Brexit thread - what happens next

[Mr Badger]

At some point in the months and years ahead it will become much clearer what deals are on the table, what the actual problems and obstacles are and what pragmatic compromises are going to need to be made. It'll certainly become clearer than current speculation, with the pessimism of Project Fear Becoming Reality on one side and the blind optimism of Project Sovereign La-La Land on the other. The eventual reality is likely to sit somewhere between the two and I suspect no-one will be truly happy with the outcome.

There are clearly some Leave voters/Daily Express readers that appear desperate to have Article 50 enacted today. However I would wager there are also plenty that must now realise that there is a lot of work to do first and that realistically some sort of EU-lite, EEA membership is the only workable Brexit that can be achieved. Obviously that outcome will irk most Remain voters (why abandon our place and influence in the EU for this?) and anger the hard core Leave voters that want an end to free movement and EU regulation. Staying in the EU would therefore seem likely to please considerably more people than going through with leaving.

Of course there is a theory that some people are so unhappy with their lot that they would like us to do a full Brexit regardless, so that the whole country can share their misery as we plunge into a deep depression with the associated unemployment, break up of the UK etc.

 

[bayo000]

I see a few news reports that the UK do not want a second referendum. Perhaps people are warming to leaving.

There's no point having another one now. May as well see what deal can be negotiated. Based on that I can see people calling for another one. Be it from Leave side if they don't like the deal or remain.

 

[delta0]

UK trade talks with Canada progressing well http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0ZW15W

Australia and US to come http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...r-brexit-trade-deals-with-the-usa-and-austra/

Australia already keen to do this http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-16/may-australia-seeking-immediate-free-trade-deal/

 

[datalol-jack]

UK trade talks with Canada progressing well http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0ZW15W

Australia and US to come http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...r-brexit-trade-deals-with-the-usa-and-austra/

He said was "scoping" about a dozen free trade deals outside the EU to be ready for when Britain leaves

Being the key line here. We're not formally negotiating anything until we agree something with the EU and complete our departure. All of said mooted deals, and I use the term as loosely as a Telegraph reporter, are all, implicitly or explicitly, contingent on our EU deal and access to the single market. But at least it gives Fox something to do. As mentioned during the last few treasury select committee hearings, agreeing something with dropped tariffs on goods, tapered or not, won't pose a huge issue; anything else is either a complete no-go or a very long and slow graft with many pitfalls.

Access for financial services and education services in the US might need to go to sub-federal levels, as it's a core defensive interest and each state has their own take on regs to do with it. Even TTIP-lite, with its investor arbitration, might not give us enough access to make it worthwhile. With India there'll be issues around requests to water-down and roll-in movement of labour rules. And it goes on. Worth a watch, as media will no doubt keep grabbing on to any half-baked rumour going forward, for morale reasons if nothing else.

As the witnesses also rightly pointed out, it would be hard to achieve an advantageous situation whereby we compensate for all the trade we would be losing with the EU over the years, particularly if we take the more isolationist route, from any bi-lateral deals focusing primarily on goods.

Don't get excited just yet. Check back in 2019 at the earliest.

 

[Sankari]

The irony is that the UK doesn't actually have any local EU trade negotiators: they're all based in Brussels.

THE UK does not have its own trade negotiators because they are all working for the European Union, the sacked minister who was due to lead the Government's Brexit unit has suggested.

...One of the key tasks faced by Mr Davis, along with Liam Fox, the newly appointed International Trade Secretary, will be to negotiate trade deals with the world.

But Mr Letwin painted a grim picture of the challenges they face after he was asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme how many trade negotiators the UK has.

He said: "The trade negotiators who are Brits, at the moment are basically working for the EU."

Mr Letwin was then asked again exactly how many.

He said: "Quite a number... but they are employed there and it's up to them obviously whether they are recruited into Whitehall.

"There are obviously very experienced trade negotiators elsewhere in the world as well."

Mr Letwin was then asked if the UK has in fact got any of its own trade negotiators.

"No, no," he said.

(Source).

Britain is turning to the private sector to prepare for Brexit, seeking to second consultants to boost a civil service with almost no experience of complex trade negotiations.

(Source).

The Government may have to look far and wide to find the legions of staff it needs for post-Brexit trade talks, as the civil service faces its greatest manpower crisis since the Second World War, experts have warned.

Locating the necessary expertise will be critical to the UK’s success, after the country’s unexpected decision to leave the European Union. No-one was more shocked by that decision than those tasked with taking us out of the political bloc.

(Source).

 

[robfosters]

What would happen if we invoked article 50 then completely ignored the EU rules and signed trade deals?

 

[datalol-jack]

The irony is that the UK doesn't actually have any local EU trade negotiators: they're all based in Brussels.

Some are not even coming back, as it'd be more lucrative to work for the EU than Brexit Britain, or so I hear. Oh dear! So it looks like our fate will be decided by a few grizzled Brexiters, a dozen or so ancient civil servants and a bunch of greenhorns. Looking forward to that!

What would happen if we invoked article 50 then completely ignored the EU rules and signed trade deals?

Nobody would talk to an international law breaker, for a start. Then you have to fight off legal challenges, and then you run out of time. Though the latter isn't such a huge issue with goodwill, both Flexcit and all expert advice assume we would choose the amicable, extended route which prioritises the EU. All bets are off if we choose to bulldoze all bridges. And of course invoking A50 doesn't actually dump us out of the EU, that only occurs after the statutory period.

Another good post on a related tangent from the cabinet thread:

Spoiler

The issue is not the problem of Tariffs although they have an impact its really about the non-tariff barriers to trade. They are far more of a problem and much harder to deal with.

As an example say we took the David Davis route of no EEA agreement and fell back on WTO rules then we would be subject to the inspection system applied to goods that are not part of a mutual recognition agreement with the EU. So if you had agricultural products you wanted to ship to somewhere in the EU then they would need to go through the border inspection posts (BIP).

There are not any designated BIP between the UK and EU right now. They would need to be built, outfitted, staffed and set running. That can be done but will take time during that time potentially the UK will not be able to export any agricultural products to the EU, so that is a £12bn a year industry that effectively stops dead. Obviously even once you get the going it will be a struggle to stay on top of an inspection regime for a large number of goods and the process of export will slow down and the costs will escalate dramatically for exporters.

So why do you need a trade treaty with the USA or Canada etc? Its the same problem as with the EU. If you are a widget manufacturer in Manchester and you want to sell your widget in the USA then it will have to meet the appropriate US widget safety and quality regulations. How does it do that?

One way is for the US inspection system to check it on import, but this costs time and money and slows up trade considerably. The second way is that the USA grants recognition to the UK widget inspection system and accepts that if it meets the UK standard it is good enough to meet the US standard as well. This is the common approach in international trade and it is done by way of mutual recognition treaties. remember when Leave said the EU has no trade treaties with the USA, kind of a lie, whilst no overarching trade treaty is in place there are over 35 mutual recognition treaties between the EU and the USA. This is why products made in the UK/EU can be exported to the USA without needing to be inspected at the border entry point to ensure they meet US regulatory standards. When the UK leaves the EU those need to be re-negotiated. This is the complex part of trade negotiations and why treaties usually take 7-10 years to negotiate. You need people to negotiate who have detailed knowledge of the UK widget regulations and the US regulations to get an agreement that meets both standards. Now multiply that by 100,000's or millions of different products you want to export. Multiply again by the 161 members of the WTO or even just the 53 countries the EU has trade agreements with which benefit the UK and that doesn't actually cover the multiplicity of mutual recognition agreements that the EU has with countries. So how long do you think our 20 trade negotiators will need to do all this?

The problems of non tariff barriers are incredibly complex and it is why the EU has been slowly building it's internal system for over many decades. That work goes out the window when the UK leaves the EU and its absolute pie in the sky idiocy to think it will be redone in just a few years. This is a 30-50 year project and during that time the UK will be considerably poorer and if it breaks up which I personally think the economic consequences will facilitate, then it will be poorer, smaller, weaker and a lot less relevant.

Sorry for the long answer but this is why we need treaties and why rebuilding a complex system of treaties that have been built up over the last 43 years of EU membership is not going to be done in the next 2 years or so.

The decision for Brexit is one that will have long and very far reaching ramifications for probably the next several decades and we have haven't even discussed the kind of restructuring of the UK economy, educational, financial etc systems that will be needed. This is why I see it as a 30 to 50 year project to basically get back to where we were on 22nd June. So yep I feel pretty butt hurt about it but that is because it is such a huge generationally damaging mistake and why I am not going to simply accept the vote on one day of 17 million people out of population of 65 million that wasn't even a majority of those who could have voted. Trade union legislation is being pushed by the Tories that says if a majority of union members vote to strike it is not binding unless its is over 40% of those who could have voted. Yet 37.5% voting leave is enough to change the entire economic and constitutional future of the UK, excuse me if I call ******** to that idea.

 

[Roar87]

Some are not even coming back, as it'd be more lucrative to work for the EU than Brexit Britain, or so I hear. Oh dear! So it looks like our fate will be decided by a few grizzled Brexiters, a dozen or so ancient civil servants and a bunch of greenhorns. Looking forward to that

Do you actually believe what you're typing?

You do know we can hire negotiators from around the world, they don't need to be British, we could get Americans, Kiwi's or Aussies quite easily. They'll all have a wealth of experience.

 

[datalol-jack]

Do you actually believe what you're typing?

You do know we can hire negotiators from around the world, they don't need to be British, we could get Americans, Kiwi's or Aussies quite easily. They'll all have a wealth of experience.

Yes, we can. In fact, we can just holler at random lawyers in the City, and would probably land some. But do they have skills and experience negotiating with the EU, ditto for working within the civil service, or dealing with partners we would be interested in? The irony, of course, is lost on you.

 

[muon]

What would happen if we invoked article 50 then completely ignored the EU rules and signed trade deals?

The UKs largest trading partner is the EU, by a mile.

If we renege on treaties with the EU, what are the odds we get anything sensible when we try and make a trade deal with them?

Secondly, how does that look globally. "We will renege on any treaties and pacts when we feel like it".

As for posts about meetimgs about trade deals. The heads of state and similar can meet all they want. It isn't until trade experts from both parties sit down and talk, and start drafting these massive legal documents do we get anywhere.

When did Liam Fox become an expert on international trade law. He can only show superficial progress. You need people who are experts in every area of trade so we don't get screwed over by the other party.

 

[wildman]

Do you actually believe what you're typing?

You do know we can hire negotiators from around the world, they don't need to be British, we could get Americans, Kiwi's or Aussies quite easily. They'll all have a wealth of experience.

#takebackcontrol*

*but we can only do it with foreigners and immigrants doing the deals for us

 

[Amp34]

Personally I think you're kind of contradicting yourself.

Globalism is the opposite of consumer friendly regulation/environmental protection, I'm not sure how you can support both at the same time. Globalism by most definitions means pro big-business and pro capitalism, which is nearly always to the detriment of consumer rights or environmental protection. Hence the "Anti-globalization movement" being a social movement critical of "the globalization of corporate capitalism", as per Wiki here. We're seeing this in the UK, Europe, the US and elsewhere (and correlating Trump supporters with Brexit supporters is kind of weak, and a bit insulting to the 17m+ people who voted leave).

The obvious example would be TTIP, a globalist corporate power grab the EU seems desperate to agree despite widespread public demonstrations. What would that lead to? According to Wiki a possible negative impact on Labour standards, workers' rights and job security, democracy and national sovereignty, consumer protection, food safety and environmental protection. The EU is pushing it because it's good for big business, not people or the environment.

Ok, I'll change the word then. Internationalist?

Basically I believe we should all be working closer together and integrating more as a planet. More freedom of movement, more working together etc.

Isolationism is a bad thing, its what causes friction and wars. The more we understand how the planet works the more we realize that isolationism just can't work environmentally either. Pollution from one area travels (the biggest example being carbon and climate change), countries damming water sources affect nations downstream, forests being chopped down in one are affect those in another area.

TTIP is questionable at best as we know little about it, and what we do know is contentious depending on what side of the argument you are on... That said we should be striving for the best and to implies that the best, rather than water it down to satisfy others.

As for the trump correlation. I'm not trying to insult anyone, however there is a significant correlation on this forum between trump supporters and those that support brexit. It makes sense, both are using immigration as a major pawn in their games, with isolationism a distinct second. I'm not suggesting all leave supporters are trump supporters however.

An interesting exercise would be to correlate the top 20 posters in this thread with their views on Brexit, their views on trump and potentially their views on Muslims/immigration from other threads. You may disagree, but it would be a fairly clear correlation IMO. That's not to suggest you support trump or dislike Islam/immigration.

 

[Amp34]

The UKs largest trading partner is the EU, by a mile.

If we renege on treaties with the EU, what are the odds we get anything sensible when we try and make a trade deal with them?

Secondly, how does that look globally. "We will renege on any treaties and pacts when we feel like it".

As for posts about meetimgs about trade deals. The heads of state and similar can meet all they want. It isn't until trade experts from both parties sit down and talk, and start drafting these massive legal documents do we get anywhere.

When did Liam Fox become an expert on international trade law. He can only show superficial progress. You need people who are experts in every area of trade so we don't get screwed over by the other party.

A couple of days ago when he was chose to be the minister...

Wait, no. He's not an expert, because all they do is talk rubbish and shouldn't be trusted. He's just a glorious amateur...

 

[puppetworx]

Why do people think you need trade deals to do trade?

Last time I checked we're not living in a communist top down centrally planned economy. The EU is sure heading that way though.

 

[phil675]

Ok, I'll change the word then. Internationalist?

Basically I believe we should all be working closer together and integrating more as a planet. More freedom of movement, more working together etc.

Isolationism is a bad thing, its what causes friction and wars. The more we understand how the planet works the more we realize that isolationism just can't work environmentally either. Pollution from one area travels (the biggest example being carbon and climate change), countries damming water sources affect nations downstream, forests being chopped down in one are affect those in another area.

International co-operation is in most people's interest but we don't need to integrate entire nations to do it. When people bring up unified phone call charges throughout Europe, there is no reason why that needs a political and economic union like the EU.

 

[phil675]

Why do people think you need trade deals to do trade?

Last time I checked we're not living in a communist top down centrally planned economy. The EU is sure heading that way though.

It's like people think we don't already do business with other countries. My workplace for example all our big expensive equipment comes from the US, Canada or Aus. International trade isn't the minefield it must have been before the EU.

Even us average joes can buy whatever we want from China with minimal hassle thanks to the internet, the EU view on trade is just outdated.

 

[Freakbro]

It's like people think we don't already do business with other countries. My workplace for example all our big expensive equipment comes from the US, Canada or Aus. International trade isn't the minefield it must have been before the EU.

Even us average joes can buy whatever we want from China with minimal hassle thanks to the internet, the EU view on trade is just outdated.

Umm, that's the Leave voters isn't it?

Wasn't one of the main concerns that the EU is stopping us making our own trade deals with the rest of the world? (Then Remain would point out we already do trade with them)

And how leaving the EU meant we could start trading so much more with the rest of the world, which would make us much richer and greater and biggerer and have lashings of sovereignty

 

[phil675]

Umm, that's the Leave voters isn't it?

Wasn't one of the main concerns that the EU is stopping us making our own trade deals with the rest of the world? (Then Remain would point out we already do trade with them)

And how leaving the EU meant we could start trading so much more with the rest of the world, which would make us much richer and greater and biggerer and have lashings of sovereignty

Yeah so we already trade with them, we can have much better trade with them outside the EU. Some people seem to think we are binning our only trading partner, we'll have to live on potatoes and cabbages and drive Rovers.

 

[puppetworx]

Some people seem to think we are binning our only trading partner, we'll have to live on potatoes and cabbages and drive Rovers.

I heard Merkel is going to the VW factory tomorrow and telling the workers they're out of a job because they've decided to stick it to us Brits.

 

[Freakbro]

Yeah so we already trade with them, we can have much better trade with them outside the EU.

But you just seemed to be agreeing with puppet that we don't need trade deals to trade with the RotW.

It seems like 1 minute tariffs aren't a problem, then the next minute things will be so much better when we agree tariff free trade.

But losing our tariff free trade with the world's single biggest trading block isn't a problem...

Can you not see the argument gets slightly contradictory?

Some people seem to think we are binning our only trading partner, we'll have to live on potatoes and cabbages and drive Rovers.

Potatoes, cabbages...fine. But only being able to drive Rovers....god damn, that's some project fear right there!