Hard Brexit or Hard Brexit

[Scot Dutchy]

I don't know if there's currently a single, unambiguous truth about Article 50 and the ongoing negotiations. Seems to me that everybody is heading along a track with no idea where it will eventually end up. Invoking Article 50 is about as final as it gets in terms of negating a treaty, but this is a political process - and we all know how... erm... pragmatic politicians can be sometimes eh?

In a Dutch government site is art 50 fully explained.

Normally all treaties fall under the Vienna protocol where retracting is always a possibility. But the Lisbon Treaty is exempted as all participants signed for art 50 which means the UK cannot one sidedly retract the notification. The UK is fucked.

I am going to a debate at the press centre in the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament with Dutch politicians tomorrow about Brexit.

He is the explanation in Dutch I am afraid:

Intrekking van de kennisgeving

Artikel 50 zwijgt over de mogelijkheid van een latere intrekking van de kennisgeving. De algemene regel onder het Verdragenrecht ( artikel 68 Weens verdragenverdrag) dat een notificatie van terugtrekking uit een verdrag te allen tijde kan worden herroepen, is niet van toepassing nu alle lidstaten van te voren hebben ingestemd met artikel 50 EU-Verdrag met daarin de mogelijkheid van vertrek en de daaraan gekoppelde procedure. Onder deze omstandigheden moet worden geconcludeerd dat het VK niet eenzijdig de kennisgeving kan intrekken.

Wel is denkbaar dat het VK in onderling overleg en met instemming van alle partijen zal kunnen terugkomen op zijn voornemen om zich terug te trekken uit de EU. In artikel 50 is de verbindende afspraak vastgelegd dat de partijen onderling werken aan het vertrek van het VK na een kennisgeving. Wanneer het VK een beroep heeft gedaan op de procedure als voorzien in artikel 50, komt de afspraak om te vertrekken tot stand, inclusief de daaraan gekoppelde termijnen. Daarom kunnen partijen alleen in onderling overleg de kennisgeving herroepen en de procedure stopzetten.

http://www.minbuza.nl/ecer/dossiers/bre ... de-eu.html

[Brian Peacock]

What a lot of consonants!

I'm sure that's very interesting stuff, but I'm not suggesting that the UK alone can, would, could or will negate the Article 50 process, but depending on the political situation there could be a 'kiss and make up' agreement IF the UK decide, at some point, to abandon withdrawal before the final stage.

[pErvinalia]

The EU accounts for c.44% of the UK's exports and c.53% of its imports.

And why would the EU stop importing and exporting into/from the UK? Do they no longer want all those goods and services, and want to forgo the income they get selling stuff to the UK?

[pErvinalia]

They are welcome but I think my views in another place are well known about what I think of Corbyn. Any half decent socialist leader would have won that election. For him he did well but the opposition, the tories, was really the biggest mess we have seen.

This just shows a stunning lack of insight. FFS, Corbyn had virtually the whole media running scare campaigns about him and his policies, and HALF HIS FUCKING PARTY where in open revolt against him. He fucking smashed it in, under the circumstances. He would have almost certainly won if his party had of backed him properly. If I was him I'd purge the fuck out of the Blairite traitors in his party. He extended an olive branch once before to the scum, and look what he got in return. He needs to grow a spine and finish the Third Way.

[Strontium Dog]

The EU accounts for c.44% of the UK's exports and c.53% of its imports.

And why would the EU stop importing and exporting into/from the UK? Do they no longer want all those goods and services, and want to forgo the income they get selling stuff to the UK?

The point surely is that the UK is going to be paying a lot more tariffs than the EU when we crash out of the EU without a deal on free trade.

[pErvinalia]

That's entirely less hyperbolic than your and Brian's previous statements.

So yes, a free trade deal won't exist. But let's remember that most countries don't have free trade agreements with most other countries, and yet somehow mysteriously these countries don't collapse in the apocalyptic fashion that you were peddling. And let's also remember that new free trade agreements can be (and in fact are commonly) created.

[Brian Peacock]

Yes, trade agreements can be negotiated. The EU has just signed one with Canada. It only took 10 years to negotiate. The UK's entire trading platform is embedded in the EU - without that the UK effectively gets a fresh start on the international trade market. But compensating for the inevitable economic shortfall does rather depend on what kinds of reciprocal deals can be negotiated with which countries or trading regions, for what products or services, and in what time frame, and a what price. Yes, other countries have trading arrangement but whatever they are -- bi-lateral, tri-lateral, regional, or whatever -- they have to be negotiated, developed and implemented over time.

The UK import/export market accounts for around a fifth of the UK's balance of payments, and our economy is 80% weighted towards services, a sector that includes our single biggest export: financial services. That and the other factors mentioned makes the quickie divorce of Brexit a disaster economically speaking - in fact, the more you look into the economics of it the more it looks like a gross act of national self-harm.

Now, you'll no doubt continue to accuse me of hyperbole for pointing these kinds of things out, for suggesting that the ramifications of clean-break divorce with the EU is going to have serious, long-term, and adverse economic repercussions, and that negotiating replacement trade arrangements and restructuring the economy is going to be an uphill struggle for 20 years or more, and a struggle we still might not 'win'. Hey, I'm getting used to those kinds of accusations: I'm a 'Remoaner', a 'Saboteur', and an 'Enemy Of The People!'. Challenging the assumptions of those who favour leaving the EU opens one up to the charge of histrionics, fear-mongery, hyperbole, or even of being unpatriotic and treasonous - it's all part of the current narrative.



And I'm not even a proper Remoaner. I actually think that the democratic mandate the referendum provided has to be followed to it's logical conclusion - democracy might stink sometimes, but it's better than the alternative - yet while that conclusion hangs in the balance, however tenuously, I'm going to keep banging on about what a dang stupid thing the we've been sucked into by a spiv Tory leader who was trolled into something the country didn't want or ask for.

[JimC]

Just make sure that you end up buying lots and lots of stuff from Oz. You can also come and enjoy our beaches rather than venturing into southern Europe...

[Hermit]

Just make sure that you end up buying lots and lots of stuff from Oz. You can also come and enjoy our beaches rather than venturing into southern Europe...

Lies about Australia's killer-fauna in 3 ... 2 ...1 ...

[JimC]

Being eaten by sharks is surely preferable to being sneered at as poor white trash by Italians, Greeks or Froggies...

[pErvinalia]

Yes, trade agreements can be negotiated. The EU has just signed one with Canada. It only took 10 years to negotiate. The UK's entire trading platform is embedded in the EU

More weird rhetoric. What exactly does this mean? The way you are describing it is like the UK economy is a building somewhere, and after Brexit that building will be knocked down, and at that point the UK won't have an economy (or half an economy, as you would have it). Yes, renegotiating deals takes time, but in a lot of cases for the UK after Brexit I suspect it will be a relatively simply "copy and paste" type of operation, not a whole rebuilding of the wall. And keep in mind, free trade is the default starting point of all trade. It only becomes non-free when one or the other side actively decides to slap barriers up.

The UK import/export market accounts for around a fifth of the UK's balance of payments, and our economy is 80% weighted towards services, a sector that includes our single biggest export: financial services. That and the other factors mentioned makes the quickie divorce of Brexit a disaster economically speaking - in fact, the more you look into the economics of it the more it looks like a gross act of national self-harm.

Will the EU no longer use UK financial services? If so, where will these new financial services materialise from? They clearly can't exist from within the EU aside from the UK, or there wouldn't be the need for UK's financial services. If the EU plans on importing more services, why wouldn't they just import UK services and keep the situation more or less exactly the same as it is now?

Having said all that, fuck financial services up the bum with a rusty chainsaw! They are part of the problem of neoliberalism, not part of the solution.

Now, you'll no doubt continue to accuse me of hyperbole for pointing these kinds of things out, for suggesting that the ramifications of clean-break divorce with the EU is going to have serious, long-term, and adverse economic repercussions, and that negotiating replacement trade arrangements and restructuring the economy is going to be an uphill struggle for 20 years or more, and a struggle we still might not 'win'. Hey, I'm getting used to those kinds of accusations: I'm a 'Remoaner', a 'Saboteur', and an 'Enemy Of The People!'. Challenging the assumptions of those who favour leaving the EU opens one up to the charge of histrionics, fear-mongery, hyperbole, or even of being unpatriotic and treasonous - it's all part of the current narrative.

I never called you any of those things. I don't know enough of the specifics of the arguments for or against leaving to pick a side myself. But as Rum said, it does look as though there is hyperbole coming from both sides.

[JimC]

There will no doubt be a fair bit of economic woe in various sectors, but eventually there will be a re-adjustment, and the sky won't actually fall...

[Brian Peacock]

Yes, trade agreements can be negotiated. The EU has just signed one with Canada. It only took 10 years to negotiate. The UK's entire trading platform is embedded in the EU

More weird rhetoric. What exactly does this mean? The way you are describing it is like the UK economy is a building somewhere, and after Brexit that building will be knocked down, and at that point the UK won't have an economy (or half an economy, as you would have it). Yes, renegotiating deals takes time, but in a lot of cases for the UK after Brexit I suspect it will be a relatively simply "copy and paste" type of operation, not a whole rebuilding of the wall. And keep in mind, free trade is the default starting point of all trade. It only becomes non-free when one or the other side actively decides to slap barriers up.

I fail to see what's 'weird' about a plain old-fashioned fact? Aye, free trade is a possibility, and the EU is effectively a free trade zone (once you're in it) - with no restrictions on the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital - but in support of your point can your think of any nation or region that is totally open to external goods and services?

All of the UKs trade agreements are EU trade agreements. It has to be that way, or else one supplier could import from outside the union at low cost and then undercut everyone else by exploiting the free movement of goods rules that the EU enshrines - or, in other words, thar would be a-smuggling

The UK import/export market accounts for around a fifth of the UK's balance of payments, and our economy is 80% weighted towards services, a sector that includes our single biggest export: financial services. That and the other factors mentioned makes the quickie divorce of Brexit a disaster economically speaking - in fact, the more you look into the economics of it the more it looks like a gross act of national self-harm.

Will the EU no longer use UK financial services? If so, where will these new financial services materialise from? They clearly can't exist from within the EU aside from the UK, or there wouldn't be the need for UK's financial services. If the EU plans on importing more services, why wouldn't they just import UK services and keep the situation more or less exactly the same as it is now?

Having said all that, fuck financial services up the bum with a rusty chainsaw! They are part of the problem of neoliberalism, not part of the solution.

The City of London enjoys 'passport' status at the moment, which essentially means that London finance houses act as a gateway, mediator, and administrative hub between non-EU financial institutions and products and the EU proper. That kind of access has seen London-based financiers put fat upon fat, but it will disappear as soon as we leave the EU - the door will be closed. This is why the large facility houses like Goldman-(spit)-Sachs and JP-(spit)-Morgan are currently in the process of deciding whether to move their European headquarters to Dublin, Paris, Franfurt, or Rotterdam.

Now, you'll no doubt continue to accuse me of hyperbole for pointing these kinds of things out, for suggesting that the ramifications of clean-break divorce with the EU is going to have serious, long-term, and adverse economic repercussions, and that negotiating replacement trade arrangements and restructuring the economy is going to be an uphill struggle for 20 years or more, and a struggle we still might not 'win'. Hey, I'm getting used to those kinds of accusations: I'm a 'Remoaner', a 'Saboteur', and an 'Enemy Of The People!'. Challenging the assumptions of those who favour leaving the EU opens one up to the charge of histrionics, fear-mongery, hyperbole, or even of being unpatriotic and treasonous - it's all part of the current narrative.

I never called you any of those things.

And I never said that you did, just that accusations of hyperbole are small potatoes.

I don't know enough of the specifics of the arguments for or against leaving to pick a side myself.

But you know enough to accuse me hyperbole for suggesting leaving the EU is going to have serious, long-term, and adverse economic consequences eh?

But as Rum said, it does look as though there is hyperbole coming from both sides.

And as I said - the charge of hyperbole is the order of the day, all part of the far-right-leaning political narrative, a kind of ad hom which allows people to avoid addressing some very serious, pressing, and uncomfortable truths.

If you would like to become a little more informed you could do worse than start here.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, trade agreements can be negotiated. The EU has just signed one with Canada. It only took 10 years to negotiate. The UK's entire trading platform is embedded in the EU

More weird rhetoric. What exactly does this mean? The way you are describing it is like the UK economy is a building somewhere, and after Brexit that building will be knocked down, and at that point the UK won't have an economy (or half an economy, as you would have it). Yes, renegotiating deals takes time, but in a lot of cases for the UK after Brexit I suspect it will be a relatively simply "copy and paste" type of operation, not a whole rebuilding of the wall. And keep in mind, free trade is the default starting point of all trade. It only becomes non-free when one or the other side actively decides to slap barriers up.

I fail to see what's 'weird' about a plain old-fashioned fact?

Because it makes no real sense via the usual English I use. It sounds like an empty proclamation. What does it mean to say that a "trading platform", whatever that is, is "embedded" in the EU. And saying the "entire" platform makes it sound that whatever the "platform" is (which isn't clear), it will cease to exist after Brexit. A "trading platform" brings to mind electrical/electronic things, so I fail to see how they would cease to exist after brexit.

Aye, free trade is a possibility, and the EU is effectively a free trade zone (once you're in it) - with no restrictions on the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital - but in support of your point can your think of any nation or region that is totally open to external goods and services?

Not without actually looking into it, but that wasn't my point. The point was it's fairly hyperbolic to assume that as of Brexit there will be this Trumpian wall of trade restrictions by fiat. The natural state of any trade between any two entities is just an agreement on value. It's only if one side and/or the other wants to protect some of their own industries/services that barriers start to be considered. Currently the UK trades essentially freely with the EU. Why would either side want that to change? Most countries work towards more free, not less free, trade relations.

All of the UKs trade agreements are EU trade agreements. It has to be that way, or else one supplier could import from outside the union at low cost and then undercut everyone else by exploiting the free movement of goods rules that the EU enshrines - or, in other words, thar would be a-smuggling

And this is the critical point that either some miss, or implies something to me that it doesn't actually represent. If the EU and UK have essentially the same trade agreements with external countries, then the UK already has a good frame work in place to use as a basis for any new trade deals. So this claim that keeps getting bandied about that trade is all of a sudden going to get impossibly hard for the UK, doesn't make much sense to me.

The UK import/export market accounts for around a fifth of the UK's balance of payments, and our economy is 80% weighted towards services, a sector that includes our single biggest export: financial services. That and the other factors mentioned makes the quickie divorce of Brexit a disaster economically speaking - in fact, the more you look into the economics of it the more it looks like a gross act of national self-harm.

Will the EU no longer use UK financial services? If so, where will these new financial services materialise from? They clearly can't exist from within the EU aside from the UK, or there wouldn't be the need for UK's financial services. If the EU plans on importing more services, why wouldn't they just import UK services and keep the situation more or less exactly the same as it is now?

Having said all that, fuck financial services up the bum with a rusty chainsaw! They are part of the problem of neoliberalism, not part of the solution.

The City of London enjoys 'passport' status at the moment, which essentially means that London finance houses act as a gateway, mediator, and administrative hub between non-EU financial institutions and products and the EU proper. That kind of access has seen London-based financiers put fat upon fat, but it will disappear as soon as we leave the EU - the door will be closed. This is why the large facility houses like Goldman-(spit)-Sachs and JP-(spit)-Morgan are currently in the process of deciding whether to move their European headquarters to Dublin, Paris, Franfurt, or Rotterdam.

Ok, that makes sense I guess. But consider that the UK is 16% of the EU economy. There's still a big economy that needs servicing (including financial servicing) after a split.

Now, you'll no doubt continue to accuse me of hyperbole for pointing these kinds of things out, for suggesting that the ramifications of clean-break divorce with the EU is going to have serious, long-term, and adverse economic repercussions, and that negotiating replacement trade arrangements and restructuring the economy is going to be an uphill struggle for 20 years or more, and a struggle we still might not 'win'. Hey, I'm getting used to those kinds of accusations: I'm a 'Remoaner', a 'Saboteur', and an 'Enemy Of The People!'. Challenging the assumptions of those who favour leaving the EU opens one up to the charge of histrionics, fear-mongery, hyperbole, or even of being unpatriotic and treasonous - it's all part of the current narrative.

I never called you any of those things.

And I never said that you did,

I never said that you said that I did.

I don't know enough of the specifics of the arguments for or against leaving to pick a side myself.

But you know enough to accuse me hyperbole for suggesting leaving the EU is going to have serious, long-term, and adverse economic consequences eh?

"recreating upto half of the economy from a standing start." If that's not hyperbole, I'm not here. A standing start implies from nothing. That's a bullshit claim, and you know it.

But as Rum said, it does look as though there is hyperbole coming from both sides.

And as I said - the charge of hyperbole is the order of the day, all part of the far-right-leaning political narrative, a kind of ad hom which allows people to avoid addressing some very serious, pressing, and uncomfortable truths.

Have you morphed into an anti-DaveDodo all of a sudden? I'm not part of the far-right-leaning political narrative.

[pErvinalia]

Just had another thought... No one should underestimate the financial services sector's ability to self-perpetuate it's own bullshit jobs model. No doubt you will lose a lot of financial services business with the split, but a good chunk will remain to service the UK itself, and it will create a whole host of new bullshit jobs in pretty quick time I'd suspect. Of course, bullshit jobs ultimately aren't any good for an economy, and only serve to prop up the system in the short term. But if we are talking long term, the UK (and all neoliberal capitalist countries) is fucked regardless of if it leaves or stays in the EU. Without a change in the way we all do business, a massive collapse is inevitable.