[HN Gopher] UK and EU agree Brexit trade deal
___________________________________________________________________
UK and EU agree Brexit trade deal
Author : Tomte
Score : 98 points
Date : 2020-12-24 14:51 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| richrichardsson wrote:
| "we are not bound by EU rules"
|
| Except if the UK wants to export anything to the EU they must
| abide by the EUs rules for those things (without any say in those
| rules what-so-ever).
| patrickaljord wrote:
| Isn't that the case of any country around the world? Doesn't
| mean the whole world should join the EU.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| This is a visualization of the UK's export destinations: [1].
|
| Exports to a big chunk of that diagram are about to get much
| more difficult.
|
| 1. https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/gbr/sh
| ow...
| lispm wrote:
| A country might want to trade with its direct (and near)
| neighbors as frictionless as possible. That's where usually
| the majority of the trade is going to and coming from... for
| example factories in the UK have been a part of the
| production networks in the EU with extensive just-in-time
| production logistics.
| Leherenn wrote:
| Most do not have the same volume/percentage with the EU
| though.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Most countries aren't 20 miles from the EU
| Symbiote wrote:
| 0. The United Kingdom shares a border with the Republic of
| Ireland.
| rwmj wrote:
| At the moment ...
|
| United Ireland will happen within a few years, followed
| by an independent Scotland rejoining the EU.
| rossjudson wrote:
| This seems quite reasonable to me. I would predict many
| young people moving to a United Ireland and an
| independent Scotland so they can regain the freedom the
| older generations just stole from them.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| Dumb question: would the UK no longer be the UK at that
| point?
| mhh__ wrote:
| De jure yes, de facto no (England and Wales is still
| technically the UK).
|
| FWIW, the Tories probably going to be in power for at
| least another half-decade or two.
| riffraff wrote:
| Does NI actually have incentives to unite with the
| Republic?
|
| I mean, with the current agreement they already have
| special status (no borders) and I think NI people can get
| Irish Citizeship easily.
|
| It sounds "nice" to have a unified Ireland from a purely
| simplification perspective but I wonder if it's actually
| a popular idea in NI.
| netsharc wrote:
| I wonder if the London Wall will be the 20's (as in
| decade) version of the Berlin Wall, when London decides
| to join the EU.
|
| Or since I've been playing Cyberpunk 2077, they'll have
| some sort of digital border, and there'll be digital
| smugglers going back and forth...
| mhh__ wrote:
| True, I was thinking about trade specifically
| (England->France absolutely dwarves the value of trade
| across the Irish border)
| richrichardsson wrote:
| Sure, but the point is that we had some sort of say in the
| regulations whilst being bound to them, now we don't. That
| doesn't sound like "control" to me.
| Brakenshire wrote:
| It's like saying to a US state, would you rather have seats
| in Congress, or would you rather federal law be optional.
| Balgair wrote:
| Oh, also, now that your state has 'left', you've got to
| get a visa to go over to the rest of the US now. And
| you'll need to pay tariffs to get good in or out. And
| you'll need to abide by our laws on those import and
| exports, things like emissions for cars, pesticides,
| safety regulations, that stuff.
| Brakenshire wrote:
| you've got to get a visa to go over to the rest of the US
| now.
|
| For business yes, for tourism no.
|
| And you'll need to pay tariffs to get good in or out.
|
| This is a zero tariff agreement.
|
| And you'll need to abide by our laws on those import and
| exports, things like emissions for cars, pesticides,
| safety regulations, that stuff.
|
| Yes, but that applies for all exports/imports under any
| circumstances.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| PR, Guam, Saipan and CNM, USVI (except visafree)
| pgcj_poster wrote:
| > Doesn't mean the whole world should join the EU
|
| Maybe this is a stupid question, but why not?111
| rualca wrote:
| > Isn't that the case of any country around the world?
|
| And now bear in mind that complying with EU regulation was
| one of the main propaganda points of the pro-Brexit campaign.
|
| It really makes no sense, but hey at least nacionalista
| demagogues got their way.
| Retric wrote:
| Plenty of other places to export stuff outside the EU, which
| makes compliance optional.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| The EU comprises roughly half of the UK's total trade
| activity [0], making this attitude of "plenty of other places
| to export stuff outside the EU" seem rather overconfident.
| Why would the UK consider compliance with the entity that
| generates half their trade "optional"?
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading
| _pa...
| rglullis wrote:
| It is not "the UK" that manufactures and exports things,
| it's people living there. Some of these people will want to
| target the EU as a market, some won't. For those that
| won't, following the EU regulations is now optional.
| djohnston wrote:
| There are winners and losers of any trade deal as mentioned
| in this thread. Some UK sectors will probably carry on with
| the EU business as usual, others will abandon the EU and
| search for better arrangements with other parties.
|
| The question you posed assumes that the EU will continue to
| be involved with half of the UK's trading activity, which I
| don't buy.
| notahacker wrote:
| > The question you posed assumes that the EU will
| continue to be involved with half of the UK's trading
| activity, which I don't buy.
|
| The difficult bit to buy, hard as Brexiters have been
| selling it, is that the reduction in the proportion of
| trading activity with the EU will be compensated for by
| an increase in trading activity with countries which are
| further away, more protectionist and/or poorer, as
| opposed to just a reduction in trade overall.
| Retric wrote:
| It's more than just exports.
|
| Regulations, imports from the EU, taxes paid to the EU,
| and tourists to and from the EU are also part of the
| equation. So the UK might be better off outside the EU
| when you ignore trade.
|
| Having said that, offsetting some of the drop in EU
| exports with and increase in non EU exports seems likely
| and could allow for a net benefit even assuming a net
| drop in total exports.
| notahacker wrote:
| "When you ignore trade" is a pretty spectacular caveat
| for assessing the claimed economic benefits from not
| participating in a trade agreement.
|
| We've had several years to hear a concrete argument for
| what regulations need removing and what the benefits
| would be, and the best we got was Patrick Minford's
| ambitious "it's likely we would eliminate manufacturing"
| growth projections based on the assumption the UK removed
| all barriers to importing anything. Ironically the EU has
| made more progress in securing FTAs with our list of
| putative alternative trade partners...
| Retric wrote:
| I wasn't ignoring trading, I am simply saying that
| looking at trade in isolation isn't the full story.
| People suggesting that an increase in non EU trade _must_
| be equivalent to the decrease in EU trade may be ignoring
| what the other side is saying.
|
| It's possible for the increase to exist, it to be less
| than the loss, and for the UK to be better off. As such
| some people talking about the likely increase may not be
| implying it's a 1:1 replacement for the drop.
| blibble wrote:
| is it really surprising that most exports/imports ended up
| being from/to the EU when the trading environment (customs
| union, tarriffs, regulation) is all but designed to
| prioritise to internal EU trade at the expense of the rest
| of the world?
|
| post-brexit: the rest of the world will be on a more even
| footing, so this will likely change
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| It was not "at the expense of the rest of the world".
| lou1306 wrote:
| Sure, but the European economic zone is both the closest &
| richest foreign market. Replacing it is not that easy.
| djohnston wrote:
| I'm curious about the cost increase for container ship
| transport to US/CAN vs lorry transport to EU. Containers
| are cheap when there isn't a pandemic, right?
| raphaelj wrote:
| Not all exports/imports can be carried in ships. Think
| about services or fresh food.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Less-urgent goods was/is transported from Britain to the
| continent by container. Mostly ships, but also by train.
| jorge-d wrote:
| While this is true, the UK export to the UE was around 45% of
| the total shares (2018)[1]. So the Brits might look at new
| markets but cutting that share because they don't want to
| comply with regulations would disrupt their exports.
|
| [1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-
| briefings/cbp-...
| Retric wrote:
| Compliance is on a product by product bases. Inside the EU
| when compliance is mandatory it consisted of 45% of
| exports.
|
| To use an extreme example, if the UK suddenly decides to
| legalize pot they could then export that while continuing
| to export every other product under EU regulation. Net
| result an increase in exports.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| I doubt there's EU legislation on weed...
| zelos wrote:
| Yes, the Brussels effect:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
|
| One could say the UK has given back control...
| blibble wrote:
| this becomes less of an issue with each passing year as the
| EU's share of world GDP decreases
|
| https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/GDP%20graph%20world%20vs%.
| ..
| jasdine817 wrote:
| This is due to the rise of China. The UKs main export
| market is the EU so it makes sense for it to stay in the
| organisation that governs regulations in that market.
| [deleted]
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Don't forget, before we had a say (even a veto sometimes) over
| EU rules. Now we actually do have to just accept whatever
| Brussels decides for the bendiness of our bananas...
| izacus wrote:
| Is there a source about this from a non-UK media as well? The
| title and quotes seem cherry picked to reinforce media propaganda
| from one side.
| orange_tee wrote:
| ERASMUS is gone for UK. Quite interesting.
|
| Probably universities felt like they were losing out, since they
| can sell those places to international (non-EU) students for much
| higher prices.
|
| EDIT: I'm talking about UK universities obviously.
| Symbiote wrote:
| The British universities are disappointed. They profited from
| ERASMUS (in money, though I'm not sure how).
|
| I found a statement from their "leader" earlier, I'm not sure
| where.
| BTinfinity wrote:
| Being replaced with a new scheme (The "Turing Scheme") which
| will be very similar to ERASMUS but will be worldwide instead
| of limited to Europe. [1] Sounds like British students will
| have a little more mobility, not sure if it'll benefit the
| British universities themselves though
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1342138413831630849
| lentil_soup wrote:
| Let's wait until it's actually implemented. Also, there was
| nothing stopping having that promised worldwide scheme before
| felixr wrote:
| I am pretty sure such a scheme cannot be introduced
| unilaterally. It also requires other countries and
| universities to receive your students. Where Erasmus is an
| established student exchange programme, the UK or the UK
| universities will have to build relationships with foreign
| unis. And I doubt somehow that this programme will short/mid-
| term provide any more mobility due to lack of a university
| network.
| zvr wrote:
| It will also be interesting to see what the university fee
| structure will eventually be like.
|
| EU students who have started a degree with a reduced fee are
| especially worried about next years. And in Scotland there are
| already four tiers of fees: Scotland, rest of UK, EU, and
| international (other).
| pjc50 wrote:
| I've not heard anything like this from UK universities.
| smurf_t wrote:
| A summary can be found here
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
| rwmj wrote:
| An even better one here:
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attach...
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Is there any similar summary available from a UK government
| source?
| rwmj wrote:
| The UK government prepared this:
|
| https://www.scribd.com/document/489048219/Government-
| Analysi...
|
| It was leaked, but then the government decided not to release
| it, likely because it's nonsense.
| klelatti wrote:
| The Brexit referendum was the answer to a long running battle
| within the Conservative party between Eurosceptics and the rest
| dating back to the early 1990s. As such Brexit may be seen to be
| a success. It has united the party behind a common policy (those
| who objected have been kicked out) and healed the division.
|
| Even better (for the party) they have created a 'foe' which can
| be blamed for Britain's ills with political impunity. If Scotland
| leaves the UK - which looks likely - they will be close to
| guaranteed a majority in parliament. Their recent election
| majority has given them the opportunity to ignore, weaken or
| ignore controls on the executive's behaviour.
|
| For all his buffoonish behaviour and administrative incompetence
| Alex Johnson is a ruthless political operator.
|
| I make no comment on the benefits or otherwise for the UK and its
| people which should be obvious by now.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Re Scotland, I suspect that the EU made some concessions to
| make them leaving less likely. On the whole the EU doesn't like
| countries becoming independent (Catalonia, for example) of
| their parent country. Coherence is key for the EU
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Really relevant point. EU wants deeper integration, the last
| thing it needs is a second independent nation with a land
| border to the UK.
| sleavey wrote:
| I completely disagree. The EU remained silent during the
| Scottish independence referendum in 2014 because they didn't
| want to be seen to be publicly undermining the UK government,
| but since relations have soured they've been pretty open to
| say that Scotland would be welcomed back into the EU and that
| it already meets the requirements.
|
| Not to say that Scotland rejoining the EU would be a massive
| moral victory for the EU over England.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Disagree with your final point.
|
| The last thing the EU wants is disruption - ever. They want
| clear, stable operations backed by huge bureaucracy.
|
| They'll be glad Brexit is over so they can just get on with
| BAU. The ordeal of an independent Scotland forming and
| applying to join would be a huge disruption.
| dTal wrote:
| Who's Alex Johnson?
| klelatti wrote:
| Boris is a stage name. Alex is the name he uses when not in
| his "persona".
| cosmiccatnap wrote:
| Four years ago the various members of the UK parliament voted on
| wether or not to stick their genitalia into an electric switch.
| After 4 years of debate between the half that wanted it and the
| half that did not they have come to the conclusion that they
| should just pretend to do so in order to make the various people
| they represent believe that their best course of action is to
| once again bear the blunt of the pain for a stupid decision some
| politicians made.
|
| Soon many UK citizans will be quite shocked to find out that this
| might not have been the best idea for them and it won't really
| effect those who ask them to go through with it to begin with.
| seanwilson wrote:
| Are there any major benefits for the UK in the deal? The list of
| changes so far on the BBC site just reads like a big list of
| negatives.
| azalemeth wrote:
| Therin lies the fundamental problem of Brexit. (I voted against
| it). It is _inherently_ a regressive move.
| nailer wrote:
| Why? Joining up with a bloc that has so vastly different
| values between its members, with multiple points of internal
| chaos - Greece, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Sweden -
| raised against it. An army an an anthem that nobody asked
| for, when they just wanted a single market. A single nation
| able to admit anyone they like, who become citizens and
| therefore able to immigrate to any other nation - it's very
| clear there are many downsides of EU membership. Not just for
| the UK but for everyone else.
|
| Keep in mind I was a Remain campaigner - you can find the
| submissions to HN back in 2016 if you check my post history.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| If you see the EU just as a trade relationship then of
| course there are some things that look out of place. But
| there are several other incentives for being part of a
| supranational arrangement such as the EU: safety in numbers
| (hi Russia), trade negotiation weight (Canada, China,
| Mercosur, .. ), standardisation power (DIN has become
| global status in some ways (think paper) and ISO is often
| led by EU)), rulesetting power (think GDPR, what other non-
| US legislation has such global impact on the internet?).
| Germany and France still have a small say on the global
| scale without the EU, but Slovakia or even Poland or Spain
| do not - as a single block they are less flexible but can
| bring their weight to bear.
|
| Not to mention that still today a key narrative of EU
| membership is the EU as a peace project. After 2000+ years
| of unending war western Europe has not had a single border
| conflict since WW2. That's in large part due to the EU and
| it's predecessors.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| A civil war disintegrated Yugoslavia. Is a conflict that
| created a border a border conflict?
| Vinnl wrote:
| So could you name some of the disadvantages that no longer
| apply with this agreement?
| dylkil wrote:
| we've taken back control!!1! /s
| notahacker wrote:
| The benefit to the deal is that without the deal, there would
| be no free trade with the countries the UK does the majority of
| its free trade with.
|
| In comparison to remaining, the overall decision to leave
| whilst putting the deal in place ensure that UK [i] decoupled
| from a political project it had already negotiated an arms-
| length relationship with [ii] satisfied the sort of person
| enraged by seeing Polish shops that we could start denying
| Polish people visas should we wish to do so, whilst actually
| expecting net migration to continue at similar levels to before
| and facing similar mostly theoretical restrictions on our own
| ability to live in EU countries and [iii] negotiated a slightly
| larger share of a fish quota, a political priority which has
| seen significantly more lucrative industries take the hit
| instead.
|
| We also have more ability to not follow EU law or
| product/service guidelines, but whether that's a benefit or not
| depends on which person you ask who's affected by which
| regulation
| rwmj wrote:
| Not for the UK, but it's been good for Vladimir Putin and
| others who want to break up the international order for their
| own selfish reasons.
|
| (Unless you are very well connected evil billionaire, these
| reasons probably do not align with those of you or your family)
| Threeve303 wrote:
| I know you're getting downvoted because this sounds political
| but it is true... Russia is related to this and it is much
| more than any kind of shenanigans with the Brexit referendum.
| The geopolitical reality is simple... The EU is expanding
| East and Russia is expanding West, and so the UK does not
| want to be pulled into a situation like that where the EU is
| making all of the decisions. Not to say this is the only
| reason for Brexit. It is just one of a million.
| mhh__ wrote:
| As documented in
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
| AnHonestComment wrote:
| The international order failed the people financing it, so it
| was brutally torn down -- Brexit, Trump, etc.
|
| The sooner globalists accept that, the sooner we can all move
| forward to new solutions.
| mhh__ wrote:
| It said we're going to get a PS350E6 a week on the side of a
| bus, what more could we need!
| brnt wrote:
| The whole idea of the EU was to make sure we all find a
| benefit, and end zero sum thinking. If you've read any of the
| leaked scoring cards out of London you see how they're
| fundamentally a bad fit. I pity the British citizens really.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| It doesn't seem like its completely over yet? Both the EU and the
| UK seems to need review interally before it passes. I think
| Brexit is still technically on the table?
| Tsiklon wrote:
| Brexit happened at the end of January past. The UK has left the
| European Union. From February through to the end of this year
| is a transition period to facilitate further discussions to
| sort out the state of the future relationship with the EU on
| Trade and other matters. For the transition period the UK
| remains aligned with the EU, and a part of the EU Customs
| Union.
|
| There was a real fear of a cliff edge end of this transition
| period - this was the "Hard Brexit" scenario which I think you
| were referring to. This deal - if ratified by both parties -
| precludes this from occurring.
|
| My issue with the procedure with which the UK has followed here
| is that there is very limited time to get this deal scrutinised
| by both Parliament and the Lords (and the EU Parliament on the
| other side). This is an enormous 2,000 page agreement which
| will form the basis of the future relationship the UK and all
| it's industries have with it's closest neighbour. It is
| precisely the sort of legislation that requires serious
| scrutiny.
|
| Worse than that, all the businesses affected have a week to
| prepare for the changes required - This week has two bank
| holidays in it (these are functionally public holidays, for non
| UK people). This is going to be a challenge for everyone
| involved.
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| On the EU side every member state has to ratify it as well as
| the European Parliament. I'd say there is a slim chance, that
| this will happen in one week.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Brexit happened months ago.
| tremon wrote:
| So in what state does this leave the Northern Irish border? If EU
| freedom of movement no longer applies, does this mean there will
| be a hard border between Ireland and Nothern Ireland after all?
| orange_tee wrote:
| The border checks will happen between Northern Ireland and
| Great Britain instead of between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
| In return for this concession, Northern Ireland will continue
| following some EU rules.
| alimw wrote:
| s/UK/GB/
| orange_tee wrote:
| Good catch, thanks.
| diegoperini wrote:
| Can you please explain? I'm not from any of the islands.
| sbuk wrote:
| The country is officially known as The United Kingdom of
| Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain
| consists of 3 countries; England, Scotland and Wales. So
| the border Checks are between NI and GB _not_ NI and UK.
| MLR wrote:
| The UK and Ireland impose passport controls on the EU (Common
| Travel Area) which won't change, with regards to customs checks
| we're engaging in a bit of legal theatre to claim that NI is
| remaining inside the UK customs area but de facto it will be in
| a customs union with the EU/the Republic of Ireland and the
| customs border will be between Great Britain and the island of
| Ireland as a whole.
| smackay wrote:
| The Americans would never tolerate a hard border between the
| Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Too much time, effort
| and blood went into getting the Good Friday Agreement. The
| border with Northern Ireland still exists, only it got moved to
| the Irish Sea.
| mtmail wrote:
| The Americans were not part of the negotiations.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| They can put pressure on the UK government and probably
| have.
| smackay wrote:
| Really? That would be news to Ambassador George Mitchell,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell
| djohnston wrote:
| OP probably won't read it, so here:
|
| > He was a primary architect of the 1996 Mitchell
| Principles and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement in Northern
| Ireland, and was the main investigator in two "Mitchell
| Reports", one on the Arab-Israeli conflict (2001) and one
| on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball
| (2007).
| joefife wrote:
| They are guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement.
|
| Yes, I know, my instinct is also to say it's none of their
| business. But in the case of the GFA, it is.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| I don't think anyone in the US cares that much. And have
| you seen our foreign policy over the last 20 years? You
| really don't want us getting involved.
| Tomte wrote:
| Many Irish-Americans do care, and the President-elect has
| repeatedly called this issue to attention.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| People in the US cared very much.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54171571
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-50658187
| redisman wrote:
| A more accurate statement: Some career politicians care a
| little bit. I can guarantee 99% of Americans have no idea
| what Northern Ireland would be or what border
| arrangements they do or don't have with the EU and UK
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 1% of 300 million people is still a large political
| force, especially if they are concentrated in a
| particular area.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| So is the EU. Guarding the good friday agreement was one
| of their key demands in the negotiations.
| tambourineman88 wrote:
| No. There's been the Common Travel Area since 1923.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| That does not mean no border. That just means that Irish and
| British can freely cross the border but may need to show
| passport/id.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| There are special provisions for Northern Ireland, the so-
| called "backstop", in the EU withdrawal agreement which was
| signed a year ago.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| What's the situation with GDPR and data transfers? Can companies
| still claim GDPR compliance by providing a point of contact in
| the UK? Are there new restrictions on EU->UK data transfers (e.g.
| a EU company hiring a UK data processor)?
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Doesn't cover services, aka 80% of UK gdp!?
| mhh__ wrote:
| That sounds like Remoaner talk, we wouldn't want that now would
| we.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| The most frustrating thing about this will be leavers acting
| like they won. They achieved exactly what everyone said would
| happen: a mix of no trade for vital sectors (FS) and trade
| for pointless ones (fishing!?) only under EU rules that we
| now have zero say in.
|
| So frustrating.
|
| Indont think anyone would vote for this over just remaining
| if they actually understood it.
|
| /FrustratedBrit
| mhh__ wrote:
| I read that for some sectors (Finance in particular) this
| is also (apparently, IANAL) a golden opportunity to move
| the books rather than the operations to europe.
|
| For every 1 employee on a British-registered fishing boat,
| there are roughly 91 in the financial sector. If it isn't
| obvious, we need to get the Royal Navy involved (We've paid
| for the F-35s, we might as well use them!)
| LatteLazy wrote:
| This whole thing has been "the tail wagging the dog". If
| I even get started I'll lose what little hair I have
| left...
| cameronh90 wrote:
| Services don't have tariffs anyway, and the EU single market
| was pretty poor when it comes to services. It has improved a
| bit over the last decade - and it was a focus for the future -
| but the situation as it stands is there isn't much of a single
| services market to do a deal with anyway.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Financial services don't have tarrifs because they're totally
| banned in many cases. You can't offer banking services or
| insurance in the EU unless your regulated by an EU member or
| covered under a trade agreement. But a bank etc in one member
| country can offer them in all other member countries, that's
| called passporting.
|
| Right now, if you want to IPO a Germany company, your
| friendly Goldman Sachs banker in London can do the whole
| thing over email.
|
| But from 00:01CET 01/01/21, that banker will need to move to
| the EU, establish residency, get approval to open GoldmansEU,
| open it (including getting the correct training and
| certification and moving a tonne of money there), setup to
| pay taxes and abide by local and EU regs, and then call the
| client back.
|
| He'll sack his UK staff or try and take them. He'll stop
| paying UK taxes. He'll stop funding the UKs Museums and
| Operas and Lamboghini dealerships.
|
| Financial services for the world's largest, most developed
| market has been a massive boon for the UK. Its funded
| everything else we've done.
|
| Passporting was the core economic thing we wanted in a trade
| deal. Fishing and farming and manufacturing are all worth
| less than just banking. And we didn't get it.
|
| But we can continue to sell some cod as long as we abide by
| Brussels decisions so I guess I need to retrain...
| newdude116 wrote:
| Brexit had many reasons. Many different motivations. I don't
| think Clown Boris even understood this. For him Brexit was a
| (successful) train ride to Prime Minister.
|
| The original, very interesting ideas for brexit, you can find
| here: https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2020/12/15/alastair-
| campbell-t...
|
| The average guy who voted for Brexit because of 300MM per week
| more for the NHS was just an idiot that is getting used.
|
| The UK was the sick man of Europe. Then three things happened.
|
| 1. Thatcher made reforms. This is given as a the main/only
| reason.
|
| 2. The UK joined the EC, the precursor of the EU. This is rarely
| mentioned.
|
| 3. The UK found shitloads of oil in the northern see, oil that
| has mostly run out by now.
|
| So the rise of the sick man of Europe had many reasons. I doubt
| that the Brexit will bring many benefits. If you are imaginary
| enslaved, your freedom can also only be imaginary.
| te_chris wrote:
| And there goes the professional services industry
| Tomte wrote:
| Johnson about to speak:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC7ofw33XbQ
| siscia wrote:
| As strong believer in EU, at this point I am quite unsure what
| the EU it is all about. It is just being able to freely move
| between countries without officially need a VISA?
|
| As if the problem of moving in a new nation is the strictly
| bureaucratic one and not the cultural one.
|
| In my understanding from this article UK got everything from they
| wanted AND they control the supply of their currency. What is the
| advantage for Italy or Spain to stay in the union?
| blargmaster42_8 wrote:
| EU(SSR) was always the goal.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The UK will obviously say that they won. The EU will obviously
| let them. This is politics and letting the UK sells the deal to
| its own.
|
| The reality is that the UK has lost a lot compared to its
| previous position as EU member whatever the details of that
| deal.
| siscia wrote:
| What did they lose exactly sorry?
|
| Because at least to me it is not clear at all.
| temp wrote:
| https://twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1342060622306041856
| has more details
| kkdaemas wrote:
| The UK still needs to follow EU rules to trade there, but
| now has no say in those rules.
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| For starters brexit has already costed UK more than all of
| their EU membership payments they have ever made combined.
|
| Now they have agreement that will give them the same access
| to EU market what they used to have while UK was part of
| EU, but if they want to use that access they have to follow
| all the EU rules and regulations like other EU member
| states.
|
| Only thing that changed is that UK no more has any decision
| making power within EU.
| briandear wrote:
| The EU has no more decision making power in Britain
| either. Power output of vacuums. Power output of tea
| kettles. Rules around washing machines, the shape of
| cucumbers..
|
| Some of those rules have been reformed, however that they
| existed in the first place was a ridiculous overreach of
| EU power.
|
| Why, for example, is vacuum cleaner power regulated by
| the EU? Why can't people sell and buy vacuums that meet
| their needs? If I have a need for a 3000 watt vacuum, he
| EU won't let me have it, even though I pay not only for
| the product, but any power it consumes.
|
| Remember trade is a two way street. If the EU wants
| access to the UK market, they'll have to play by UK
| rules.
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2453204
| /Be...
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| > For starters brexit has already costed UK more than all
| of their EU membership payments they have ever made
| combined.
|
| Do you have any sources on that?
| Isinlor wrote:
| No, moving without visa and passports is not related to EU.
| That's a Schengen Agreement establishing Schengen Area [0]. UK
| was never part of Schengen Area in the first place.
|
| In practice, free moment of people means that I can go to any
| EU country and register there as a resident. I just need a
| birth certificate. Then I can get employment on the same rules
| as native citizens. It's really easy to do.
|
| Overall EU provides 4 fundamental freedoms:
|
| - Free movement of goods - Free movement of capital - Freedom
| to establish and provide services - Free movement of persons
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
| Brakenshire wrote:
| My understanding is Schengen is about physical infrastructure
| and managing visas for third parties, and the EU about the
| actual rights for member state citizens. The UK was never in
| Schengen, and that meant that a French person coming to the
| UK could be stopped at the border, but they would be let
| through on the basis of rights enshrined in the EU.
| Isinlor wrote:
| For me in practice going to UK meant that I had to show my
| passport on the border, while nobody cares when I travel
| across Schengen. I don't know what would happen if they
| tried to hold me.
|
| The biggest reason why Schengen Area is not equivalent with
| EU is that there are countries that are not part of EU, but
| are part of Schengen - Switzerland and Norway as well as
| there are countries that are part of EU but not yet part of
| Schengen like Bulgaria and Romania. I never was in Bulgaria
| and Romania, so I can't speak of practicalities.
|
| And yes, Schengen countries have common visa policy.
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| To be clear here: The four freedoms are not related to the
| Schengen Agreement, they are guaranteed by the European
| Single Market [1].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
| briandear wrote:
| Free movement of goods? Unless it's Spanish wine. Or
| vegetables.
|
| Or British meat..
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/20160406-spain-summons-french-
| am...
|
| https://www.catalannews.com/business/item/catalan-farmers-
| an...
|
| https://apnews.com/article/8bfc0cd5b74bb238fce6c8c64af416d6
| estaseuropano wrote:
| EU provides trade, geopolitical weight, smooth proceeded across
| borders (no passport or customs checks from Poland to
| Portugal..), reduces friction and competition between the
| neighbours (first big policy ~60 years ago was the Common
| Agricultural Policy CAP, which provides common subsidy levels
| and avoids conflicting subsidies/races to the bottom), enables
| standards, builds trust in institutions across borders (from
| passports to taxes to the legal system), provides great trade
| agreement terms with third countries and visa-free travel to
| 50+ countries, and most of all it always was and remains a
| peace project.
| [deleted]
| yokaze wrote:
| The financial sector is not part of the agreement. So a lot of
| financial trades based in London for the EU will likely
| relocate.
|
| And as others pointed out, they are still bound by EU
| regulations apparently also future ones without having a say in
| it.
|
| Of course, they will tell you that they got what they wanted.
| [deleted]
| akmarinov wrote:
| All the financial institutions have already opened a EU
| office. They didn't wait around until New Year's to see
| whether a deal would come through.
| tomatocracy wrote:
| I work in this sector.
|
| The big non-EU headquartered institutions have had offices
| and branches in multiple non-UK EU jurisdictions dating
| back decades and have served eg local major corporates out
| of those offices this way for a long time.
|
| The question was whether and how much they would move
| significant chunks of wholesale activity including staff
| out of London. The answer seems to be not very much at all
| so far. Noone I know has been moved out of London and the
| sector has continued to expand over the past four years.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Yeah, but bit by bit they'll have to start moving staff and
| assets. They might even have to pay some tax there.
| Hamuko wrote:
| EU is basically a system to keep a bunch of closely located
| countries to not wage a global war with each other every 25
| years by making them co-operate and co-depend on each other.
| daenney wrote:
| I don't see how one can come to that conclusion based on the
| article.
|
| As noted, the agreement is 2k pages long. The only real thing
| the article digs into, and that's a very generous use of dig,
| is fisheries, which though a political sticking point isn't all
| that interesting or relevant in the grand scheme of things.
|
| The UK already did and always has controlled the supply of
| their own currency as do many EU member states.
| GreenWinters wrote:
| > As if the problem of moving in a new nation is the strictly
| bureaucratic one and not the cultural one.
|
| Could it be that you are underestimating the importance of (not
| dealing with) bureaucracy? It determines if you need to collect
| lots of documents like criminal-records certificates in each
| country you've lived in, to verify your degree abroad, to do a
| bunch of medical tests in approved institutions.
|
| It determines what legal restrictions you need to deal with if
| you change jobs while your work-permit card has the name of
| your employer on it.
|
| Many opportunities simply won't happen for a person separated
| from them with a bureaucratic boundary.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Not to mention the huge pain in the ass if you want to bring
| along family or SO.
|
| When it comes to working visas, most of the time you will
| need to have formal relationship(like marriage) and he/she
| would't be allowed to work or the options would be extremely
| limited.
| mrtksn wrote:
| That's from UK's perspective. From EU's perspective EU got
| everything they want and they made a brochure about it:
| https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/eu-uk_trade_and_c...
|
| >What is the advantage for Italy or Spain to stay in the union?
|
| The single market and and access to trade deals EU negotiated
| with the rest of the world. You may say that maybe Italy and
| Spain should get their own trade deals instead of EU's but EU's
| trade agreements are theirs already.
|
| EU is not a shop in Brussels where some foreigners produce
| regulations or agreements. Each country elects and appoints
| people who do these things.
| Brakenshire wrote:
| It's really incredible the lack of technical detail there is in
| reporting of the EU and Brexit. As you say, it's very difficult
| to pick out exactly what this means.
|
| Some limitations which I do know of:
|
| * British nationals can't live and work freely on Europe, so an
| architect based in London can't jump on a Eurostar and take a
| business meeting in Paris by default, they would have to get a
| visa specific to the country and activity. And their
| professional qualifications may not be recognised, so would
| have to operate through local professionals (not sure how that
| would work in practice).
|
| * Products sold into the EU will have to be recertified for
| that market, no assumption of regulatory compliance or
| compatibility. So a lot more red tape and checks in moving
| products across borders, in particular that will impact food
| and products built as part of just in time supply chains.
|
| * No ability for British firms to operate in other European
| countries with equivalent rights as a local company, will have
| to form subsidiaries instead in many cases.
|
| Would be interested what else people can add.
| aries1980 wrote:
| > No ability for British firms to operate in other European
| countries with equivalent rights as a local company, will
| have to form subsidiaries instead in many cases.
|
| This has never been the case.
|
| To enjoy full rights, you have to have a local office. Tax
| forms e.g. Hungarian employment tax forms doesn't even accept
| the UK postcodes as administrative address, let alone grant
| application forms.
| ska wrote:
| Having a local office isn't the same as having a
| subsidiary. All of this will mostly make accountants happy,
| I suspect.
| Closi wrote:
| That first limitation you mentioned is not true - you do not
| need a visa to go for a business meeting, just as you don't
| need a visa to go for a meeting in any other country.
|
| The second also isn't true - no recertification appears to be
| required but could be required in the future should
| legislation diverge.
| stevejpurves wrote:
| Really? If it wasn't for the visa waiver programme in the
| US for example, being from the UK wouldn't I need a visa to
| enter?
| Brakenshire wrote:
| https://www.gov.uk/visit-europe-1-january-2021/business-
| trav...
|
| As well as the actions all travellers need to take, there
| are extra actions if you're travelling to the EU for
| business.
|
| Business travel includes activities such as travelling for
| meetings and conferences, providing services (even with a
| charity), and touring art or music.
|
| Entry requirements The country you're travelling to might
| have its own entry requirements, or ask you to have certain
| documents.
|
| Check the entry requirements for the country you're
| visiting.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-24/johnson-
| i...
|
| The deal doesn't include any mutual recognition of
| conformity assessment [...] meaning firms will have to pay
| the regulatory cost of certification twice if they wish to
| sell their products in both the U.K. and the bloc
| pjc50 wrote:
| You absolutely do need a visa or waiver to go to a business
| meeting in a country which does not have an entry
| agreement.
|
| People heading to conferences in the UK have occasionally
| been caught by aggressive immigration officers and
| deported.
| Symbiote wrote:
| You need a visa to go to any other country, by default.
|
| If you're from Western or Northern Europe, or North
| America, you will often be exempt for tourism, conferences
| and meetings for similar countries.
|
| But I, and probably you, need a business visa for a simple
| meeting in Moscow.
|
| It's up to each EU country what requirements they put on
| British visitors, but it looks like at least some will
| require visas for at least some types of business.
| asien wrote:
| > As strong believer in EU
|
| Are you even from the EU ?
|
| Do you even know how eu works ?
|
| Most eu citizens voted NO [0] to their own referendum to enter
| European Union, but lobbies forced them in.
|
| What was once a common agreement between nations is now a hub
| used by lobbies and foreign nations for corruptions and mass
| miss appropriation of funds.
|
| To give just two examples, when entering EU France had to
| destroy 50 000 nurses, surgeons and healthcares jobs to find
| money for the EU Budget that would be given to poorer
| countries.
|
| As a result , it has one of the highest death toll of Europe
| from Covid 19.
|
| When transport leader Alstom decided to acquire Canadian
| transport bombardier , EU refused and forced Alstom to
| permanently shut down one it's factory and terminate all
| workers to accept[1]
|
| Welcome to EU.
|
| This is why UK left.
|
| [0]https://www.finalscape.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/11/forfai...
|
| [1]https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2020/07/31/bruxelles
| ...
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Belgium, Italy, the UK, Spain, and the Czech Republic all
| have higher deaths per million than France.
|
| Peru and the USA are doing worse too, I didn't even know they
| were in the EU!
|
| https://covidgraph.com/
| raphaelj wrote:
| France's poor handling of the pandemic has way more to do
| with late measures and poor decisions earlier this year than
| the number of nurses and MD. More nurses will not make the
| virus less infectious.
|
| As often, EU is a nice scapegoat.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| This comment is so terribly bad, end-to-end, from the linked
| "sources" that say nothing even close to the statement they
| are supposed to support, to punctuation, to cherry-picking
| and misrepresenting some specific half-truths, I'm not
| entirely sure if it isn't intended to disparage opposition to
| the EU by making that opposition look stupid.
| viraptor wrote:
| > Most eu citizens voted NO [0] to their own referendum to
| enter European Union
|
| You linked one image without context. Not sure what is it,
| but I can guess that "resultats provisoires" means we should
| look for a better source.
|
| Maybe like this - it doesn't look like most disagreed there:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_Eur.
| ..
| stordoff wrote:
| > Most eu citizens voted NO [0] to their own referendum to
| enter European Union
|
| > [0]https://www.finalscape.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/11/forfai...
|
| That's the French referendum on establishing a European
| Constitution (ratifying the TCE), held _decades_ after they
| were already a member of the EU. It's nothing to do with
| entering the EU, and _can't _ speak for most EU citizens (as
| it's only France). Further, the TCE was not ratified.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Ah now, that's misleading. The constitution was defeated in
| two seperate referenda in France and the Netherlands.
|
| The details numbers of said constitution were filed off
| overnight in Brussels, and the lisbon treaty was born.
|
| I voted against it, twice, even though I'm a federalist as
| it was profoundly undemocratic.
| libertine wrote:
| What a load of bullshit.
| sofixa wrote:
| > When transport leader Alstom decided to acquire Canadian
| transport bombardier , EU refused and forced Alstom to
| permanently shut down one it's factory and terminate all
| workers to accept[1]
|
| Your own source says they're forced to sell one of their
| factories to a competitor to even out the playing field, not
| shut it down. Considering the future merged Alstom-Bombardier
| has a near monopoly in most EU markets, it makes sense to
| force divestment.
| deergomoo wrote:
| What an enormous waste of time and money for everyone involved
| Brexit has been. To think this entire farce followed from a non-
| binding referendum with a 2% majority in favour.
| shostack wrote:
| For certain hostile foreign actors I'm sure dividing the EU in
| this manner has payed off in spades.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| UK threatened several times in the negotiations to basically
| make itself a tax haven...
| danishdev wrote:
| There's lots of citizens of UK happy today. For some it could
| be a waste of time. For some others, knowing UK laws are
| written in UK, it's a relief.
| jasdine817 wrote:
| Considering that UK businesses will now have to follow rules
| that the UK has no say in making, doesn't really feel like a
| great improvement. Especially since UK law was always legally
| supreme and new EU laws had to be ratified by parliament
| anyway.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| deergomoo wrote:
| I'm happy for them (truly--this isn't snark), but
| unfortunately I have far more faith in EU legislators to
| support my rights, my community, and my general wellbeing
| than a Conservative Party government.
| blibble wrote:
| you might want to look into who makes up the EPP
|
| (and of course: historically a large chunk of it was the
| Conservative Party)
| [deleted]
| orange_tee wrote:
| The European Commission are all right wing pro business
| people, except with even less oversight than national
| governments. Why would you trust Ursula von der Leyen over
| Boris Johnson? They are cut from the same piece of cloth.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| I think you might read the wrong media. It was the UK
| (with little brother Denmark) that kept the EU firmly on
| an economically liberal course.
|
| First thing the Commission did after the Brexit notice
| was to publish a 'European Pillar of Social Rights' and
| to launch processes for common minimum social standards.
| Yes they do trade but look at the lineup and
| commissioners and half of those have social portfolios.
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| > They are cut from the same piece of cloth.
|
| This is easily disproved by comparing the orderliness of
| their hair ;-)
|
| Yes, I know Boris Johnson ruffles his hair on purpose.
| defertoreptar wrote:
| In other words, "I don't mind that my vote carries less
| weight for as long as the decision-makers happen to share
| my political views."
| gameshot911 wrote:
| Is there a problem with that? Of course people want to
| maximize a scenario where decision-makers share their
| political views.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| It's probably more a matter of faith in an expertocracy
| with political checks and balances and ultimate political
| decision but apolitical implementation.
| rasz wrote:
| Im guessing those are upper owner class, the ones never
| setting a foot in a supermarket.
| orange_tee wrote:
| Can you elaborate on your guess? Why would the "upper owner
| class" benefit more from BREXIT? Not saying you are wrong.
| I just want to understand your thought process.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Put it this way, people will lose their jobs because of
| increased friction with our closest trading partner - the
| whole sovereignty-argument is _complete_ drivel: If we were
| able to leave unilaterally then we were - by definition -
| never not sovereign.
|
| This may be lost on those not from the UK, but a huge amount
| of the cultural angle of the leave-vote was based on a "We
| don't want to be ruled by Germans, we beat them in WW2" - it
| was never about anything concrete, it's just about a vague
| fuck-you (in the wrong direction) in response to the Status
| Quo.
|
| The whole modus operandi of Brexit - for decades - is to just
| make up anything that sticks and blame it on the EU, and
| because the EU doesn't have a public face in British life
| there's no feedback.
|
| For example:
| https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/18/boris-
| johns...
|
| In Summary: We've either done something bad or pointless, all
| to please people who will be _long_ dead before we get to
| have our cake and eat it in the future.
| danishdev wrote:
| EU is converging towards tax harmonization and many other
| areas.
|
| You think EU is about free trade and movement but the EU
| changed direction a long time ago towards full political
| union.
|
| I don't like this trend so I support applying the brake on
| time, because the EU is driving towards a cliff.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| Well, they are somewhat delusional. I don't mind them being
| happy, so don't tell them the following:
|
| Most of what they think of as "law", such as criminal law or
| the rules of the road, always were written in the UK.
|
| The "law" that was being written in Brussels (with plenty of
| UK input) was to a large extend rather specific and trade-
| related. Yes, it was evil EU legislation that mandated orange
| juice to contain actual juice from real oranges. Terrible!
|
| All that will remain, though.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| You gotta label what's in the bottle! Common quality
| standards for oranges! Minimum labor standards for those
| picking the fruit! Common labeling of origin and type of
| agriculture to ensure labels like 'organic' have meaning!
| Frictionless trade! Mechanisms to resolve contract disputes
| across borders! visa-free travel to orange-growing Spain!
|
| Such audacity! Such impervious intervention in our
| sovereign right to be f'''d over by corporations!
| tobylane wrote:
| Two parts of this I feel need stressing.
|
| > The trade agreement - running to 2,000 pages - ... a week
| before the end of the Brexit transition period.
|
| 2020 was supposed to be the transition period. We've been told by
| the government for the last few months that we need to prepare,
| but for what future circumstances would we have worked on before
| today? There is technically one work hour left before Tuesday.
| Brakenshire wrote:
| I was assuming they'd announce the deal with a few months of
| extra time before it's actually enforced, surely this is not
| actually coming into force in a week?
| Tomte wrote:
| Yes, it is. Provisionally.
|
| The UK plans to push this through Parliament this year, I
| think, but the EU side will need a few weeks.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Let's see if the EU parliament finally throws a fit for
| being ignored yet again.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Other way round: announcing it in advance allows time to
| bicker. This is at the last minute so it can be presented to
| am exhausted parliament who have to sign it before the truck
| backlog gets worse. There was no other way a deal could be
| achieved.
|
| (Does anyone know if the deal includes ECJ jurisdiction for
| anything? That was a sticking point)
| secondcoming wrote:
| Based on probably third-hand info, but I believe the ECJ is
| gone but Britian is still under the obligation to adhere to
| the ECHR, which is a Council Of Europe institution, not an
| EU one.
| rasz wrote:
| Been to a supermarket lately? Empty shelves and rationing
| like former Soviet Bloc :o
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201222-supply-trucks-
| st...
| aries1980 wrote:
| I hit up Sainsbury's this early morning. Only the expected
| stuff ran low (turkey, fishes, frozen side dishes), but
| everything else were on stock.
| blibble wrote:
| where in the article does it state that?
|
| ironically due to the threat of no-deal the retailers have
| built up huge stockpiles, so there's essentially no risk of
| bare shelves
| tobylane wrote:
| Not quite. The stockpiles may be huge but the time they
| will last is still fairly short, something like twice the
| just-in-time schedule they had before. Not taking into
| account the extra needs of Christmas. We don't know how
| long it'll take to remake the slower import streams.
| Jabbles wrote:
| This comment is disgustingly misleading.
|
| The border between UK/France was shut due to concerns over
| the new Covid strain, not to do with Brexit, as stated by
| the first sentence of that article:
|
| _France and its EU neighbours are scrambling to thrash out
| a coordinated plan in response to a new strain of Covid-19
| that has blocked trade and air travel to the UK and left
| hundreds of freight trucks banked up outside the border
| with France_
| funcDropShadow wrote:
| The comment might not be a perfect, but I don't think it
| is "disgustingly misleading". Although the current trade
| problems are indeed caused by protective measures against
| the new Covid19 strain, as you wrote. They are still
| representative of what will probably happen if normal
| border crossing for wares and goods is prohibited from
| one day to another. So, I'd say it is relevant, but not
| the same thing.
| mrpopo wrote:
| Yes, the word for what you described is "misleading". Do
| not try to normalize it as it brings about confusion.
| notahacker wrote:
| It's not accidental. Less opportunity for scrutiny makes it
| easier for the UK government to sell it as a win. Same as 14
| months ago when we got a similar amount of grandstanding about
| 'no deal' being a realistic option, followed by an 'oven ready
| deal' and transition arrangement that saw so little scrutiny
| the government itself decided it was suboptimal several months
| and one 'we got a deal' election later. And a quarter of zero
| economic growth before COVID, because uncertainty is almost as
| _un_ helpful to people who _don 't_ bullshit the public for a
| living as it's helpful to certain politicians.
| dmje wrote:
| We're basically in the position we were in before Brexit only now
| it's more expensive and difficult to trade with Europe, it's more
| expensive and difficult to travel to or work in Europe, and it's
| stretched the Northern Ireland peace agreement to the edge. But
| it's ok because that group of posh muppets in the ERG stand to
| make a wad of cash from their crony mates and we're now a
| "Sovereign" nation. Which is excellent apart from the fact it's
| made up faux history bullshit from another era of "great" Britain
| that never actually existed and certainly doesn't exist in a
| globally transient world.
|
| The whole thing has been a very, very expensive, entirely
| farcical (laughable if it wasn't going to royally bugger large
| swathes of the country) exercise in nihilism.
|
| Bitter much? Yes. Yes I am.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| That's a very Europe centric view, though.
|
| It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for
| companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choose
| to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose to trade
| on other terms with different international targets.
|
| That may not be precisely what you want, but it's not a _bad_
| deal for the UK, it 's just a different set of terms.
|
| Plus, the EU will do better without us. We've always just
| complained and delayed their desire for further deep
| integration between countries.
|
| To paraphrase Boris' quote of 'Having a successful, independent
| UK over the channel isn't a bad thing for the EU', well neither
| is it bad for the UK to have an independent EU to trade with,
| where they can crack on with what they want to do without us
| disrupting it.
| sleavey wrote:
| > It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for
| companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage.
| Choose to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose
| to trade on other terms with international targets.
|
| When the UK was in the EU, it was never a requirement for
| goods sold to non-EU countries to meet EU regulations. On
| that front, nothing has changed: selling to EU, you need to
| meet EU laws; selling elsewhere you need to meet theirs.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on _our_
| terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set
| by EU legislation. Before we wouldn 't need to meet single
| market standard to trade with those countries, but the
| overall terms would depend on EU trade deals or standard
| rules.
|
| This is why leaving the customs union is key to any
| reasonable Brexit deal.
|
| I'm not even trying to argue that Brexit is good
| necessarily, but more rationalizing why the deal always had
| to be what it is. Anything else other than staying in the
| EU isn't a beneficial option for the UK - unless joining
| EFTA, or similar.
| sleavey wrote:
| > Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our
| terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set
| by EU legislation.
|
| No, we trade with those countries on the terms of our
| trade agreements with those countries, which will more or
| less be the higher of each partners' standards on each
| involved aspect.
|
| The only realistic difference to trade policy being out
| of the EU is that we can lower our standards with respect
| to the EU when negotiating deals with third countries.
| The EU already had some of the highest standards in the
| world for workers rights, food safety and animal welfare
| and safety, and I don't think we'll be selflessly rising
| above those any time soon.
| joefife wrote:
| No trade deal will ever come close to the deal we had as full
| members of the EU.
| zests wrote:
| Is this the final shoe to drop? The gamble payed off. Brexit does
| not seem like a terrible idea if they get tariff free trade. I
| can't believe the EU would agree to this.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| We need to look at the actual deal but tariff-free trade in
| itself is still much worse than the previous situation.
|
| Being in the EU/single market meant that UK businesses and
| individuals could do business, including in services,
| throughout the single market (EU, Switzerland, Norway) like if
| it was all in the UK: completely free and unrestricted for
| everything. Going from that to just being able to export goods
| with no tariffs would be a massive step down that would have a
| profound impact, especially on services (the bulk of the UK's
| economy).
| blibble wrote:
| the single market for goods is vast and nearly complete, but
| the single market for services never really existed
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Well, it's not perfect but there are tens of thousands of
| jobs in places like London that rely on being able to
| freely offer professional services throughout the single
| market and to freely travel.
|
| Passporting for banking is critical, too.
| orange_tee wrote:
| As always with any trade agreement there will be winners and
| losers on both sides.
|
| Sure on the macro level you can run some numbers and conclude
| that one is the overall winner, but this is of little meaning
| to the people. What is more meaningful is for each individual
| to figure out if they stand to gain or lose.
|
| If the EU agreed to "sell out" an industry, that is only
| because they got something in return for some other industry.
| This is one of the criticisms of trade agreements in general.
| The government basically picks winners and losers... their say
| can make or break whole industries.
| rjknight wrote:
| Normally we don't think of trade in terms of "winners" and
| "losers", at least in absolute terms. Any restriction on
| trade reduces the overall level of possible economic
| activity, so a situation that reduces trade relative to the
| alternative is an overall loss.
|
| We can talk about "winners" and "losers" in relative terms,
| if we accept that "winning" just means "losing less than the
| other side".
|
| Of course, this isn't a purely economic question: people who
| voted for Brexit did so in part because they valued other
| things (e.g. restrictions on immigration, national
| sovereignty, national democratic self-determination) more
| than the economic cost that comes from having them.
| orange_tee wrote:
| As I said who is winning and losing on a macro level is of
| little importance, so sure if you want me to take the
| liberal view, all are winners.
|
| But what is more important is winning and losing on the
| micro level and now I will disagree with you if you tell me
| there are no losers. There most certainly are losers. Some
| industries from both sides will be sacrificed as part of
| the deal and people involved in those industries will
| certainly lose a whole lot of money.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| "Businesses will face extra paperwork and costs when trading
| with the UK's biggest export market. Freedom of movement for
| most UK nationals will end, with restrictions imposed on stays
| in EU member states. As a "third country" to the EU,
| coronavirus travel restrictions could be imposed on UK
| nationals as of 1 January."
| zests wrote:
| All I can remember from the last month is "Brexit was a bad
| idea --- without a trade deal the UK is ruined."
| pjc50 wrote:
| No deal would have been a disaster. This is a deal, but
| doesn't address "non tariff barriers" like technical
| requirements. The trucks can roll again (once quarantine
| rules allow!)
|
| A few individual industries get whacked; one example I've
| seen is seed potatoes.
| Isinlor wrote:
| It's not black and white. In all cases there is consensus
| that Brexit will be bad economically. UK went with the
| middle bad scenario according to their own leaked analysis
| [0].
|
| The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to
| World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth
| by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of
| continued single-market access through membership of the
| European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still
| lower growth by 2%.
|
| [0]
| https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-
| com...
| YawningAngel wrote:
| The UK economy is mostly services based, so tariff free trade
| in goods, while obviously useful, is not that impactful for us
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It sounds bad, but it actually means that Britain gets to
| export everything they exported before to the EU (so the EU is
| no worse off), but now the UK have no say on the rules for what
| they are allowed to export or not.
|
| As a silly example, if the EU decided to ban any candy painted
| in british racing green, the UK would have to abide by that
| decision; while, if it were in the EU, it could have likely
| blocked it.
| Fanch22 wrote:
| Maybe? Until the fishing right are denounced by France and the
| deal vetoed?
|
| Honestly, i think they will be a war between Brittany and
| britain's fishermen if the deal is not done correctly. I've
| heard fishermen cooperative planned their motor issues front of
| port entries for the next two month, issues that will prevent
| them to move out the way and prevent England to sell fresh fish
| (at least around St-Malo, and Malouins are the less obtuse
| bretons imho, i will probably be worse west of there).
|
| I fear this small issue of fishing will be a pain for the next
| decade
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| Nobody cares about fishing. It's a rounding error in any
| economic statistic. Its only use was as a nationalistic red
| herring, something that people actually understand and that
| could ultimately be sold as a win while giving the EU
| everything it wants on the matters that matter.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-24 23:00 UTC)