The Brexit aftermath thread

[dribbles]

Aren't the majority of car manufacturers in the UK foreign owned? And whilst Aston Martin and McLaren have shown strong growth over the last few years I don't think they don't come close, in terms of people employed or units sold, to the likes of VAG, PSA, Fiat or Nissan (to name a few).

Does it matter if anything is foreign owned really? If so the people who are saying with glee that the planes won't fly post brexit are shooting themselves in the foot if Spanish owned British Airways are grounded. Will Spain be happy with that?

[Pann]

Does it matter if anything is foreign owned really? If so the people who are saying with glee that the planes won't fly post brexit are shooting themselves in the foot if Spanish owned British Airways are grounded. Will Spain be happy with that?

Well, yes, in so much as the benefits (profits) of any FTA agreed between the UK and another country will flow out of the country into the pockets of their foreign owners. Thus any FTA that encourages the sale British built Minis to the Chinese, for example, although great for the workers in the British factories is in essence padding BMW's balance sheet.

It appears that you point is routed in a they need us more than we need them basis which so far has not proved to be the case but I imagine there will be a lot companies throughout Europe, and possibly the world, that will lose out and therefore be unhappy with the results of Brexit.

[Mayhem]

A 9bn deal done just ths week. UK meat and dairy products back on the menu in China, good news for British farmers. A penny in the pocket worth of British cheese consumed in China is a penny not in the pocket of EU farmers. Meanwhile Merkel and her non government are still flouncing around at home busy with domestic issues whilst we gaily plunder the EU's trade.

China to accept UK beef 20 years after ban as May secures £9bn trade deal BEFORE Brexit

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...-before-brexit

As I was saying.....

Well congrats to that, is there maybe another source for this?

[dribbles]

Well, yes, in so much as the benefits (profits) of any FTA agreed between the UK and another country will flow out of the country into the pockets of their foreign owners. Thus any FTA that encourages the sale British built Minis to the Chinese, for example, although great for the workers in the British factories is in essence padding BMW's balance sheet.

It appears that you point is routed in a they need us more than we need them basis which so far has not proved to be the case but I imagine there will be a lot companies throughout Europe, and possibly the world, that will lose out and therefore be unhappy with the results of Brexit.

Many average British people via pension funds and individual holdings will own shares in BMW - if they do well great, all the owners, you and I, benefit. And as you point out their employees in Oxford. I'm all for inward foreign investment to the UK and it shows no signs of falling due to Brexit.

It is true that they need us and our money more than we need them. On the other side of the coin however even I am glad that EU places like Benidorm exist if only for the purpose of keeping the riff-raff out of Cornwall.

See? There are some positives to the EU even I admit to. Not sure I can think of any other benefits though, you?

[NED funded]

A world-wide ban on British beef exports was declared by the EU in 1996 following the scare about BSE being transferable to humans.

Brussels lifted the ban a decade later but many countries kept the measure in place.

0_0

How short your perspective must be to not realize that this was an obvious consequence? Or was the EU intentionally trying to fuck the UK?

- - - Updated - - -

“China will import UK products that are needed in the Chinese market."

Do they realize that the Chinese government has an obscene amount of control in their market right? Like at any moment if the Chinese government says it a certain product will no longer be needed in the Chinese market and everyone just sucks it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, reading this comment thread. There is a lot of irony in complaining about trade deficits to Germany while clamouring foreign-owned companies manufacturing in your country.

[NED funded]

As for the first part, the EU lifted the restrictions, what did previous PMs do to get those restrictions lifted by third parties afterwards? Similar restrictions were placed in the past on French beef and Danish dairy if I recall in response to a health crisis. Both were lifted.

I mean, yeah they can go and talk to them and negotiate, but they (EU) are putting them at a disadvantaged position, where the country that made the ban has the upper hand.

Not obscene, absolute. Nothing can happen without them allowing it to happen.

True, you would have to be stupid or really dependent on China to make a trade deal with them. China is a master at speaking rhetoric about markets and doing the exact opposite, liberals eat it whole tho.

[NED funded]

It was a credible issue when it happened, the ban was not instituted half-hearted. And it was lifted officially with the EU declaring there is no further concern years ago. I have not followed the issue about the French ban but I know the Danish succesfully got theirs lifted fairly soon after by most third parties. Failing to regulate your local industries has consequences. Failing to advocate for them afterwards has even further consequences. The onus falls squarely on British governance.

I guess if it was serious then it might be justifiable.

On a side note a little bit more digging already starts to show the UK bowing.

China 'thanks Theresa May for sidestepping human rights questions'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3756151.html

RIP Hong Kong I guess, the UK was supposed to be China's watchdog in HK.

[NED funded]

Control of Hong Kong (and Macau) is necessary to be able to put any dent on the Triads. If one of the most extensive and violent crime syndicates on the planet (if not THE most) operates in your country, you need to behead the beast. Frankly it would be for everyone's benefit if they do so. Now if they suborn them instead, that's vastly more dangerous for international security.

Are there triads in HK and if so are they really that vicious? Even if so (which I'm having my doubts), I don't think its worth the gradual removal of rights of people living in Hong Kong.

[Pann]

Many average British people via pension funds and individual holdings will own shares in BMW - if they do well great, all the owners, you and I, benefit. And as you point out their employees in Oxford. I'm all for inward foreign investment to the UK and it shows no signs of falling due to Brexit.

It is true that they need us and our money more than we need them. On the other side of the coin however even I am glad that EU places like Benidorm exist if only for the purpose of keeping the riff-raff out of Cornwall.

See? There are some positives to the EU even I admit to. Not sure I can think of any other benefits though, you?

Ah, post Brexit we'll be reliant on the performance of foreign companies to pay our pensions!? It just gets better and better!

I suppose you could say that foreign investment shows no sign of falling if you completely ignore all the companies that are talking of relocating to the EU; Diageo, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, etc.

[Slant]

Really? We make almost as many cars here as France and are catching up with Germany and we have done it without the benefits of on occasion industrial sized "laboratory" emissions testing on humans over the last 80 years - be interesting what kind of car industry you have left when the full truths from victims of those recent gassings a year or two ago come out and with the compensation due yet to be paid or determined to the world :P

"At least 38,000 people die early each year because of the failure of diesel vehicles to meet official nitrogen oxide emissions limits."

https://global.handelsblatt.com/mobi...-humans-882536

Time to re-convene at Nuremberg?

Basically, 90% of your car industry is owned by companies located outside the UK. When you sell cars, it's German companies making money. So go ahead, sell more cars. Because as it stands, UK auto companies make fuck all in profit right now.

I like your openly anti-German sentiment right there, btw. If I didn't know you were openly trolling at this stage, I'd be concerned about your racism. But then, your obviously poor taste speaks for itself.

[Shadowmelded]

Some levity after the nitty-gritty trade talk.

[ranzino]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ansition-talks

Barnier in London next week already, now it gains some momentum. time to spill the beans UK.

[Deleted]

Some levity after the nitty-gritty trade talk.

The ERG never disappoints.

[ranzino]

The ERG never disappoints.

a veto would just end transition period and i think EU would be ok with that.

[ranzino]

I mean if they demand to hold the EU hostage for the transition period, drop the transition period.

well, technically UK is the hostage here; they have no say in anything during transition. it is even plausible they want a veto, but EU can counter that by axing the transition then upon any veto.

[Pann]

I mean if they demand to hold the EU hostage for the transition period, drop the transition period.

No-one is demanding to hold the EU hostage. The ERG is just making noise.

- - - Updated - - -

well, technically UK is the hostage here; they have no say in anything during transition. it is even plausible they want a veto, but EU can counter that by axing the transition then upon any veto.

The transition period is also of benefit to the EU, it aids European businesses by giving them time to adjust to new legislation and adopt new working practices as well as allowing EU state's governments time to enact that legislation.

[Pann]

True I suppose. Just a group advocating that May adopt a red line. She most likely will not adopt it. I am just saying that good faith goes both ways and if the UK retains a veto, they can use it in other legislation.

Also the idea that financial transactions are going to face a tariff or a tax being what will punish the City is just low information bait and I wonder if it is intended for internal consumption or if the ERG really is that clueless. They certainly can but the EU does not have to work through tariffs. The efficiency of clearing will be hurt through security requirements that will slow it down significantly.

To be honest I don't think it is unreasonable for the UK be able opt out of adopting newly enacted legislation that it feels would be damaging to the UK whilst we are in the transition period however being able to veto it altogether is a step too far. With that said I think the chances of any such law being put on the table, passed and then implemented between now and the end of the transition period are slim making the whole veto suggestion rather pointless.

[Pann]

Heck the transition period is probably not even long enough. But if the EU tries something funny during that period, the UK can just move towards a harder Brexit in negotiations in response. It's not like their only recourse is to deny the EU legislative mobility that it has a mandate to impose. If they feel that a partnership is unwise due to actions during the transition, they can just further restrict that partnership.

It all starts and ends with picking either your red lines and seeing what you can get without passing them, or picking what is the least you need to get and see which lines you will have to cross to get it and then handling stakeholders. As soon as either approach is picked and the restrictions are clear, a negotiation can go on and if financial transaction taxes are a clear red line for the UK, it can communicate that clearly instead of requesting a veto right when it will functionally be an observer.

None of this matters of course because there is no clear official stance on this idea of the veto (though Barnier NEEDS to get such an official stance from the UK) or on any idea in general.

Good point about the length of the transition period, the infrastructure that will potentially be required for customs and border checks alone is likely to be substantial yet no-one even appears to have started making plans for this let alone building it.

I think you're reading too much into the request for a veto - my take, at least at the moment, is that the momentum against May has petered out therefore the leverage the likes of JRM had against her at the beginning of the week is greatly diminished and by demanding something that they know she is unlikely to agree to and even if she did the EU would never accept they are trying put pressure on her and make the EU look unreasonable in order to drum up support with the more swivel-eyed loony Brexit crowd. In short I think this is a tool to keep up pressure on May rather than serious negotiating tactic.

- - - Updated - - -

But yes, you are right that allowing them to opt out of such legislation is not at all unreasonable. I called it "holding hostage" because if the EU would want to enact legislation for its actual members that those members agree on, a veto right would ludicrously allow the UK to deny them acting on such a mandate. But as I said earlier, I am assuming that the ERG is performing for internal consumption and perhaps even to force May into an embarrassing situation, since the EU will respond to such a statement by requesting clarity which she does not have to offer.

Even if the EU did somehow grant the UK a veto. Would it even be in the UK's interests to use it? I can't see the use of a veto helping negotiations one bit. Unfortunately I don't think the crowd Rees-Mogg and co are playing to will even consider this.


----edit---

I missed it earlier where you mentioned that it was to force May into an embarrassing position.

[Deleted]

a veto would just end transition period and i think EU would be ok with that.

This might be the effective solution, but this wont be in writing -

[Pann]

Oh I am not saying it is a negotiating tactic, I don't think May would negotiate in that manner, I hold her to a higher standard. I was just saying that inevitably and unfortunately those internal issues force the EU to react to them because Barnier will need to address that possibility, however improbable it might be. The EU might have its house in order in comparison but that doesn't mean there is no call to respond.

And yes, the transition period should have been lengthier. I would expect that RoI will budget for said infrastructure if it seems it must (though I still expect that May will have to end up placating the Unionists somehow and taking the border to the Irish Sea by keeping NI in the Single Market to avoid a Customs Union) and in my opinion the EU should actually contribute (and contribute in policing and regulating ALL EU borders, such as providing substantial relief to the Med water borders).
But it also needs to be lengthier so that the UK can have time to create alternatives for regulatory bodies and security schemes that are currently provided by the EU. As I've said earlier, the UK needs to devise its own alternative to the CAP and budget for it. It will need to increase the budget and staffing of several regulatory bodies that were essentially acting as subsidiaries to central EU authorities since now they will need to function in full. And it needs to make a significant effort to create an extensive corps of international trade lawyers and diplomats to be able to materialize any aspirations as a trade leader.

Good points. With regard to the borders and customs I was more thinking of what will be needed to process the amount of freight, that is suddenly going to need additional checks, passing through Dover, Felixstow, Rotterdam, Antwerp, etc.