now applied to trading arrangements.

As there is no way of knowing if a FTA will be positive or negative then it may as we’ll be done for political reasons

Of course we'd like to think they are beneficial, but as explained very patiently a few times before, we will never know the exact impact compared to the 'do-nothing' scenario. However I suspect you already knew that.

Not all FTAs are equal so it would be very easy to have a harmful one, especially when your exports are dominated by services.

It could if we didn't really look at about what we agree to. Which is pretty unlikely.

Are you 100% sure that BoJo would walk away from a deal with the USA because it would be bad for the UK economy

Who knows what will happen in those negotiations. Overall there will be lots of different issues of differing potential significance; some may be deal breakers; on some there will be 'give and take'. Often there is a fair bit of symmetry in what is agreed - so for example comparable levels of access or lowered tariffs in certain sectors.

I'm not sure what sort of things you foresee as being detrimental to the UK economy that would typically figure in a trade deal? Maybe you could give some examples from the current trade arrangements with the EU that have been bad for the UK.

EU bad - agric

Generally being forced to align with USA to the detriment of our more important trading relationship with the EU.

Agree re agriculture although the CAP is highly unlikely to feature anywhere else.

Not sure how much alignment with US is necessary. Its the EU that isn after a high degree of alignment. Although the govt appears to have already decided we won't align with the EU anyway.

rjsterry

Are they after it or just setting it as a condition of market access. They know manufacturers will need to meet their standards anyway to sell into the EU.

Edit: which leaves the LPF stuff as mentioned below.

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1219315878124310530

tailwindhome

tailwindhome said:

The ripple effect of 'Getting Brexit Done' continues
Ireland will have a general election on 8th Feb

In a development sure to please Brexiteers, Leo Varadkar's Fine Gael party are in serious trouble in the early polling

rjsterry

Relevant to the divergence/alignment question.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1219342675574513667

kingstongraham

This looked like good news - I wonder if some Brexiters are going to magically change their attitudes to IMF forecasts. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2020-01-20/business/britain-to-grow-faster-than-france-and-germany-next-year-kmhgsntsn

Dependent on “an orderly exit from the European Union at the end of January followed by a gradual transition to a new economic relationship”.

rjsterry

Not sure if Javid is deliberately trying to confuse or an attempt at damage limitation. First it was all macho businesses have had plenty of warning and will just have to suck it up if divergence affects them. This morning it's the opposite and everything will be fine.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

This looked like good news - I wonder if some Brexiters are going to magically change their attitudes to IMF forecasts. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2020-01-20/business/britain-to-grow-faster-than-france-and-germany-next-year-kmhgsntsn

Dependent on “an orderly exit from the European Union at the end of January followed by a gradual transition to a new economic relationship”.

A growing Eurozone is helpful for the UK.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

This looked like good news - I wonder if some Brexiters are going to magically change their attitudes to IMF forecasts. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2020-01-20/business/britain-to-grow-faster-than-france-and-germany-next-year-kmhgsntsn

Dependent on “an orderly exit from the European Union at the end of January followed by a gradual transition to a new economic relationship”.

I expect the IMF did some modelling to come to that conclusion. Wonder what some people will make of good news like this?

Stevo_666

And more good news, as EU financial sector firms who need to retain access to one of the worlds largest financial markets flock to the UK on a scale which would appear to substantially offset any outbound relocation:-
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/01/20/boost-city-eu-firms-flock-set-uk-offices-brexit/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

In case its behind a paywall, here you go:
"More than 1,000 EU financial services companies plan to open UK offices after Brexit in a bid to continue serving customers in Britain.

An influx of companies opening offices, hiring staff and renting office space could help to mitigate the economic blow dealt to the City by British institutions moving some of their assets and operations to European financial centres such as Paris and Frankfurt.

A total of 1,441 EU companies had applied to the Financial Conduct Authority by October 2019 for temporary permission to continue operating in the UK after Brexit, according to figures obtained by consultancy Bovill under a freedom of information request.

Temporary clearance will allow banks, insurers and asset managers to carry on serving customers in Britain if the UK and EU do not agree to preserve unfettered access between their financial markets after the Brexit transition period expires at the end of 2020.

It is expected that there will be at least some increase in UK-EU regulatory barriers even if a deal is agreed by December. European firms can currently operate in the UK using their domestic regulatory clearances under the EU's passporting regime.

The financial services sector plays a critical role in the UK economy, generating £75.5bn in tax contributions in the 12 months to March 2019.

Interim approval would give EU firms an opportunity to complete the process of obtaining permanent clearance without needing to cease operating in the UK.

A total of 228 Irish firms have applied for temporary permission to continue operating in the UK until they receive full clearance to set up shop in the UK after Brexit.

Dublin acts as a financial services hub and has attracted several UK insurers, asset managers, banks and law firms to establish or expand their presence as part of their preparations for Brexit.

Companies from France, Cyprus and Germany were the next biggest sources of applications, seeking 170, 165 and 149 temporary licences respectively, according to Bovill.

“In practical terms, these figures mean that European firms will be buying office space, hiring staff and engaging legal and professional advisers in the UK,” said Ed O'Bree, a partner at Bovill."

kingstongraham

I struggle to see companies having to maintain multiple offices to service the same customers as particularly good news coming out of Brexit. A customer somewhere has to pay for that.