The Positive Brexit Thread

[Well b back 3,280]

6 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62967084

The UK is weighing up whether to attend a new European political "club of nations" next month.

The first meeting of the "European Political Community" is due to be held in Prague in early October.

Tell me again why did we leave the EU ?

[PurpleCanary 5,585]

If it's any consolation that wasn't quite as big a lie as some when it was said! There are two parts to this. Timing and equality or otherwise of positions.

I don't know if your MP said anything about how soon or otherwise after Brexit this would happen. The reality is that although the US would want to do a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK at some point, it had other potential deals to consider. Obama may have been politicking a bit when he said the UK would go to the back of the queue, but not entirely.

But even if that hadn't been the case there followed the crass stupidity of first Johnson and seemingly now Truss. The UK was already showing the US it could not be trusted to keep to any deal by unilaterally refusing to enforce some of the checks on goods going into Northern Ireland, and since becoming PM Truss has sanctioned the continuation of that breach of the protocol (Interestingly, the supposed nastily vindictive EU has so far turned a blind eye to this.) And even worse, both Johnson and now (so far) Truss have threatened to in effect unilaterally scrap the whole deal.

There is a lot of nonsense talked about the UK's supposed special relationship, but the US really has only one such with two countries. One is Israel and the other, emotionally at least, is Ireland. Biden is just the latest in a long line of sentimental Hibernophiles, and the UK government's threat to tear up the whole deal, with implications for the Good Friday peace accords, is something the US, irrespective of who was president, will not tolerate. Hence the admission from Truss that there will be no deal even in the mid-term.

The other point is that even if a deal was struck it would have been weighted strongly in the US's favour. All politics is local, and no more so than in trade deals, which are decided not by the President but by the members of Congress, most of whom have their pork-barrel special interests to protect. Farming if you are a senator or Congressman in the Midwest, or steel or some such if you represent an industrial region. The EU would be able to negotiate a trade deal with the US as equals, but the UK would always find itself outgunned.

If your MP said there would eventually be a US-UK deal, that would have been fair enough, and not count as a lie, because at that time no-one imagined the totally amoral Johnson or the mad ideologue Truss becoming PM. If they said it would happen quickly then they were being overly optimistic to the point of being significantly misleading. If they said it would be an easy deal to negotiate, with the UK having as much clout as the US, then they were flat out lying.

Edited September 20, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[sonyc 5,541]

Fingers crossed this cross peers meeting produces an actionable plan this morning. Concerns are about an electoral dictatorship.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/21/liz-truss-may-face-lords-rebellion-over-northern-ireland-bill?

[PurpleCanary 5,585]

11 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

If it's any consolation that wasn't quite as big a lie as some when it was said! There are two parts to this. Timing and equality or otherwise of positions.

I don't know if your MP said anything about how soon or otherwise after Brexit this would happen. The reality is that although the US would want to do a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK at some point, it had other potential deals to consider. Obama may have been politicking a bit when he said the UK would go to the back of the queue, but not entirely.

But even if that hadn't been the case there followed the crass stupidity of first Johnson and seemingly now Truss. The UK was already showing the US it could not be trusted to keep to any deal by unilaterally refusing to enforce some of the checks on goods going into Northern Ireland, and since becoming PM Truss has sanctioned the continuation of that breach of the protocol (Interestingly, the supposed nastily vindictive EU has so far turned a blind eye to this.) And even worse, both Johnson and now (so far) Truss have threatened to in effect unilaterally scrap the whole deal.

There is a lot of nonsense talked about the UK's supposed special relationship, but the US really has only one such with two countries. One is Israel and the other, emotionally at least, is Ireland. Biden is just the latest in a long line of sentimental Hibernophiles, and the UK government's threat to tear up the whole deal, with implications for the Good Friday peace accords, is something the US, irrespective of who was president, will not tolerate. Hence the admission from Truss that there will be no deal even in the mid-term.

The other point is that even if a deal was struck it would have been weighted strongly in the US's favour. All politics is local, and no more so than in trade deals, which are decided not by the President but by the members of Congress, most of whom have their pork-barrel special interests to protect. Farming if you are a senator or Congressman in the Midwest, or steel or some such if you represent an industrial region. The EU would be able to negotiate a trade deal with the US as equals, but the UK would always find itself outgunned.

If your MP said there would eventually be a US-UK deal, that would have been fair enough, and not count as a lie, because at that time no-one imagined the totally amoral Johnson or the mad ideologue Truss becoming PM. If they said it would happen quickly then they were being overly optimistic to the point of being significantly misleading. If they said it would be an easy deal to negotiate, with the UK having as much clout as the US, then they were flat out lying.

This from Raphael Behr in The Guardian today:

When Truss was international trade secretary, a free-trade agreement with Washington was very much Plan A. It was to be the crowning glory of Britain’s triumphant liberation from Brussels: an apotheosis of economic sovereignty and transatlantic solidarity. In Eurosceptic mythology, the Washington deal was a bridge to utopia, and the slam-dunk rebuttal to all those gloomy remoaner economists who fretted over the cost of leaving the EU single market.

Now Truss admits that there aren’t even any negotiations. This isn’t a surprise to anyone who has listened to what US diplomats and trade experts have been saying for years.

Americans need compelling commercial incentives to open their markets up to foreigners. They aren’t going to do it as a favour for Truss, no matter how “special” the relationship with Britain. Also, the UK’s petulant unilateral abrogations of the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit agreement have advertised the country as a vandal of international law and a flaky trading partner.

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

This from Raphael Behr in The Guardian today:

When Truss was international trade secretary, a free-trade agreement with Washington was very much Plan A. It was to be the crowning glory of Britain’s triumphant liberation from Brussels: an apotheosis of economic sovereignty and transatlantic solidarity. In Eurosceptic mythology, the Washington deal was a bridge to utopia, and the slam-dunk rebuttal to all those gloomy remoaner economists who fretted over the cost of leaving the EU single market.

Now Truss admits that there aren’t even any negotiations. This isn’t a surprise to anyone who has listened to what US diplomats and trade experts have been saying for years.

Americans need compelling commercial incentives to open their markets up to foreigners. They aren’t going to do it as a favour for Truss, no matter how “special” the relationship with Britain. Also, the UK’s petulant unilateral abrogations of the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit agreement have advertised the country as a vandal of international law and a flaky trading partner.

Will the Daily Express continue to post its de rigueur weekly article claiming that a mega trade deal with the USA is to be imminently announced? I do hope so.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Why do the Tories think the DUP is going to help them at the next GE? Why do they believe the rest of the country has to adapt to Brexit but not NI?

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,193]

8 hours ago, horsefly said:

Will the Daily Express continue to post its de rigueur weekly article claiming that a mega trade deal with the USA is to be imminently announced? I do hope so.

This week it is "we don't need a deal" 😁

Though, being The Express, next week, or maybe tomorrow, or maybe the next page, it'll probably be a different daft story 

 

[Van wink 2,994]

It will all be sorted now that that Blair chap is calming the waters.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

On 21/09/2022 at 10:34, PurpleCanary said:

This from Raphael Behr in The Guardian today:

When Truss was international trade secretary, a free-trade agreement with Washington was very much Plan A. It was to be the crowning glory of Britain’s triumphant liberation from Brussels: an apotheosis of economic sovereignty and transatlantic solidarity. In Eurosceptic mythology, the Washington deal was a bridge to utopia, and the slam-dunk rebuttal to all those gloomy remoaner economists who fretted over the cost of leaving the EU single market.

Now Truss admits that there aren’t even any negotiations. This isn’t a surprise to anyone who has listened to what US diplomats and trade experts have been saying for years.

Americans need compelling commercial incentives to open their markets up to foreigners. They aren’t going to do it as a favour for Truss, no matter how “special” the relationship with Britain. Also, the UK’s petulant unilateral abrogations of the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit agreement have advertised the country as a vandal of international law and a flaky trading partner.

The significance of the open admission that there'll be no trade deal with the US is that it has weakened the US' ability to use that as a lever against the UK in its public rhetoric on Northern Ireland. 

To be honest, everybody with half a brain knew that a decent trade deal with America was a pipe dream. Truss is personally insulated against 'lying' on that score because she backed remain pre-referendum and the open abandonment of a trade deal with the US means it stops being talked about going forward, except maybe among a few die hards on the odd internet forum. 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Well b back 3,280]

To be honest, everybody with half a brain knew that a decent trade deal with America was a pipe dream. 
 

But had they not lied Brexit would never have happened. Please feel free to tell me at the time how you could prove without doubt this was not true ? I guess being a Brexiteer ( like myself at the time ) you backed the lies up.

The significance of the open admission that there'll be no trade deal with the US is that it has weakened the US' ability to use that as a lever against the UK in its public rhetoric on Northern Ireland. 

 

So how do you know that the reason there is no US trade deal is because of what Truss is threatening in Ireland and should she drop that position the US wouldn’t be straight around the table.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Well b back

[Herman 9,829]

On 04/04/2021 at 20:41, ricardo said:

Very wise, betting on dollar parity would have skint you by now😉

A long term bet....

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

11 hours ago, Well b back said:

To be honest, everybody with half a brain knew that a decent trade deal with America was a pipe dream. 
 

But had they not lied Brexit would never have happened. Please feel free to tell me at the time how you could prove without doubt this was not true ? I guess being a Brexiteer ( like myself at the time ) you backed the lies up.

The significance of the open admission that there'll be no trade deal with the US is that it has weakened the US' ability to use that as a lever against the UK in its public rhetoric on Northern Ireland. 

 

So how do you know that the reason there is no US trade deal is because of what Truss is threatening in Ireland and should she drop that position the US wouldn’t be straight around the table.

I have seen no evidence that there is any interest from the US side in a trade agreement with the UK that would be remotely advantageous to the UK, regardless of NI. As such, my assumption is a fair one. If you know of evidence that supports the case that the US would otherwise be interested in a trade agreement that might in any way be attractive from the UK perspective, please do share.

Edited September 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

36 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I have seen no evidence that there is any interest from the US side in a trade agreement with the UK that would be remotely advantageous to the UK, regardless of NI. As such, my assumption is a fair one. If you know of evidence that supports the case that the US would otherwise be interested in a trade agreement that might in any way be attractive from the UK perspective, please do share.

We signed agreements with NZ & AUS that weren't advantageous to UK farmers.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

9 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

We signed agreements with NZ & AUS that weren't advantageous to UK farmers.

Are you saying you're now a supporter of those agreements? If not, I'm not sure why you're pressuring for more that would be balanced far more against our interests than those.

Edited September 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Are you saying you're now a supporter of those agreements? If not, I'm not sure why you're pressuring for more that would be balanced far more against our interests than those.

What are you on about now? We've signed deals that were bad but they lied that they were good deals. They (Trevellyan) said a deal with the USA would be sorted in no time, another lie. Why do you keep defending them, are you that stupid?

[horsefly 4,318]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Are you saying you're now a supporter of those agreements? If not, I'm not sure why you're pressuring for more that would be balanced far more against our interests than those.

I think the import of Squit's point is that having chosen to isolate ourselves from the biggest single market on the planet, our negotiating power has reduced to something so weak we have actually signed trade deals that benefit our trading partners far more than they do the UK. No doubt the mighty US will seek to exploit their far superior strength if they do ever return to the negotiating table. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Will anyone trust our Government in the future? Obviously there is a great deal of pretence between Governments but in the second chambers where the real negotiating takes place, is there a likelihood that the flip flopping on policy by our Government will persuade anyone else that merely looking for investment from elsewhere gives us a firm financial footing to trade with?

What are we rated at by Moodys and Fitch?

Edited September 23, 2022 by keelansgrandad

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

I think the import of Squit's point is that having chosen to isolate ourselves from the biggest single market on the planet, our negotiating power has reduced to something so weak we have actually signed trade deals that benefit our trading partners far more than they do the UK. No doubt the mighty US will seek to exploit their far superior strength if they do ever return to the negotiating table. 

I knew what he was driving at, I just didn't want to get into a pointless argument with copious puerile and sarcastic remarks.

New Zealand and Australia were very special cases as part of accessing CPTPP. The concessions were trivial in the grand scheme of things. Going forward, our further trade approaches will likely involve attracting new members to CPTPP, which should help us rebuild, potentially even providing an avenue to indirectly rebuild with the EU without either party losing face.

In my opinion.

Edited September 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I knew what he was driving at, I just didn't want to get into a pointless argument with copious puerile and sarcastic remarks.

New Zealand and Australia were very special cases as part of accessing CPTPP. The concessions were trivial in the grand scheme of things. Going forward, our further trade approaches will likely involve attracting new members to CPTPP, which should help us rebuild, potentially even providing an avenue to indirectly rebuild with the EU without either party losing face.

In my opinion.

I really don't know why you have such faith in the CPTPP. Every analysis I've seen (including the government's own) predict it will come nowhere remotely close to replacing what we lost by leaving the EU. As for the concessions we made in the trade deals with Australia and NZ (and Japan), I think you will find many farmers who say they are far from trivial. We seem to have entered into an Alice in Wonderland world of economic decision making with the current Tories. It has all the substance of the Cheshire Cat's grin.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I really don't know why you have such faith in the CPTPP. Every analysis I've seen (including the government's own) predict it will come nowhere remotely close to replacing what we lost by leaving the EU. As for the concessions we made in the trade deals with Australia and NZ (and Japan), I think you will find many farmers who say they are far from trivial. We seem to have entered into an Alice in Wonderland world of economic decision making with the current Tories. It has all the substance of the Cheshire Cat's grin.

We've left the EU so comparisons with the EU aren't relevant. The point is it's the best opportunity to rebuild available and predictions are often well wide of the mark in such matters.

Of course livestock farming is important to livestock farmers, but livestock farming is a tiny part of the UK economy.

Edited September 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[duke63 545]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

We've left the EU so comparisons with the EU aren't relevant. The point is is the best opportunity to rebuild available.

We can always rejoin the EU. 😉

Which with the way the pound is slumping against the dollar and the euro may be the only way we are able to fund the Country's out of control borrowing.

I would guess the chances of a forced GE next year are rapidly increasing as the markets lose all faith in this Tory Government just weeks into it coming to power.

 

[duke63 545]

The pound is now worth less than $1.10 in the current market.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

Just now, duke63 said:

We can always rejoin the EU. 😉

Which with the way the pound is slumping against the dollar and the euro may be the only way we are able to fund the Country's out of control borrowing.

I would guess the chances of a forced GE next year are rapidly increasing as the markets lose all faith in this Tory Government just weeks into it coming to power.

 

I don't think we can, realistically. We lost a huge number of opt outs as a result of leaving that we won't get back. This discussion has already been done to death do if you insist we can, then I will agree to differ.

 

[horsefly 4,318]

59 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

We've left the EU so comparisons with the EU aren't relevant. The point is it's the best opportunity to rebuild available and predictions are often well wide of the mark in such matters.

Of course livestock farming is important to livestock farmers, but livestock farming is a tiny part of the UK economy.

Can't agree with that. The EU will remain our main trading destination for very obvious geographical reasons. There is still an enormous amount we could do to improve trading relations with the EU despite having left the single market. Economic intelligence and simple prudence would suggest we pursue such an approach; however, we have a government determined to ensure the worst possible relationship in the pursuit of satisfying the bigotry of the swivel-eyed loons on whom they depend for their support. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

13 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Can't agree with that. The EU will remain our main trading destination for very obvious geographical reasons. There is still an enormous amount we could do to improve trading relations with the EU despite having left the single market. Economic intelligence and simple prudence would suggest we pursue such an approach; however, we have a government determined to ensure the worst possible relationship in the pursuit of satisfying the bigotry of the swivel-eyed loons on whom they depend for their support. 

We can definitely improve things with the EU, but things need to settle down a bit on that score first. In the meantime, pursuing other things and building other relationships will help even the playing field when the subject comes up; if the country simply prostrates itself this soon then it's begging to be shafted.

Edited September 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

We can definitely improve things with the EU, but things need to settle down a bit on that score first. In the meantime, pursuing other things and building other relationships will help even the playing field when the subject comes up; if the country simply prostrates itself this soon then it's begging to be shafted.

Too late to avoid being shafted, we've already assured that with a catastrophic Brexit followed by today's La-La land fantasy economics. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Too late to avoid being shafted, we've already assured that with a catastrophic Brexit followed by today's La-La land fantasy economics. 

Catastrophic? Hardly. Disruptive? Yes. Negative?  Almost certainly. What with the pandemic and Ukraine, it's really hard to pin down the extent of the effect. Even the OBR says it's going to take a few more years to really understand how trade has been affected. 

Edited September 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

We can definitely improve things with the EU, but things need to settle down a bit on that score a bit. In the meantime, pursuing other things and building other relationships will help even the playing field when the subject comes up; if the country simply prostrates this soon then it's asking to be shafted.

'this soon'???  We left the EU over two & a half years ago.

And when you say 'if the country simply prostrates', I can only assume you mean if this country actually makes a genuine attempt to implement the deal that has already been agreed and signed.

Finally the country is not asking to be shafted, it has already been shafted - by Johnson who signed an absolute stinker of a deal and sold it to the hard of thinking as a fantastic deal.

 

[horsefly 4,318]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Catastrophic? Hardly. Disruptive? Yes. Negative?  Almost certainly. What with the pandemic and Ukraine, it's really hard to pin down the extent of the effect. Even the OBR says it's going to take a few more years to really understand how trade has been affected. 

You're burying your head in the sand if you think Brexit has been anything other than catastrophic.

https://fullfact.org/europe/online-cost-brexit-net-contributions/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/22/brexit-is-making-cost-of-living-crisis-worse-new-study-claims

https://costofbrexit.netlify.app/

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

2 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

'this soon'???  We left the EU over two & a half years ago.

And when you say 'if the country simply prostrates', I can only assume you mean if this country actually makes a genuine attempt to implement the deal that has already been agreed and signed.

Finally the country is not asking to be shafted, it has already been shafted - by Johnson who signed an absolute stinker of a deal and sold it to the hard of thinking as a fantastic deal.

 

Obviously I don't mean that; I was referring to the suggestion of rejoining the EU. 

We're getting into your usual hyperbolic and partial rants now, so I'll stop there and bid you a good evening.  

Edited September 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie