Brexit - The UK's EU Referendum & Withdrawal

[jedibeeftrix]

While awaiting with interest what the ERG 'researchers' will say about the agreement text...let's jot down the most obvious broad points:

...does not...There is no...will no longer...may within months turn into a No-Deal...There is no ...have limited access...will no longer be possible...will be cut...will be less safe...will no longer ...we can no longer...demeaning our own say...A 'fair deal' - no irony...always in danger... propaganda that is not even meant to be believed...deal still binds us...

entertained as I am by the hyper-dystopian view of the future, I will simply note that this sounds like the price for exiting a project of advancing political union.

okay.

i note with interest the enormous damage this is projected to do to the UK economy relative to our peers in the local region:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55454146

i note with entertainment this morning in the same bbc report on the cebr rankings - ostensibly on china and the US - the huge focus on comparative change in ranking. Then a footnote on britain's growth prospects.. with zero comment on prospects relative to other similar nations. lol, bbc. lol.

[ArmChairCivvy]

If I look at CEBR analyses from a year back (they were based on the assumption of Canada+ being achieved), it does not fill me with confidence that the three listed interventions (hat tricks) could pretty much flip the outcomes/ impacts:

Financial Services -3.25%
Headquarters and corporate Centres -1.48%
Flat White Economy -1.35%
Rest of Service Sector -3.23%
Rest of Economy -5.50%



Weighting up these sectoral impacts by the proportions of each sector in the UK economy in 2016 indicates that on pessimistic assumptions about a Canada Plus Free Trade Agreement with the EU, UK GDP could be reduced by 3.2%.



Although this figure is substantial, it is less than the official HMD calculation of 4.9%. The key reason why the Cebr numbers are different from HMG’s analysis is Cebr’s more up-to-date sectoral analysis. As the UK economy shifts to the service sector and trades increasingly down telephone lines, the traditional impact of trade barriers, whether tariff or regulatory, diminishes.



But Cebr also modelled [for the LCCI] a more optimistic analysis which included three key elements:

No enhanced restrictions on migration and a degree of relaxation in some areas that might have to be included in some trade deals;
An aggressive pursuit of trade deals with other countries leading to deals with most major economies within 10 years of withdrawal;
The maintenance of a favourable regulatory environment for business



Table 4 Percentage impact on GDP in each sector of a Canada plus deal making positive assumptions (source Cebr report for LCCI)


Financial Services 5.70%
Headquarters and corporate Centres 0.06%
Flat White Economy 2.69%
Rest of Service Sector 0.27%
Rest of Economy 2.90%

The BBC may or may not have rebroadcast this; no idea, because going to the source will always yield a broader view. One further thing to note: 'independent' Think Tanks do produce paid-for reports on the side, which may or may not be mentioned, when headline figures are disseminated in a summary format

Ending note: who has read the Post-Brexit Deal (yet )?

[jedibeeftrix]

Ending note: who has read the Post-Brexit Deal (yet )?

Not me - not least because I am totally unqualified to understand 1200(+800) pages of poorly written legalese.
But my twitter feed is littered with analysis from people who are qualified to understand the deal in their respective areas of expertise.

[ArmChairCivvy]

is littered with analysis from people who are qualified to understand the deal in their respective areas of expertise.

Excellent! I trust that we will hear about the 'pick of the crop'

[SKB]

SNP and Lib Dem MP's are planning to reject the UK-EU deal in Parliament on the 30th.... so they're both effectively voting for 'No Deal', something which they both opposed only a week ago....

[ArmChairCivvy]

"Both the UK and Spain are seeking to limit the impact of Brexit on everyday life in Gibraltar.

Around 15,000 Spaniards cross the border to work in Gibraltar every day, making up about half the territory's labour force."
... BUT still no (side) deal

[jedibeeftrix]

is littered with analysis from people who are qualified to understand the deal in their respective areas of expertise.

Excellent! I trust that we will hear about the 'pick of the crop'

[Zero Gravitas]

Says LPF result is in EU's favour. But.

Some Barrister in the speccie* says (my bolding): https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the ... eading/amp

"There are parts of the deal that mean that, should Britain wish to diverge, then UK committees will have to talk to EU committees. Requiring the UK to 'consult' on implementation and change of the agreement etc. But how this is done in practice is left free and thus pretty non-enforceable and limited in scope. It is diplomacy now, not law.

Throughout the deal, we see several declarations of sovereignty. The first clause contains this commitment to:

'peaceful relations based on cooperation, respectful of the Parties’ autonomy and sovereignty'

The treaty recognises the UK and EU are not harmonising their laws (making them the same). UK courts won’t bind the EU, EU courts won’t bind the UK. Neither UK/EU can make a law that would let anyone sue the other. So no campaign groups may form to sue the UK government under EU law for deviating from the treaty. The mechanism for doing so does not exist. Article COMPROV.13 makes it clear the UK and EU are equals under International Law. Whatever creature EU law is (this is still debated) it has gone from our legal system.

As for the 'dispute mechanism' – it mostly involves chatting. But wording suggests this is highly unlikely to be triggered. The Prime Minister gave an example: if Britain wants to increase standards on pig farms in a way that makes British bacon costlier relative to Danish, we could – in theory – trigger a dispute mechanism that could end in a UK tariff applied to imported bacon. But in practise: why bother? Why not let consumers choose?

This is just one example – public procurement rules look very technical. But in law you only have rights if you can enforce them. Given the likely divergences, there aren’t enough qualified arbitrators in the world to sit on all the potential disputes if these clauses are taken literally. You’d run out of lawyers if the EU and UK decide to throw the book at each other all the time. Anyone who thinks the EU/UK can fall out hundreds of times over small details or micro-manage the other, will run face first into that reality."

De Jure / De Facto as ever.

*apologies - just spotted Jedibeeftrix posted this exact article - I have my browser paranoia settings set to factor 11 so don't see tweets unless I actully click on them.

[Zero Gravitas]

Puhutaan kalastah :


"What happens if one side refuses or reduces access after June 2026? “Compensatory measures” can be imposed “commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the change”. A joint tribunal will sit if necessary. The measures can include tariffs and tit for tat closures. 8/12"


"So Boris Johnson’s claim on Christmas Eve - that the UK will be “free to catch and eat as much fish as it likes from UK waters” after 2026 – is a slippery fib. We can close our waters but we would pay a heavy price for doing so in tariffs on fish exports to the EU. 9/12"

Dear reader - there is a slight discrepancy here. Did you spot how "can" and "if" as if by magic became "would" over the course of a single tweet? I am available for a very considerable fee to help you with other such deep textual analysis should that be welcome.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the 'pick of the crop'

had many good ones (David Henning's overarching view included).

twitter.com/Usherwood introduces simplicity (required in that jungle of texts, glued together from the work streams) via a graphic, which to my eye is fairly accurate: who gained, who lost, where genuine negotiation produced a result somewhere in between. But while laying the groundwork, he misses the logical conclusion:
This agreement that we call an FTA and the EU a partnership agreement (de jure: an Association Agreement) is a framework agreement, in essence, for continuous negotiation
- most things (as Edition 1, at least) to be concluded in the first two years
- a break clause at 4 ... the fundamentalists in the Brexiteer camp might still see 'their day'
- and the most thorny ones (as issues: fish, car parts) having transition periods well past that point in time (don't retire Lord Frost yet; just give him a long recovery period... as 5 1/2 or 6 years, take away 4, might give us another lovely (long) negotiating bout)
... it's a spectator sport, afterall. Except that our bets are on the table, even though most of us don't remember ever placing them there.

[Zero Gravitas]

the 'pick of the crop'

had many good ones (David Henning's overarching view included).

twitter.com/Usherwood introduces simplicity (required in that jungle of texts, glued together from the work streams) via a graphic, which to my eye is fairly accurate: who gained, who lost, where genuine negotiation produced a result somewhere in between. But while laying the groundwork, he misses the logical conclusion:
This agreement that we call an FTA and the EU a partnership agreement (de jure: an Association Agreement) is a framework agreement, in essence, for continuous negotiation
- most things (as Edition 1, at least) to be concluded in the first two years
- a break clause at 4 ... the fundamentalists in the Brexiteer camp might still see 'their day'
- and the most thorny ones (as issues: fish, car parts) having transition periods well past that point in time (don't retire Lord Frost yet; just give him a long recovery period... as 5 1/2 or 6 years, take away 4, might give us another lovely (long) negotiating bout)
... it's a spectator sport, afterall. Except that our bets are on the table, even though most of us don't remember ever placing them there.

Forgive me ACC, but I suspect if I consulted a very well informed person in 2015 he or she would say that this level of detail was largely immaterial.

To put it another way, are the risks you imply here any greater than the mirror risks that the UK would have accrued by remaining a part of the EU over a couple of decades? Maybe, but it's not completely obviously so. There are (i suspect) branches of reality out there which mean that this, now is the best of all possible worlds.

[jedibeeftrix]

And, importantly, tradeoffs unavoidable as the price of leaving a project of continuing political convergence.

anton spisak thread above makes it clear that this is but the start. Which is okay, it will be managed and managed without the high drama of future rupture and ERG 2.0 if we're lucky.

if we're not lucky it is more likely to be because a future govt tries to lock in its policy preferences via treaty revision. Let's hope that gov't thinks twice before revisiting Blair's foolishness in ditching the social chapter opt-out...

[ArmChairCivvy]

I suspect if I consulted a very well informed person in 2015

Looks like you didn't? Am I right (or am I right?)?

There are (i suspect) branches of reality out there which mean that this, now is the best of all possible worlds.

Sorry to default to very technical jargon to answer these 'parallel realities', but you are like someone using a boot-strap optimising algorithm, which - due to its inbuilt limitations... it is a shortcut, anyway, from the days when computing power was expensive - has got stuck in a local maximum. Or rather, a local minimum: a pothole so deep that daylight is shone through only at noon, to help to keep track of the time
- talking about 'time' we have got ourselves stuck in that pothole (the local optimum; a safe heaven for now) after the referendum (this might be tiresome and repetitive, but still true) through an ill considered sequence (not properly considered This is where the well-informed person should have been asked - instead we just kept digging):
1. we served A50 notice in a hurry, and
2. by omission of any own negotiating strategy, allowed the EU the determine the sequence... which alone was sufficient to determine where we have by now got to
3. we then went along with the 'goods only', or 'first' approach AKA damage limitation... which set us on par with Turkey('s Association Agreement), aspiring to Ukraine's as it was more generous with the services trade. Not much of a threat to the EU that 'concession' which was put in for purely political reasons
EDIT: some spice re: this added from twitter
Anton Spisak
@AntonSpisak
10h
"But my biggest concern with this deal is that the substantive provisions in the trade part fall even below the standard of recent EU FTAs. It's disappointing and, what's more, makes the overall deal look pretty unbalanced."
- he later goes on, to add that the mood (confrontation) set was a likely driver for this outcome

4. that's where we have arrived at; pretty much everything else (of substance) still to be agreed. The process (other than arbitration for trade, and within that 'dumping' carved out to the WTO process as there will always be cases - which could poison the atmosphere) set by the EU. As is clearly evident from reading the texts that we now have access to.

will be managed and managed without the high drama of future rupture and ERG 2.0 if we're lucky.

Call that a good result for now? I call it averting a catastrophe

[ArmChairCivvy]

One nugget (from Anthony Wetherly) from all these twitter streams, which I tend to find irritating as assumptions are not stated (no space), stuck in my mind
"
In future - a PM who tries to sell divergence, and accept economic punishments for doing so, will look mental, in comparison to a PM providing business with wins on trade, easing friction, lower costs etc"

It's a nice parallel to a US SecDef stating that anyone contemplating getting involved in a major landwar in Asia will need their head examining.

What's the parallel?
Can be done - but at a horrific cost
And secondly: This is a defence forum, after all. So, Brexit will have a profound impact on our ability to pay (for defence, among other things).

[jedibeeftrix]

...a horrific cost
And secondly: This is a defence forum, after all. So, Brexit will have a profound impact on our ability to pay (for defence, among other things).

But will it?

Looks like i'm not the only one amused at the way the beeb is choosing to report the cebr results:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/1 ... ng-brexit/

[ArmChairCivvy]

amused at the way

I was rather amused by the way CEBR had done their Brexit 'sensitivity' analysis a year back
... and flipped all the impact signs (by sector) from negative to positive (by changing just three, not very consequential, parameters in their model)

[SKB]

Looks like i'm not the only one amused at the way the beeb is choosing to report the cebr results:

I just checked BBC "News" for the CEBR forecast, they have it, but have have not mentioned the 23% UK growth prediction.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55454146

[Pseudo]

[Pseudo]

Looks like i'm not the only one amused at the way the beeb is choosing to report the cebr results:

I just checked BBC "News" for the CEBR forecast, they have it, but have have not mentioned the 23% UK growth prediction.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55454146

They probably wouldn't given that the CEBR report doesn't predict 23% UK growth. It predicts that the UK economy will be 23% larger than France's by 2035. Which all sounds good until you remember that their 2015 report predicted that the UK would overtake Germany as the fourth largest economy in the world by 2030 and this report predicts that the British economy will be 10% smaller than the German economy by 2035.

I wonder what might have happened in the intervening years to change that prediction, anyone care to take any guesses?

[ArmChairCivvy]

anyone care to take any guesses?

They flipped some parameters in the model, until it gave the 'right' answer?
- see upthread

[Pseudo]

anyone care to take any guesses?

They flipped some parameters in the model, until it gave the 'right' answer?
- see upthread

I'm not arguing that the CEBR WELT report is a bit guffy, I'm just pointing out to those who are presenting it as a repudiation of Brexit having negative economic consequences that the reality is quite the opposite.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Within days we can stop believing stupid surveys and just look at the numbers. From a source of authority, via Reuters:
"While market players hope that years of preparations since Britain voted to leave the European Union means the transition of most euro-denominated assets like shares and derivatives out of the country will be relatively smooth, the long-term impact is unclear.

“This is a big bang event and that is one of the things that the market hasn’t truly understood yet,” Alasdair Haynes, chief executive of London-based share trading platform Aquis Exchange, told Reuters.

“This is literally everything moves on a specific day and we have got to pray to God that we don’t have some extraordinary event happen in the market that creates high volumes,” Haynes said."

"Cboe [ one of the two Chicago exchanges; runs hubs in London and Amsterdam] held a simulation exercise on Dec. 5 and Howson said this revealed its customers expect to shift all their trading in European shares to EU venues."

That much for equities issued on the Continent but so far traded (x-border) in London. As for derivatives:

"regulators have already taken steps to mitigate some of the risks by allowing EU banks to continue clearing their derivatives in London temporarily.

But trading will have to move, and some counterparties with existing swaps contracts in Britain were reluctant to shift them before they absolutely had to."

[seaspear]

What are the pros and cons for Nth Ireland from this deal ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

What has been retained, will leave that for others.

However, being in the confluence of the CU/CM and the UK should be v attractive for players investing/ establishing from outside of Europe.
- in that sphere the only (and save for shipbuilding, small) minus is that EU state aid rules will continue to apply

[R686]

Seems the Norwegians think the UK has a better deal then they do, what happened to that infamous staircase and EU red lines?

https://www.thelocal.no/20201229/norway ... an-the-eea