Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

[LaCroix]

At least one good thing has come from this:

NI Assembly reassembles because the potential harm Brexit will do to them is worse than their pet peeves they have with each other.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Boris: Back Big Ben Brexit Bongs

I refuse to add context.

Soon the country will be too poor to afford such things.

[Vendetta]

Boris: Back Big Ben Brexit Bongs

I refuse to add context.

Soon the country will be too poor to afford such things.

It already is, they tried to crowdfund it.

[Lost Soal]

Then got told they're not allowed to use it anyway.

[Vendetta]

Also they raised bugger all. I think they got to about 80k (of half a million) in two days, whereas "we want to make a sequel to our terrible videogame" can get you to a million in under two hours.

(It's almost as if there's not actually a major popular will for supporting Brexit, people won't put their money where their mouths are on it).

[Juubi Karakuchi]

A further development.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ter-brexit

Sajid Javid: no alignment on EU regulations after Brexit

Chancellor’s comments represent ‘death knell for frictionless trade’, experts warn

Lisa O'Carroll Brexit correspondent

Sat 18 Jan 2020 10.21 GMT
First published on Sat 18 Jan 2020 07.30 GMT

The chancellor, Sajid Javid, has warned that there will be no alignment with EU regulations once Britain’s exit from the European Union is made official.

In what is being seen as an opening salvo in the next stage of negotiations, he said the Treasury would not lend support to manufacturers that favour EU rules as the sector has had three years to prepare for Britain’s transition.

In an interview with the Financial Times, he said: “There will not be alignment, we will not be a rule taker, we will not be in the single market and we will not be in the customs union – and we will do this by the end of the year.

“We’re … talking about companies that have known since 2016 that we are leaving the EU.”

His remarks will be seen as confirmation of a strategic departure from Theresa May’s deal in which she envisaged close alignment with the EU, in an effort to reduce friction at the border for traders.

But they will alarm business leaders in key sectors including car manufacturing and agriculture who fear the price of non alignment will be more complex trade barriers to those who export and import with the rest of the EU.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said Javid’s remarks showed Tory promises were “not worth [the] paper they were written on”. In a tweet, he added: “Fears now made real about food price increases and threats to jobs in motor industry and manufacturing. Right ideology overriding common sense.”

Labour MP David Lammy described it as a “disaster for business”. “It’s catastrophic for workers and the public services which depend on them too. Brexit will hurt most those communities it claimed to help,” he said.

Andrew Sentance, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy conmittee, described Javid and the government’s new position as “more nonsense”, adding: “Of course we need a high degree of alignment with our closest trading partners.”

Javid once said the UK’s best economic place was to remain in the EU and the single market. In May 2016, a month before the referendum he said the only thing guaranteed about leaving the bloc was a decade of “stagnation and doubt”.

“Just like the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, and IMF head Christine Lagarde, I still believe that Britain is better off in. And that’s all because of the single market.

“It’s a great invention, one that even Lady Thatcher campaigned enthusiastically to create. The world’s largest economic bloc, it gives every business in Britain access to 500 million customers with no barriers, no tariffs and no local legislation to worry about,” he said in an article in the Daily Telegraph.

Last week the European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, warned that the price of non-alignment would be friction in trade.

“The more divergence there is, the more distant the partnership has to be,” she said.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator has also warned that the UK will not get a tariff-free, quota-free trade deal with the EU unless it accepts level-playing field rules on issues such as the environment.

Javid admitted that some businesses may not benefit from Brexit, but added that the UK economy would ultimately continue to thrive in the long term.

“Once we’ve got this agreement in place with our European friends, we will continue to be one of the most successful economies on Earth,” he said.

But the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) said that no regulatory alignment with the EU after Brexit could lead to price rises.

Its chief operating officer, Tim Rycroft, said the chancellor’s comments represented “the death knell for frictionless trade”.

He told the BBC Today programme on Saturday: “Food and drink manufacturers will be deeply concerned by the chancellor’s suggestion that there will not be regulatory alignment with the EU post-Brexit.

“It will mean businesses will have to adjust to costly new checks, processes and procedures, that will act as a barrier to frictionless trade with the EU and may well result in price rises.”

Javid will have the opportunity to sell his vision for Britain’s economy post-Brexit when he travels to Davos next week for the World Economic Forum.

Negotiations on the future relationship are expected to begin formally after 25 February when the EU has formally agreed its negotiating goals.

It is not clear whether the UK will publish detailed negotiating objectives, which is the convention in trade talks.

Javid was upbeat about the economy, saying he wanted to boost growth rates to between 2.7% and 2.8% a year – the average for 50 years after the second world war.

Last week, Carney told the FT he thought Britain’s trend growth rate was much lower at between 1% and 1.5% .

No massive surprises here. Javid offers a predictable combination of bland reassurance and blind optimism. Everyone else is worried.

Clearly this would be a problem for exporters. Britain could, in theory at least, just refuse to carry out checks and let the trucks roll. But anything passing into EU territory would be stopped, checked, and tariffed. On that basis, food imports might not be affected all that much; unless hauliers are concerned about their trucks getting stuck on the wrong side of a tariff barrier, and stop taking shipments to Britain. Then things could get complicated.

The other thing that's got me wondering is just how far along the decision-making process companies like Nissan or Honda. I can't see them staying after a Hard Brexit; but how long would it take them to give up, close down, and pack up? Days? Months? Years?

[Nicholas]

The other thing that's got me wondering is just how far along the decision-making process companies like Nissan or Honda. I can't see them staying after a Hard Brexit; but how long would it take them to give up, close down, and pack up? Days? Months? Years?

I expect that they have been cutting down on capital investments in their British plants for the last couple of years but haven't made any decisions yet and won't for several more years. Moving an automobile plant is a process that costs tens of billions of dollars, takes at least decade and affects thousands of suppliers. A major car company moves large quantities of both vehicles and parts through customs all the time. They are experienced at this so a well run and stable customs program won't bother them in the least and tariffs are simply another cost (and not one of the larger ones) to calculate when figuring where it is cheapest to build the cars.

I'm sure they hate the uncertainty but I wouldn't expect any major decisions to be driven by Brexist until the uncertainty is resolved and they can predicts tariffs and customs compliance costs with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Nicholas

[Juubi Karakuchi]

The other thing that's got me wondering is just how far along the decision-making process companies like Nissan or Honda. I can't see them staying after a Hard Brexit; but how long would it take them to give up, close down, and pack up? Days? Months? Years?

I expect that they have been cutting down on capital investments in their British plants for the last couple of years but haven't made any decisions yet and won't for several more years. Moving an automobile plant is a process that costs tens of billions of dollars, takes at least decade and affects thousands of suppliers. A major car company moves large quantities of both vehicles and parts through customs all the time. They are experienced at this so a well run and stable customs program won't bother them in the least and tariffs are simply another cost (and not one of the larger ones) to calculate when figuring where it is cheapest to build the cars.

I'm sure they hate the uncertainty but I wouldn't expect any major decisions to be driven by Brexist until the uncertainty is resolved and they can predicts tariffs and customs compliance costs with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Nicholas

I suppose it ultimately comes down to how hard a Brexit. If Bojo goes for a BINO after all and gets away with it, then they won't move at all. And I agree there wouldn't be any point in making a decision until the Brexit outcome is apparent. On that basis, we're looking at the end of this year; unless Bojo goes for another extension and somehow gets away with it.

Having had a little time to reflect on this, the big issue in this specific case is not so much tariffs, but delays. If Britain does not go for regulatory alignment, then the EU has no reason or obligation to take Britain's word, or that of any company operating out of Britain. There will be customs checks, and even if the companies involved know what they are doing, there will be delays. In a manufacturing chain that crosses borders, sometimes multiple times, that means big delays, reduced productivity, and reduced sales.

In my mind, there is no question that without regulatory alignment, the companies will leave. It's just a question of when and how quickly; and Nicholas is probably right that, barring something pretty bizarre happening, it will take some time.

One other thing. I had forgotten about this, but Honda has already declared that it is closing its Swindon plant by 2021, with a loss of 3500 jobs. That seems a bit sudden, but that work force is a little over half of the 6000 working at Nissan's Sunderland plant, and from what I understand Honda has been cutting back production at Swindon for some time; notably since the 2008 crash. We could be looking at the back end of a long paring-down.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well that's it, game over. Sometimes I despair of this fucking country.

[Zaune]

Nothing a good purge wouldn't fix.

[The Romulan Republic]

Personally, at this point, I wish the EU would hit Britain with some very stiff sanctions. That's harsh, I know, but I am sick to hell of xenophobes, fascists, and oligarchs winning, and Britain's actions haven't quite gotten bad enough yet to warrant military intervention/revolt, so that leaves crippling sanctions. I'd rather none of this had happened at all, but it has, its not slowing down, and its long past time that the defenders of democracy and unity started playing some hardball.

I'd also support Scottish independence at this point. Despite, or perhaps because of, my disdain for secessionism and nationalism in general, I cannot really fault Scotland for wishing to leave a separatist Britain to remain part of a greater union, especially when it was always clear that Scotland was remaining in Britain on the understanding that Britain would remain in the EU.

And yeah, I'll say the same here in Canada if Alberta tries to split (just replace "Scotland" with "any Albertan city, town, or reservation that wishes to remain in Canada").

[Solauren]

So, you don't want to the "xenophobes, fascists, and oligarchs" to win, so your solution is to hit the UK with sanctions, which they can then spin-doctor to say "SEE! We are RIGHT!"

Good Idea!

[The Romulan Republic]

So, you don't want to the "xenophobes, fascists, and oligarchs" to win, so your solution is to hit the UK with sanctions, which they can then spin-doctor to say "SEE! We are RIGHT!"

Good Idea!

Eh, the Right doesn't need us to do or not do anything to make up hysterical conspiracy theories. If we give them everything they want, they'll still call us commie traitor SJW cucks and hate us simply for existing. There's literally nothing we can do to prevent that.

[mr friendly guy]

So the UK still still follows the EU rules, but doesn't get to vote, while they take another 11 months to negotiate the final final agreement? What was to stop both sides agreeing to something like this at the start, but give the deadline at end of 2020, and minimise a lot of the song and dance around Brexit?

Also on a personal note, since they are still largely following the EU rules, I have a feeling it won't change the price of things too much, especially since I plan to visit the UK in May.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

No need for punishment. Britain will ruin itself without the EU lifting a finger.

Expect a lot of waffle until around about the end of June; the deadline for another extension. If Bojo wants an extension, or if he's tired of being managed by his inner circle (Cummings, Patel, etc), we could see a crisis. Otherwise it'll probably be December, as the clock runs down. Then it'll be crash-out Brexit or BINO; in the latter case, Bojo signing whatever the EU slides across the table.

As for Scottish independence, there are unconfirmed reports floating around of support having reached 51% in some polls. The trade deal is nevertheless crucial, as a BINO would likely put off a lot of the not-sures from voting for independence, just as in 2014. I wouldn't expect any decisive shift before June.

So the UK still still follows the EU rules, but doesn't get to vote, while they take another 11 months to negotiate the final final agreement? What was to stop both sides agreeing to something like this at the start, but give the deadline at end of 2020, and minimise a lot of the song and dance around Brexit?

Also on a personal note, since they are still largely following the EU rules, I have a feeling it won't change the price of things too much, especially since I plan to visit the UK in May.

Witness the quality of British governance.

And I also suspect prices won't change much at this stage. Maybe if there's a crisis at the end of June, but not likely before then.

[Vendetta]

So the UK still still follows the EU rules, but doesn't get to vote, while they take another 11 months to negotiate the final final agreement? What was to stop both sides agreeing to something like this at the start, but give the deadline at end of 2020, and minimise a lot of the song and dance around Brexit?

The UK couldn't negotiate other trade agreements outside of the EU whilst it was still a member.

The transition period is intended to allow the UK to sort out all of its other international trade with countries like the US as well as the subsequent arrangements with the EU, which agreements will go into force when the transition period ends.

The UK does not have the large number of trained negotiators this will require and 11 months is a hopelessly optimistic timescale for getting any of it done, so it's very likely Boris 'dead in a ditch' Johnson will be getting it extended no matter how many times he says he won't.

[Solauren]

Now, a question for everyone: What happens if after the next UK election, a new party comes to power on a platform of 'we will rejoin the EU'?

[Vendetta]

Now, a question for everyone: What happens if after the next UK election, a new party comes to power on a platform of 'we will rejoin the EU'?

Then they would negotiate an agreement with the EU that would include a lot less of the special arrangements and exceptions that the UK used to have.

The next election is, frankly, going to be far too soon for that though. Unless we do go back to the hard brexit food shortages situation.

It will be when we've had a decade or so of all the promises falling apart (and possibly the union, the DUP are on the back foot because they've supported something that's seriously shafted hardcore Unionists, so Alliance might eat their lunch at the next Stormont and Westminster elections, and where NI goes it will be hard to stop Scotland following) and the tide in the Tory party shifts back to the neoconservative consensus that we'll start to see movement in that direction.

[bilateralrope]

Have they decided on a plan for handling the Irish border yet ?

[Lost Soal]

Lie and hope it works out.

[Zaune]

The next election is, frankly, going to be far too soon for that though. Unless we do go back to the hard brexit food shortages situation.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending how many deaths you consider an acceptable price for nobody to the right of the Liberal Democrats being electorally credible ever again, it's quite likely that we'll end up in exactly that situation. If Scotland doesn't rise up in revolt first.

[Nicholas]

TRR shows that internationalism is now indisputably a nationalism, it has all the vices of other nationalisms. Since the only solid justification for TRR's position is that the English people have betrayed the international cause and must be punished for that. This is why nations go to war to prevent succession because succession is a betrayal of the nation. You can try and dress it up as defending the international order, but that only works if the EU is a state and succession is not permitted by the international order. Neither of those statements are clearly true so the what you are left with is England has betrayed the idea of an every closer international union and must be punished for that.

Related to that, the EU is mostly incapable of sanctioning England. Trump would never support the idea and the Iranian situation has demonstrated that the US is still capable of imposing its economic will on the rest of the planet. If the EU tried the US would refuse to help the EU investigate companies passing goods and services through the US on the way from Europe to England and vise versa. Without that support the EU could not enforce sanctions on multinationals or even on anyone who runs an import/export business between EU and the US.

Also I see the idea that Brexit is going to be an economic catastrophe is back again. I still don't buy it. England is mostly capitalistic and capitalism is good at finding ways around problems. Prices will probably go up for some things (they may go down for others, England doesn't have to follow the Common Agricultural Policy anymore) but if something can't be imported from Europe alternative suppliers will quickly be located. What cost there is will be paid in reduced growth and it will be impossible for anyone (but maybe a few economics) to see what that cost actually is. Voters aren't going to notice the costs.

As for the stability of the United Kingdom. From an economic perspective Northern Ireland leaving just got more likely and Scotland leaving just got less likely. Switching the ruler of Northern Ireland from London to Dublin will be fairly simple (presuming the EU is OK with the territory of one of its members expanding) for the next couple of years (until the UK and the EU have significant legislative and regulatory differences) and makes economic sense with Ireland in the EU and the UK out. On the other hand Scotland is no longer part of the EU so it now has to declare independence from the UK before it can start negotiating to join the EU. That is a very long process and at some point in it a hard boarder between England and Scotland would need to be established as would a separate currency (since as an new EU member Scotland would be required to use the Euro). I suspect that would cause disruption but would be tolerable, those of you expecting Brexit to cause large numbers of deaths would have to expect something similar from a hard boarder between England and Scotland, wouldn't you?

Of course membership in a nation state doesn't usually depend on economics, it usually depends on people's sense of identity. So the issue in a referendum in Northern Ireland will be how many of its residents identify as Irish, how many identify as Europeans (and so see the EU as their country), how many identify with Britain, and how those voting for convenience or for the status quo decide to vote. The same goes for Scotland with a few identities changed.

Nicholas

[Eternal_Freedom]

Secession dude, not succession. Very different things. Though admittedly there have been wars to ensure/oppose successions in the past.

[Vendetta]

Have they decided on a plan for handling the Irish border yet ?

Under the current Withdrawal Agreement, Northern Ireland is remaining in customs alignment with the EU.

That means that customs forms/compliance declarations will be required for goods travelling from the mainland to Northern Ireland.

The Unionists are both surprised and alarmed that the leopards ate their face.

[mr friendly guy]

Related to that, the EU is mostly incapable of sanctioning England. Trump would never support the idea and the Iranian situation has demonstrated that the US is still capable of imposing its economic will on the rest of the planet. If the EU tried the US would refuse to help the EU investigate companies passing goods and services through the US on the way from Europe to England and vise versa. Without that support the EU could not enforce sanctions on multinationals or even on anyone who runs an import/export business between EU and the US.

Assuming the hypothetical where the EU wants to fuck the UK over, why bother with sanctions as opposed to tariffs? The UK will be obligated to put retaliatory tariffs, and if these go high enough it will cause a shortage of goods just like how sanctions would. The EU is still the UK's largest trading partner.