Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
"I only believe what I saw in a tiny sample of a much larger issue!!"
Brexit
- Thread starter astleyfox
- Start date
F
Foxgolfer
Guest
I voted Remain and still believe we should have .Its not the leaving which angers me it’s the stream of lies from the likes of Johnson and Gove that we still have to listen to almost daily that boils my blood. Australian deal ffs !!
MrTeabreak
Registered
The narrow EU deal sought by Boris Johnson will act as a “dead weight” on Britain’s ability to trade, the former boss of the Brexit department has warned, amid rising concerns that the country remains dangerously ill prepared for such an outcome.
Negotiations with the EU remained stuck this weekend after Downing Street told EU negotiators not to bother making a planned trip to London without offering a “fundamental change of approach”. The prime minister stopped short of calling off talks, which will continue this week. In a sign of the severity of business unease, more than 70 trade associations and professional bodies today issue an extraordinary joint plea to both sides to carve out a deal.
However, there are concerns within government and industry that the dire threat of a no-deal outcome has masked the impact of a “thin” EU deal on trade. While a deal will remove tariffs on trade, significant “non-tariff barriers” will be imposed, adding serious costs on manufacturers and practical difficulties for hauliers – while the UK’s large services sector is also expected to be subject to new barriers. Philip Rycroft, who ran the Brexit department until last year, said that negotiators were essentially hammering out “the extent of new barriers to trade”.
“No deal is certainly worse than a deal, but it is just worth remembering – customs declarations, security declarations, regulatory checks, rules of origin, compliance – all of the panoply of a border applies if we get the deal,” he said. “The change that happens at the end of this year, either way, is a massive logistical challenge and a very expensive one.
“You have the short-term impact, but then you have a dead weight on trade for ever, because that’s the nature of being out of the [EU’s] single market. It puts friction into our trading relationship with the EU – that friction equals cost. It will change the nature of the trade relationship between the UK and the EU. If you believe in free trade, that’s clearly not a good thing.”
Talks held last week between the Cabinet Office and industry figures saw both sides express concerns over readiness for the changes due in January. Industry disquiet also remains around the readiness of a new border computer system, as well as the impact on sectors such as financial, legal and business services.
Ben Fletcher, executive director of policy at Make UK, said even the best deal now on offer was “a long way from the kind of deal that was being discussed as a starting point during Theresa May’s discussions – which itself was a very long way away from the status quo”.
“Across the big business sectors there is a real nervousness that too many firms think that the potential deal is actually largely the status quo – there is a dangerous underlying belief that ultimately, someone will emerge from a building in Brussels with a deal and things will carry on as normal. There are real fears that the hidden shock here is that the scale of change, from where we sit today to where we might sit even with a deal on 1 January, is pretty significant – and pretty scary.”
Some in industry said they were reluctant to raise concerns about the potential deal because no deal was the immediate threat. Anand Menon, director of The UK in a Changing Europe, said: “One of the things the current furore over deal v no deal serves to disguise is the fact that even if there is a deal, it will be a relatively ‘thin’ one which will lead to potentially serious disruption and have a significant impact on the economy.”
No deal remains a danger because talks have stalled over fishing rights in British waters and so-called level playing field (LPF) rules in relation to Britain’s future use of state aid. Industry sources said they expected shortages in supermarkets to force the UK back to the negotiating table in the event of no deal. Nick Macpherson, the Treasury’s top civil servant from 2005 to 2016, said the UK government would have little choice. “The deal on offer will cause economic damage since there will still be friction at the border which will discourage trade with our biggest market,” he said. “But no deal would do much more harm, in particular to manufacturing industries such as cars and chemicals and would make Britain’s return to the negotiating table at some point inevitable.”
However, Ivan Rogers, Britain’s former EU ambassador, suggested political pride may prevent that from happening. “The [EU] aim would be to force the British side back to the table. But as LPF conditionality would still be on the table for any negotiation after a no deal, I find it hard to see how Johnson could go back to the table when the terms from the other side were clearly unchanged. He is now boxed in. No deal has, for many years, been a substantial risk – not least because, for so many on the right, it was always the objective, and the ‘only true’ Brexit. If we go that route, it is in the EU’s strategic interests to make it rough. And they would.”
Negotiations with the EU remained stuck this weekend after Downing Street told EU negotiators not to bother making a planned trip to London without offering a “fundamental change of approach”. The prime minister stopped short of calling off talks, which will continue this week. In a sign of the severity of business unease, more than 70 trade associations and professional bodies today issue an extraordinary joint plea to both sides to carve out a deal.
However, there are concerns within government and industry that the dire threat of a no-deal outcome has masked the impact of a “thin” EU deal on trade. While a deal will remove tariffs on trade, significant “non-tariff barriers” will be imposed, adding serious costs on manufacturers and practical difficulties for hauliers – while the UK’s large services sector is also expected to be subject to new barriers. Philip Rycroft, who ran the Brexit department until last year, said that negotiators were essentially hammering out “the extent of new barriers to trade”.
“No deal is certainly worse than a deal, but it is just worth remembering – customs declarations, security declarations, regulatory checks, rules of origin, compliance – all of the panoply of a border applies if we get the deal,” he said. “The change that happens at the end of this year, either way, is a massive logistical challenge and a very expensive one.
“You have the short-term impact, but then you have a dead weight on trade for ever, because that’s the nature of being out of the [EU’s] single market. It puts friction into our trading relationship with the EU – that friction equals cost. It will change the nature of the trade relationship between the UK and the EU. If you believe in free trade, that’s clearly not a good thing.”
Talks held last week between the Cabinet Office and industry figures saw both sides express concerns over readiness for the changes due in January. Industry disquiet also remains around the readiness of a new border computer system, as well as the impact on sectors such as financial, legal and business services.
Ben Fletcher, executive director of policy at Make UK, said even the best deal now on offer was “a long way from the kind of deal that was being discussed as a starting point during Theresa May’s discussions – which itself was a very long way away from the status quo”.
“Across the big business sectors there is a real nervousness that too many firms think that the potential deal is actually largely the status quo – there is a dangerous underlying belief that ultimately, someone will emerge from a building in Brussels with a deal and things will carry on as normal. There are real fears that the hidden shock here is that the scale of change, from where we sit today to where we might sit even with a deal on 1 January, is pretty significant – and pretty scary.”
Some in industry said they were reluctant to raise concerns about the potential deal because no deal was the immediate threat. Anand Menon, director of The UK in a Changing Europe, said: “One of the things the current furore over deal v no deal serves to disguise is the fact that even if there is a deal, it will be a relatively ‘thin’ one which will lead to potentially serious disruption and have a significant impact on the economy.”
No deal remains a danger because talks have stalled over fishing rights in British waters and so-called level playing field (LPF) rules in relation to Britain’s future use of state aid. Industry sources said they expected shortages in supermarkets to force the UK back to the negotiating table in the event of no deal. Nick Macpherson, the Treasury’s top civil servant from 2005 to 2016, said the UK government would have little choice. “The deal on offer will cause economic damage since there will still be friction at the border which will discourage trade with our biggest market,” he said. “But no deal would do much more harm, in particular to manufacturing industries such as cars and chemicals and would make Britain’s return to the negotiating table at some point inevitable.”
However, Ivan Rogers, Britain’s former EU ambassador, suggested political pride may prevent that from happening. “The [EU] aim would be to force the British side back to the table. But as LPF conditionality would still be on the table for any negotiation after a no deal, I find it hard to see how Johnson could go back to the table when the terms from the other side were clearly unchanged. He is now boxed in. No deal has, for many years, been a substantial risk – not least because, for so many on the right, it was always the objective, and the ‘only true’ Brexit. If we go that route, it is in the EU’s strategic interests to make it rough. And they would.”
hackneyfox
Roofer
Can you link this please?
astleyfox
Roofer
You know that do you? I live in the Lutterworth area. Employment is dominated by Magna Park, I believe it is Europes largest distribution centre. I know loads if people who work there, on and off, they trll me the way it is. Why do people of your political leaning Insist on spreading this bullshit lie? You seem intent on bad mouthing the British working class.
Richardvanles
Roofer
What % of British work at Magna Park?
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
BBC News - Brexit: Have EU-UK trade talks reached a dead end? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54609383
astleyfox
Roofer
I dont know Dickie. I would have thought it would be disproportionate to the general population. I dont blame them, they were told they could come, so they did. Many of you intimate that anyone who is not a supporter of the EU, is a fickie. Lets turn the jobs issue into an analogy. Lets take twenty jobs, and convert them to chocolate biscuits, then put them on a plate on the table. Then, take thirty biscuit lovers, and tell them to take one each. What would be the outcome?
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
That a rich tory would take 19 and blame it on the rest?
astleyfox
Roofer
Its the rich tories that propagate the lies about lazy Englanders. They love their inexhaustible supply of cheap, expendable labour. Why do the CBI, the institute of directors, constantly bang that old drum. It keeps wages down, simples.
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
Really? I thought they were the ones banging the drum for an Australian Deal (sic)?
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
That analogy doesn't work though. Before Brexit and the Covid problem there were enough jobs, there weren't enough local people to do them. Why did they have employment agencies in Eastern European countries? You didn't answer the part of my previous post about prices going up if wages increase. How come the foreigners coming in to do the jobs can live off minimum wage, and still send some home to family?
AFCDorset
Roofer
I can not speak for all brexiteers, but those that I know want out for political and social issues.
We expected an economic hit, but actually believed that we could, with positive and energetic leadership, turn this around in a reasonable timescale, forging links with the rest of the world and continuing to work with the EU in a more limited manner.
That, as we now see, was incredibly naive. There is no one in the upper reaches of our establishment that had the will to take on such a task and that should have been obvious from the moment on 24th June when Cameron jumped ship.
Since then they have been working towards this point, four years of sham negotiations have left this country weak and divided, the final capitulation that will leave us a 'vassal' state to be looted at will by the EU is only a few weeks away.
We expected an economic hit, but actually believed that we could, with positive and energetic leadership, turn this around in a reasonable timescale, forging links with the rest of the world and continuing to work with the EU in a more limited manner.
That, as we now see, was incredibly naive. There is no one in the upper reaches of our establishment that had the will to take on such a task and that should have been obvious from the moment on 24th June when Cameron jumped ship.
Since then they have been working towards this point, four years of sham negotiations have left this country weak and divided, the final capitulation that will leave us a 'vassal' state to be looted at will by the EU is only a few weeks away.
Richardvanles
Roofer
The biggest mistake was people thinking Boris was/ is fully committed to leaving the EU. The reality was he saw leading the Brexit campaign as nothing more than fulfilling his ambition to become Prime Minister. Apparently Cameron was surprised when he came out in the press supporting the Brexit line after conversations with him he was undecided. If you're going to lead you need to fully believe in what you're leading. Not sure Boris was/ is, despite all his bravado.
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
Boris is a gesture politician of the worst kind.
sixthswan
Non-Member
Agree with you fully on that. His family were Remainers and so was he, until political ambition forced his hand.
Johnson's mistake will be his cowardice in standing up to the factions of his party, that he doesn't actually share a common interest with.
He got into power by pretence. With a large majority, he should be now forcing his will as a One Nation Tory and by diluting the impact of Brexit.
Johnson's mistake will be his cowardice in standing up to the factions of his party, that he doesn't actually share a common interest with.
He got into power by pretence. With a large majority, he should be now forcing his will as a One Nation Tory and by diluting the impact of Brexit.
Running Fox
Roofer
I still believe that to make it a long term success we have to go no deal and ditch the withdrawal treaty. as said before we cannot be half in half out. I am old enough to remember us before joining the EU, when we had a huge manufacturing industry and fishing industry. This has been sold off or given away. most of all I believe in our national spirit and inventiveness , we seem to do better when challenged and I do not doubt that they will make it hard for us but long term we will prosper. Rant over sorry
AFCDorset
Roofer
Johnson was able to convince the voters that he 'would get Brexit done' and they believed him enough to give him a substantial majority. That was his prime objective, Boris in charge.
The parliamentary party isn't really the problem, the MPs will do whatever it takes to stay in power, ordinary party members just wanted to keep Labour out.
The problem is the Tory establishment that which reaches way beyond parliament, and into all aspects of economic and public life, it pretty much controls the UK, naturally they want to keep it that way.
Reducing the UK to a vassal state does not trouble them, they assume that they will be above all that.
The parliamentary party isn't really the problem, the MPs will do whatever it takes to stay in power, ordinary party members just wanted to keep Labour out.
The problem is the Tory establishment that which reaches way beyond parliament, and into all aspects of economic and public life, it pretty much controls the UK, naturally they want to keep it that way.
Reducing the UK to a vassal state does not trouble them, they assume that they will be above all that.
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
So what is your solution?
sixthswan
Non-Member
We can never be anything other than part in and part out. We have to have agreements to trade and with those come conditions. Being a small nation, with a fair bit of economic clout that is tied in with international partnerships - we have no choice.
The genie came out of the bottle with the referendum.
The genie came out of the bottle with the referendum.
Running Fox
Roofer
we trade more on WTO than on free trade agreements, we wont stop trading with EU countries we will just apply or pay tariffs. As we import more than we export to the EU this will mean we collect more than we pay. Only 10% of our companies export to the EU. We have been sold a mindset that the EU is everything? They call us Treasure Island do to the money they make from us. As I have said before only time and History will tell if its for the best, so not worth arguing about
AFCDorset
Roofer
As the Irish farmer said when asked the quickest way to Cork, 'If I was you I wouldn't start from here'!
(Translation; We should have left four years ago and moved forward then. So we would not be starting from 'here')
We have 'agreements to trade' and yes they come with 'conditions', that is what the WTO rules do.
Sure it is only a framework but it is a decent starting point which can be refined piece by piece. International partnerships will only work if they bring benefits to both sides but there is no one in a position of power that thinks that the UK should have any benefits whatsoever.
In fact, it would appear that they want to punish the people of this country for voting the wrong way, they are determined to break the country to show that they were right.
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
Apart from we couldn't just leave 4 years ago. That is not how it works. So we are here. Next suggestion?
sixthswan
Non-Member
It is potentially a bit more complicated than that. Part of Brexit, is about ideology.
A rich and powerful faction in the UK, couldn't care less about whether we get favourable deals. To them, a hard Brexit can make them a fortune.
In the aftermath, they get to piece together a nation where they control the social and economic direction. With lower wages, less workplace security for employees, an opportunity to farm out our national assets to wealthy foreign investors and all the other lovely morsels of disaster capitalism.
We've allowed the country to become run by the 1980s City of London risk-takers.
Welcome to the UK Reset. Thanks for your participation. We'll take it from here...
A rich and powerful faction in the UK, couldn't care less about whether we get favourable deals. To them, a hard Brexit can make them a fortune.
In the aftermath, they get to piece together a nation where they control the social and economic direction. With lower wages, less workplace security for employees, an opportunity to farm out our national assets to wealthy foreign investors and all the other lovely morsels of disaster capitalism.
We've allowed the country to become run by the 1980s City of London risk-takers.
Welcome to the UK Reset. Thanks for your participation. We'll take it from here...
S
SardiniaFox
Guest
Not that Rees Mogg's father wrote a book on such ideas or anything, eh?