The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[LTD]

There shouldn’t be a second referendum on the basis that there won’t be a third, a fourth, a fifth, a four million three hundred and eighty-seven thousand,two hundred and ninety sixth referendum

 

[Swotty]

We already trade with the rest of the World and new deals to replace the near-50% of trade that we currently do with the EU would take years to agree and would be negotiated from a position of weakness since everyone would know that we were desperate. They would therefore be no replacement for our current trading position.

And the £39BILLION that we agreed to pay was a prerequisite to the EU agreeing to start talks on trade. It came with no guarantees.

40% of our trade is with the EU. The other 60% is clearly with the rest of the world on WTO terms.

If we leave on WTO terms we and the EU keep the same terms as we have now for up to 10 years unless both sides agree to vary them within that period. Net gain to the UK economy, up to £80 billion.

One side can unilaterally drop them, so the UK could reduce to zero tariffs if it wished. Wise move.

If not, the standard WTO tariff of 3% would apply ... much less than the "single market" entry tariff.

The 39 billion is made up of 2 years net payments up to the end of the EU budget cycle in 2020, so approximately half is due and half isn't.

Sorry to interrupt with facts.

However, I am told it is accepted in political circles that the actual payment will be in the region of 80 billion.

We are not told sooo much ..... like our army will be put under EU control.

May is a serial liar.

 

[ioweddie]

Are we out yet?

 

[Swotty]

Are we out yet?

Not if Hammond and his "big business" mates have their way:

Exclusive: Philip Hammond tells business chiefs MPs will stop no-deal Brexit

Exclusive: Philip Hammond tells business chiefs MPs will stop no-deal Brexit

Sorry, I'm too tight to pay so they're behind a paywall, but you get the gist from the comments.

 

[geraldrobins]

Typical project fear reply. Surely common sense would be to invoke a status quo till a deal was reached, of course the postering politicians on both sides wouldn't let their egos be insulted by that suggestion.

As regards to the Irish border, we can simply state that we will never put a hard border up. I can't understand why May has not stated this before, any trade coming from the South would be minimal and have no effect on our economy whatsoever

Not if Hammond and his "big business" mates have their way:

Exclusive: Philip Hammond tells business chiefs MPs will stop no-deal Brexit

Exclusive: Philip Hammond tells business chiefs MPs will stop no-deal Brexit

Sorry, I'm too tight to pay so they're behind a paywall, but you get the gist from the comments.

That headline is misleading and doesn't represent the article as its all 'mights'.

 

[markjay]

...One side can unilaterally drop them, so the UK could reduce to zero tariffs if it wished. Wise move.

If not, the standard WTO tariff of 3% would apply ... much less than the "single market" entry tariff....

This was one of the topics Rees-Mogg was trying to debate during the O'Brian interview.

He said that the EU is a protectionist organisation and puts high tariff on beef imports to protect local farmers.

If we leave the EU on WTO terms, then we can lower the tarrif and comsumers will have cheaper beef from Australia and New Zealand (and we can obviously do the same for other food products).

Sounds great? Well, not if you are a farmer in the UK.... tarrifs have a reason, and it is to protect local food producers, so that we can produce our food independently and feed our popluation in times of need (leassons learnt from two world wars).

Now, there are only two possibilities... either Rees-Mogg does not know this because he is an uneducated philistine, or he is deliberately lying. Take your pick.

 

[Swotty]

I think I saw somewhere that dairy products from outside the "single market" into the EU have a tariff of around 38%? The UK keeps around 3% of the duty and the other 35% is passed on to the EU. Nice earner. Other products carry lower levels of duty, I believe.

I rather suspect that Rees-Mogg knows more about this than you and I put together! I certainly wouldn't want to engage him in any argument about Brexit.

 

[Dryce]

Sounds great? Well, not if you are a farmer in the UK.... tarrifs have a reason, and it is to protect local food producers, so that we can produce our food independently and feed our popluation in times of need (leassons learnt from two world wars).

The EU has previous on the tariff and subsidy issue in it's pre-EU days - the CAP and subsidies and various food mountains and lakes used to be a major bone of contention and treated as scandalous at the time with accusations that it was favouring farmers over consumers.

And consider: Food security - it doesn't begin with a massive increase in population and a reduction in the size of the navy ... and tariffs won't fix that inconvenient truth.

 

[markjay]

The EU has previous on the tariff and subsidy issue in it's pre-EU days - the CAP and subsidies and various food mountains and lakes used to be a major bone of contention and treated as scandalous at the time with accusations that it was favouring farmers over consumers.

And consider: Food security - it doesn't begin with a massive increase in population and a reduction in the size of the navy ... and tariffs won't fix that inconvenient truth.

So do you agree with Rees-Mogg, that as soon as we're out of the EU and on WTO rules we'll drop the tarrifs on food and import cheap beef from around the world? Well, I don't.

And my point was that it is not as simple as Rees-Mogg would have us believe, and that he knows very well that it's not likely to happen.

 

[Dryce]

So do you agree with Rees-Mogg, that as soon as we're out of the EU and on WTO rules we'll drop the tarrifs on food and import cheap beef from around the world? Well, I don't.

I think I have stated (a long time ago) that I believe the value of the pound will potentially be a more significant influence on prices and trade and jobs than tariffs.

ISTR also having stated that I consider the WTO related stuff from media and politicians to be particularly well handled. It's an area full of misunderstandings in terms of what's involved and the consequences.

The same goes with looking forward at how sectors in the economy respond to change. There is a tendency to be a disproportionately pessimistic about the ability to adapt - with the focus being on the current situation because that is tangible and something to lose rather than the future and somethign that is not yet tangible and may be something to gain.

This is where no-deal vs bad deal becomes an issue. A deal at any cost may restrict the 'something to gain' by protecting the something to lose' at a price. It suits the EU and many in the UK to focus on a deal at any price and the no-deal has been treated as unacceptable with no real preparation and politicians and medai making it unacceptable to plan for it properly.

First step of leaving should have been planning and preparation for a no-deal. Not because it was wanted - but because it was necessary. Not being able to set out to do that because it was politically unacceptable to the establishment has made things substantially worse for the UK.

 

[AltonAnt]

40% of our trade is with the EU. The other 60% is clearly with the rest of the world on WTO terms.

Our trade deals with the rest of the world are EU deals. They would all need to be renegotiated and working initially on WTO terms e.g. least favourable.
The Irish border could be a problem here too.

 

[Harrythedog]

Just about sums it up

 

[MercedesDriver]

I think I saw somewhere that dairy products from outside the "single market" into the EU have a tariff of around 38%? The UK keeps around 3% of the duty and the other 35% is passed on to the EU. Nice earner. Other products carry lower levels of duty, I believe.

I rather suspect that Rees-Mogg knows more about this than you and I put together! I certainly wouldn't want to engage him in any argument about Brexit.

Tarriff for import of:
milk in bulk into EU from 3rd countries is 17.9 EUR/100kg
Milk in powder 130.4eur/100kg
Yogurt 0.17 EUR / kg/lactic matter + 21.10 EUR / 100 kg
Beef carcasses 12.80% + 176.80 EUR / 100 kg
For the reference UK dairy farmers get 28p/litre

 

[markjay]

...First step of leaving should have been planning and preparation for a no-deal. Not because it was wanted - but because it was necessary. Not being able to set out to do that because it was politically unacceptable to the establishment has made things substantially worse for the UK.

On this we can agree.

I can remember the public outcry from both Leavers and Remainers in the early days after the referendum whenever it was leaked that the government contemplated any form of contingency plan for leaving without a deal.

It made planning for a no-deal nigh-on impossible.

At current our only hope of having the time to prepare for no-deal is through the extension of Arricle 50.

It is also worth noting that the neither the po-Brexit camp nor the anti-Brexit camp ever mentioned a no-deal Brexit as a likely (or even possible) outcome before the referendum.

Did people actually vote for a no-deal Brexit, or did they vote for any one of the other scenarios painted in the referendum campaigns? Well, the question is academic now, we'll never know for sure.

 

[AltonAnt]

Just about sums it up

Is that real?
Not that I would expect anything less from Sky TBH and there are some obvious factual errors.
The sort of 'news' Trump would like no doubt.

 

[Scott_F]

40% of our trade is with the EU. The other 60% is clearly with the rest of the world on WTO terms.

If we leave on WTO terms we and the EU keep the same terms as we have now for up to 10 years unless both sides agree to vary them within that period. Net gain to the UK economy, up to £80 billion.

One side can unilaterally drop them, so the UK could reduce to zero tariffs if it wished. Wise move.

If not, the standard WTO tariff of 3% would apply ... much less than the "single market" entry tariff.

The 39 billion is made up of 2 years net payments up to the end of the EU budget cycle in 2020, so approximately half is due and half isn't.

Sorry to interrupt with facts.

However, I am told it is accepted in political circles that the actual payment will be in the region of 80 billion.

We are not told sooo much ..... like our army will be put under EU control.

May is a serial liar.

If you are going to "interrupt" with yet more of your "facts" you should at least try to get them right for once.

Quite apart from the fact that the EU wouldn't suddenly have gained control of our armed forces, we will revert to WTO rules by default at the end of March in the event of a No Deal scenario and the transition period is due to the finish at end of next year.

So what a reversion to WTO rules would really look like is explained here with some real facts:

Reality Check: What does a 'WTO Brexit' mean?

If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, you should at least be aware that any variance to current trading arrangements does not have to be agreed by both the UK and the EU:

"You can argue that it might seem unreasonable if the EU was to go from imposing no checks on UK products at borders the day before Brexit, to insisting on all sorts of checks one day later, even though the UK hadn't changed any of its rules and regulations. But one source close to the WTO says the EU would be well within its rights to insist on checks in the absence of any mutual recognition agreement.

That is one of the differences between suddenly falling back on WTO rules in a no deal scenario and a more gradual transition to WTO rules in which many of these issues could be ironed out.

After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business. It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.".


And I'll quote the WTO's Director General who gives an accurate assessment of what No Deal would mean to our economy:

"Clearly this is not going to be a situation where all trade stops and there is collapse in terms of the economy as a whole. But it's not going to be a walk in the park. It's not like nothing will happen. There will be an impact. The tendency is that prices will go up of course, [because] you have to absorb the cost of that disruption."


But since you rail against our EU membership whilst living in France you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I suspect that the Scots, Welsh, Yorkies and Cornish might think so.

Quicker we’re rid of those Lancashire hotpots, the better!

Bring on Yexit!

 

[st13phil]

So, as we near the Brexit denouement, Corbyn continues to play games. While I'm of the view that May is lamentable, as I said yesterday, Corbyn is to a large extent responsible for keeping her afloat and he continues to be the gift that just keeps on giving.

Parliament has managed to get itself in a complete impasse and something needs to be done. The tin-eared one entreats members of all parties to talk with her to discuss what it is that they will support going forward. So what is Corbyn's response? As observed elsewhere, the man who will meet with Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA with no preconditions, refuses to meet the British Prime Minister without her agreeing to his precondition. Fool.

 

[flowrider]

It's pretty obvious now what Corbyn wants, he refuses to discuss a way forward with the government unless "no deal" is ruled out but I hope we can all see through that one as he really wants a "no deal" because he believes it will bring the government and the country to its knee's. He can then stand up and blame it all on the Tories and, in his mind, sweep into power to implement his Marxist agenda.

So, as we near the Brexit denouement, Corbyn continues to play games. While I'm of the view that May is lamentable, as I said yesterday, Corbyn is to a large extent responsible for keeping her afloat and he continues to be the gift that just keeps on giving.

Parliament has managed to get itself in a complete impasse and something needs to be done. The tin-eared one entreats members of all parties to talk with her to discuss what it is that they will support going forward. So what is Corbyn's response? As observed elsewhere, the man who will meet with Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA with no preconditions, refuses to meet the British Prime Minister without her agreeing to his precondition. Fool.

Corbyn wants a "no deal" despite saying otherwise. He knows May can't agree to taking "no deal" off the table just as he knows his version of a "customs union" is not possible. Corbyn believes that a "no deal" Brexit will be catastrophic to the government and the country creating anarchy that he will hope to fill with his Marxist ideology and a Labour government. He has no interest in making Brexit a success other than to complete his political ambitions. The Labour party are in just as bad a state over Brexit as the Tory party.

 

[Benzowner]

I still think we are being treated like mushrooms, no one has yet really said what will happen if.......only what could happen. Since our decision to leave, the £ has dropped by 7% yet inflation is at just over 2%. It would need to be at somewhere near 4% to balance and show we are worse off.