Brexit View

[TheCat]

At the risk of raising the ire of some on here....given the situation we have found ourselves in, I am starting to question whether 'no deal' is actually all that bad?

Sure, i see plenty of commentary that it will be the end of the world as we know it (disaster, armageddon, cliff edge etec et etc); and I certainly see there will clearly be teething problems with the Dover/Calais trade route (as many trade experts have said), leading to delays in supply of some goods, and potential temporary shortages here in the UK. But while these strike me as serious problems, they will likely be short-term issues, which should be resolved within 6 months; and in the context of a generational change is that really that bad? I actually haven't read anything (maybe im just not looking in the right places) which clearly explains why it would be a total disaster....

One might say that it will destroy trade and our economy, which is what I thought too, but it was this article which got me thinking about the actual impacts might be....

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/no-deal-need-not-be-a-disaster/

Combine that article with the fact that the UK's net contribution to the EU are actually double what the likely tariff impact will be on UK exports to the EU....

I know I havent considered all the issues, so this is a genuine attempt to 'have a discussion'. If you disagree, please hold off from abusing me as stupid, ignorant or clueless...and rationally explain what im missing....

[JoeLeg]

My feeling is that there is so much deeply/held conviction on both sides, that we as a society are unlikely to find any common ground where the issue can be rationally discussed.

That said, let?s give it go...

There are plainly a lot of people - both members of the public and politicians/persons of power in business - who want a Hard Brexit and No Deal. Absent some kind of deep conspiracy and dark plan, the possibility is that many of them sincerely hold the belief that it will be ok in the long run.

That?s where I have an issue with it. Solid data to back them up is scarce, and mostly we?re being asked to take this on faith. What they do have going for them is the idiotic use of Project Fear by some of by some sections of the Remain campaign, much of which failed to materialise. As such those in favour of Hard Brexit can point to the paucity of credibility from those who cry doom and ask us to trust them.

That?s what it?s come down to. Both sides conducted themselves reprehensibly during the campaign, so the chance for actual debate seems to have passed. It?s now a case of ?what do you have faith in??

I would aver that the Spectator has always leant in the direction of No Deal, so that position is hardly surprising; however it doesn?t mean that they?re wrong. I?m not an economist, and with a 60 hour per week job and two small kids I can?t hope to keep up with the ins and outs of this issue, as much as I try.

In the end it will be decided for us, and at least half the nation is going to hate whatever we end up with. I think my main issue with No Feal is that the desire for it from many ordinary people (not all by. Long shot) stems more from xenophobia and a willingness to stick two fingers up at Europe, as opposed to those who?ve plainly thought the issue through and believe that we can withstand the inevitable shocks and emerge stronger - a position that scares me but at least has the benefit of trying to do what it sees as ?the right thing?.

Essentially, my point is that there is so much information, disinformation and opinion masquerading as fact - particularly on social media - that makes cannot begin to understand how we?re meant to get any kind of balanced, nuanced views that could help us decide what we think is best.

I know what I?m about to say is only possible with hindsight, but we had a terrible, terrible National ?debate?, and now we?re reaping the whirlwind of it. No Deal seems like a real possibility and society as a whole is not ready for it.

As I?ve aaid many times before, I will be very happy to be wrong, and will eat all the humble pie required if we come out of this better off; it was, after all, what was promised.

[TheCat]

Great comment JoeLeg

It's the dogma on both sides and proliferation of distorted 'facts' which now make a proper discussion almost impossible. Hence my attempt to try and start one....

We're off to a good start....but how long can it last?:)

[diable rouge]

That article was written by an advisor to EFA (Economists for Free Trade), a group chaired by one Patrick Minford. Here's an example of how good they are...from a group of 41 economists The Times asked to make economic predictions for 2018, Minford came bottom. The OBR, much maligned by these Brextremists, came top.

These Brextremists justify their twaddle by saying that most of the world trades on WTO terms etc. If WTO terms are so good, why did the UK bother to sign free trade agreements with anyone in the first place? Simple, because FTA terms are better than WTO terms...

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That article was written by an advisor to EFA

> (Economists for Free Trade), a group chaired by

> one Patrick Minford. Here's an example of how good

> they are...from a group of 41 economists The Times

> asked to make economic predictions for 2018,

> Minford came bottom. The OBR, much maligned by

> these Brextremists, came top.

> These Brextremists justify their twaddle by saying

> that most of the world trades on WTO terms etc. If

> WTO terms are so good, why did the UK bother to

> sign free trade agreements with anyone in the

> first place? Simple, because FTA terms are better

> than WTO terms...

the spectator article clearly says that FTA is obviouslt preferential to WTO terms. so its probably unfair to suggest they are arguing the opposite.

The author is also a former Australian opposition leader, and former Australian foreign secretary. He doesn't really have any 'skin' in this game, so i'd argue it's probably unfair to characterise him as a brextremist. Even if he is, let's argue against what's being said, not who's saying it....

[ianr]

> from a group of 41 economists The Times asked to

> make economic predictions for 2018, Minford came

> bottom. The OBR, much maligned by these Brextremists,

> came top.

You do seem to like keeping your sources to yourself. Can I have the URL please. I've wasted nough time searching the Times for it.

[diable rouge]

Don't worry ian, I'm just playing hard to get...

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> diable rouge Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > That article was written by an advisor to EFA

> > (Economists for Free Trade), a group chaired by

> > one Patrick Minford. Here's an example of how

> good

> > they are...from a group of 41 economists The

> Times

> > asked to make economic predictions for 2018,

> > Minford came bottom. The OBR, much maligned by

> > these Brextremists, came top.

> > These Brextremists justify their twaddle by

> saying

> > that most of the world trades on WTO terms etc.

> If

> > WTO terms are so good, why did the UK bother to

> > sign free trade agreements with anyone in the

> > first place? Simple, because FTA terms are

> better

> > than WTO terms...

>

> the spectator article clearly says that FTA is

> obviouslt preferential to WTO terms. so its

> probably unfair to suggest they are arguing the

> opposite.

But the article argues that No Deal won't be bad, yet the default of No Deal is to go on WTO terms. All a bit Schrodinger's Cat if you ask me...

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > diable rouge Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > That article was written by an advisor to EFA

> > > (Economists for Free Trade), a group chaired

> by

> > > one Patrick Minford. Here's an example of how

> > good

> > > they are...from a group of 41 economists The

> > Times

> > > asked to make economic predictions for 2018,

> > > Minford came bottom. The OBR, much maligned

> by

> > > these Brextremists, came top.

> > > These Brextremists justify their twaddle by

> > saying

> > > that most of the world trades on WTO terms

> etc.

> > If

> > > WTO terms are so good, why did the UK bother

> to

> > > sign free trade agreements with anyone in the

> > > first place? Simple, because FTA terms are

> > better

> > > than WTO terms...

> >

> > the spectator article clearly says that FTA is

> > obviouslt preferential to WTO terms. so its

> > probably unfair to suggest they are arguing the

> > opposite.

>

> But the article argues that No Deal won't be bad,

> yet the default of No Deal is to go on WTO terms.

> All a bit Schrodinger's Cat if you ask me...

I think the article is saying that no deal is bad. But not as disastrous as what is perhaps being made out....the last para for example....

"But crashing out will damage the political relationship between the UK and the EU and we wouldn?t want to see that. So an agreement would be better than no agreement. But with no agreement don?t worry; the economy won?t collapse"

Perhaps splittin hairs, but thats what I'm getting at here, is it really as bad as being made out?

[alex_b]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At the risk of raising the ire of some on

> here....given the situation we have found

> ourselves in, I am starting to question whether

> 'no deal' is actually all that bad?

Just one concrete example of the effect of no deal. I know a financial services firm who run all of their customer service and data processing for Europe from the UK. In the event of no deal their legal advice is that they will be unable to process any EU customer data in the UK due to GDPR. This will lead immediately to the redundancy of approximately 6000 staff. Many other firms are in a similar position and of course losing 6000 jobs from a locality will have a huge knock on effect for other local businesses.

[TheCat]

That's interesting. Ighues the question is the extent to which this company (and others) make 'interim' measures to dea" with a period of high uncertainty, or they just take the low risk approach as a business, asn move all their data processing jobs to the EU.

As according to this

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/data-protection-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/data-protection-if-theres-no-brexit-deal

The issue is that the EU commission won't oficialy declare the UK as 'adequate' until they are a seperate country, as that is all that is required, as the EU allows for processing of data in many third party countries. But the decision will obviously take time (how long I suppose experts might have a view on)...and a business must decide whether it can make temporary measures for the interim or nif it's feasible to establish a EU hub and fill 6000 jobs before the EU declares the UK adequate...

Beter them than me. But def a concern; and a real issue, thanks for raising.

[JohnL]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> The author is also a former Australian opposition

> leader, and former Australian foreign secretary.

> He doesn't really have any 'skin' in this game, so

> i'd argue it's probably unfair to characterise him

> as a brextremist. Even if he is, let's argue

> against what's being said, not who's saying it....

I've been told by an Aussie there's a group of Australians involved with the Tufton Street mob (invested in no deal) and they only just saw them off down there.

Chloe Westley is Australian - moved to UK to take up the TPA role.

edit: you have to bring up who's sayng it as they've all gambled on a crash IMHO.

[JohnL]

Anyway

Three Cheers for the Speaker in his wife's car with the "b&llocks to Brexit" sticker :)

[fishbiscuits]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just one concrete example of the effect of no

> deal. I know a financial services firm who run all

> of their customer service and data processing for

> Europe from the UK. In the event of no deal their

> legal advice is that they will be unable to

> process any EU customer data in the UK due to

> GDPR. This will lead immediately to the redundancy

> of approximately 6000 staff. Many other firms are

> in a similar position and of course losing 6000

> jobs from a locality will have a huge knock on

> effect for other local businesses.

I think most firms - who are able to - have already made contingency arrangements for a no-deal brexit. The company I work for have opened offices in Amsterdam and Paris, just to ensure continuity of business in case we don't get a suitable deal. This pretty much ensures we'll make a loss for several years in a row, and will of course have to be offset by redundancies in London. But it's either that, or risk going out of business altogether.

I do really wonder what possible upsides there are to this whole exercise. Even the gammon-minded leavers aren't going to achieve their aim of keeping out foreigners, as the govt prepare to ramp up non-EU immigration to meet the shortfall...

[JohnL]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> alex_b Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Just one concrete example of the effect of no

> > deal. I know a financial services firm who run

> all

> > of their customer service and data processing

> for

> > Europe from the UK. In the event of no deal

> their

> > legal advice is that they will be unable to

> > process any EU customer data in the UK due to

> > GDPR. This will lead immediately to the

> redundancy

> > of approximately 6000 staff. Many other firms

> are

> > in a similar position and of course losing 6000

> > jobs from a locality will have a huge knock on

> > effect for other local businesses.

>

> I think most firms - who are able to - have

> already made contingency arrangements for a

> no-deal brexit. The company I work for have opened

> offices in Amsterdam and Paris, just to ensure

> continuity of business in case we don't get a

> suitable deal. This pretty much ensures we'll make

> a loss for several years in a row, and will of

> course have to be offset by redundancies in

> London. But it's either that, or risk going out of

> business altogether.

>

> I do really wonder what possible upsides there are

> to this whole exercise. Even the gammon-minded

> leavers aren't going to achieve their aim of

> keeping out foreigners, as the govt prepare to

> ramp up non-EU immigration to meet the

> shortfall...

Ours was all mixed up in a large downsizing anyway, but gainers seem to be Czech Republic and Malaysia.

[alex_b]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think most firms - who are able to - have

> already made contingency arrangements for a

> no-deal brexit. The company I work for have opened

> offices in Amsterdam and Paris, just to ensure

> continuity of business in case we don't get a

> suitable deal. This pretty much ensures we'll make

> a loss for several years in a row, and will of

> course have to be offset by redundancies in

> London. But it's either that, or risk going out of

> business altogether.

You're of course right, many firms have set up new subsidiaries, expanded existing European operations and/or moved contracts from UK to European subsidiaries. This comes at the cost of lost jobs to the UK and also the loss of tax revenue from the companies and their employees.

To an extent this will happen irrespective of deal/no-deal as May has determined she doesn't want to be in the single market, making a lot of cross border services trade impossible or significantly more expensive than delivering the work from inside the EU. The bigger challenge with no-deal is that this pain will be immediate and deeper than the slow bleeding of jobs and revenue that will occur over the next two years as the final deal becomes clear.

Even if we now remain, many companies have spent enough relocating that a significant number of jobs will not return.

> I do really wonder what possible upsides there are

> to this whole exercise. Even the gammon-minded

> leavers aren't going to achieve their aim of

> keeping out foreigners, as the govt prepare to

> ramp up non-EU immigration to meet the

> shortfall...

I can't see any, any trade deals we strike with 3rd parties are unlikely to be faster or significantly more advantageous than the ones being struck as part of the EU. Even if they were 20% better this wouldn't offset the necessarily worse trading conditions with the continent. Unfortunately Brexit is a cultural/philosophical position and pragmatism doesn't appear to come in to it.

[fishbiscuits]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Even if we now remain, many companies have spent

> enough relocating that a significant number of

> jobs will not return.

This is exactly it. I actually asked our Brexit planner what would happen if Brexit didn't materialize, and his answer was basically... it doesn't make any difference now. We're past the point of no return. People have been hired/fired/moved, premises have been acquired and fitted out, licenses have been obtained.

[TheCat]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> alex_b Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Even if we now remain, many companies have

> spent

> > enough relocating that a significant number of

> > jobs will not return.

>

> This is exactly it. I actually asked our Brexit

> planner what would happen if Brexit didn't

> materialize, and his answer was basically... it

> doesn't make any difference now. We're past the

> point of no return. People have been

> hired/fired/moved, premises have been acquired and

> fitted out, licenses have been obtained.

So there's two ways to look at this statement. On the one hand it sounds very negative, but on the other if what you're saying is right, then the majority of the economic impact for those companies properly prepared has already been felt (ie. People have already been moved or fired) and the sompany isn't yet in civil war. That surely is incrementally positive for what might happen in the event of no deal? On the flip side of course is those businesses that haven't prepared....

[JoeLeg]

The only thing that I see as a glimmer of hope is my faith in the basic pragmatism/practicality of the U.K./EU govts.

No one wants to see the UK collapse into something out of ?Children Of Men?, and I suspect that - in the event of No Deal - people on all sides will go to great effort to keep the train on the tracks.

It wouldn?t answer the basic question of whether No Deal is actually the best course, but then I don?t think we?ll ever get an answer to that, for reasons I outlined earlier.

Ultimately business will probably dictate how we move forward - money talks.

[diable rouge]

Brextremists still believing in unicorns shitting rainbows in the sunlit uplands, No Deal won't be as bad as people say it will, after all, we survived the war blah de blah. This country lost it's shit when KFC ran out of chicken for a few days...

[diable rouge]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It wouldn?t answer the basic question of whether

> No Deal is actually the best course...

I think we can safely say it isn't, even this duplicitous Gov doesn't think so...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46366162 (just for you ian :) )

[JoeLeg]

Ok, pure Devil?s Advocate time here, because TheCat has asked for this discussion, but I would say we?ve never actually had a proper examination of the FACTS - such as they may be available - surrounding a Hard Brexit, mainly because the Leave campaign didn?t really bring it up during the run-up to the vote. All the talk was of how we would get a great deal and how easy it would be, an I have to say for that I do hold Leave responsible.

There was - I suppose understandably - very little discussion of how hard it might be if things didn?t go smoothly. It is possible that an objective analysis of the most statistically probable events in the case of No Deal might show short term pain but long term gain.

But then that would require an objective analysis, and those are in short supply these days.

(To be clear, my own view is that No Deal is quite simply massively unpredictable and that really worries me; there?s just know way do someone like me to do anything other than guess and hope, and to be honest I think that extends to all the experts out there. We?re staring at the Rubicon, and no one has any idea what?s on the other side. There?s some guessing, there?s some fervent, even zealous belief, and an awful lot of qualified, caveat-laden supposition, but not much more.)

[alex_b]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So there's two ways to look at this statement. On

> the one hand it sounds very negative, but on the

> other if what you're saying is right, then the

> majority of the economic impact for those

> companies properly prepared has already been felt

> (ie. People have already been moved or fired) and

> the sompany isn't yet in civil war. That surely is

> incrementally positive for what might happen in

> the event of no deal? On the flip side of course

> is those businesses that haven't prepared....

I think a lot of the impact is baked in but not yet felt. Moving contracts and headquarters is happening but won?t be seen in corporation tax receipts until next year. Similarly a lot of companies are looking to shift headcount by attrition over the next couple of years, replacing leavers/retirees with staff in the European locations. There will be redundancies too, but business will look to minimise costs as much as possible.

In the event of no deal this would need to be accelerated, if the transition deal is signed it?ll be a slow bleed rather than a sudden impact.

[malumbu]

Right, now I am really grumpy. Thanks for the informative debate, I am generally still in denial.

But Grayling really has got my goat. Vote yes to the deal or we will get a rise in right wing extremism.

Get real, it's happened already. Work to get some unity. Challenge it. Don't give into it (which let's face it you, BJ, Farage and the like have fanned in the first place).

It's like TfL giving into the demands of cabbies.... wait a minute have they

And the Austrians allowing everyone's democratic right to smoke in bars to appease the right wing nationalists.... what has that happened too? And the Mexican wall...

Anyway the Austrians and TfL is just a bit of Gallows humour. I don't find Grayling at all funny, hiding behind May like a good boy and then putting his head over the parapet on 'safe ground' so we know that he is not just about screwing up transport.

[Carrie]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=767312890292412&id=19129786540&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2FDavidLammyTottenham%2Fvideos%2F767312890292412%2F&_rdr

This speech by David Lammy deserves a wider audience