Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Septentrionalis]

Back when Brexit was not yet the reality of the matter, a lot of hot-headed EU fanatics in other countries would not shut up for two seconds about their doomsday predictions of how everything would go wrong and the UK would stagnate beyond recognition. I am not using strong expressions because I would be pro-Brexit or would even have stakes in the matter. I was just simply astonished at the strength of their conviction, and I could not see what evidence there was. We have not seen a country leave the EU and be reduced to a pile of rubble (or the contrary), but there are many countries that have never been members of the EU and are doing quite well.

So how is it now? Are there any positive or negative things that can be isolated from the ups and downs of general human or economical trends and can be said to be the result of that decision?

[Daruwind]

So how is it now? Are there any positive or negative things that can be isolated from the ups and downs of general human or economical trends and can be said to be the result of that decision?

Three more weeks and we stil don´t know what will happen in January. To put it simple, EU has now more urgent matter - covid. Nobody caring about brexit neverending circuss. So we will see what will happen. Nobody is expecting UK to be wasteland by first January. But let´s wait ..year? What and how will happen? Shall we?

You are saing nothing is happening or countries outside are doing fine. But UK is still part of EU and after so long time, who is actually prepared for...for what actually. Now I hear there are some late talks and "no deal" and potential "trade deal" are very different scenarios. We will see in January what will actually happen and what will be reaction..from EU, UK, other countries, how it will work with covid as nothing is happening in vacuum...

[Septentrionalis]

Thank you Daruwind for your input. I was under the impression that UK left the EU a year ago, but of course the matter is a complicated one with transition periods, negotiations, and all.

[Daruwind]

Thank you Daruwind for your input. I was under the impression that UK left the EU a year ago, but of course the matter is a complicated one with transition periods, negotiations, and all.

Yes, UK did left EU year ago. But now is transition period till end of year. So basically time to transit from EU system,rules to something else. In perfect world I would expect Uk (EU too, but primary Uk as Uk is leaving) to sort out all stuff ahead and now we would be merely putting contracs and deals into reality and sorting minor details so that after New year everything is working like nothing happened. I mean that there is no chaos and traffic jams and cancelled flights...surely stuff will change like visa, passports...BUT I´m merely observer from central EU but to my knowledge talks are still undergoing....

For example. This morning I saw in czech news something like... https://www.euronews.com/2020/12/08/...ernational-law So clearly stuff is still changing. And that is in my eyes actually reason why it looks like nothing is happening at all because it is still same for past few years.. "Uk still looks like being in EU" and "nobody outside politics knows what is going on and what will happen". We cannot even panick or cheer because who knows what is what.

[Daruwind]

To perfectly illustrate situation...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...other-72-hours

[Jom]

I'm banking on an eleventh hour reprieve with a deal that looks identical to the one Boris said he'd got a year ago. However, I wouldn't put it past Boris to refuse to negotiate in some deluded attempt to somehow seem like his idol Churchill for which his backbenchers will idolise him until the starts hitting the fan a few months/a year down the line and the lack of a deal wipes out a considerable chunk of our GDP.

It looks like the UK is moving more towards politics by cult like Trump has pioneered over the last four years, in that as long as Boris is hurting the right people, i.e. the EU, vast swathes of the country are going to love him for it, even if their own lives end up being demonstrably worse as a result.

[Muizer]

The insistence that EU fishermen should be allowed to continue fishing in British waters is starting to get on my nerves a bit. It compromises the credibility of otherwise completely valid concerns about the level playing field, relegating them to apparent bargaining chips, for the sake of rescuing a notoriously unsustainable industry. We all know this, so let's just take this as an opportunity to cull the EU's fishing fleets and be done with it?

[Cope]

I'm banking on an eleventh hour reprieve with a deal that looks identical to the one Boris said he'd got a year ago. However, I wouldn't put it past Boris to refuse to negotiate in some deluded attempt to somehow seem like his idol Churchill for which his backbenchers will idolise him until the starts hitting the fan a few months/a year down the line and the lack of a deal wipes out a considerable chunk of our GDP.

It looks like the UK is moving more towards politics by cult like Trump has pioneered over the last four years, in that as long as Boris is hurting the right people, i.e. the EU, vast swathes of the country are going to love him for it, even if their own lives end up being demonstrably worse as a result.

The UK’s departure from the EU – for which there are multiple democratic mandates - is in the country’s best interests. National self-determination is non-negotiable.

[Jom]

The UK’s departure from the EU – for which there are multiple democratic mandates - is in the country’s best interests. National self-determination is non-negotiable.

Just because something has a democratic mandate doesn't make it in the country's best interests. Case in point: any leader government that was elected democratically but ended up being a poor choice retrospectively.

[Cope]

Just because something has a democratic mandate doesn't make it in the country's best interests. Case in point: any leader government that was elected democratically but ended up being a poor choice retrospectively.

The alternative to respecting democratic outcomes is the subversion of democratic institutions and/or processes. Setting aside the general arguments about EU membership, resisting such subversion is more crucial to the national interest than any benefit of remaining tied to the European Union. The English have already given up on the ancient liberties of free speech, privacy and the right to self-defence; the abolition of self-determination would be the final nail in the coffin.

[Jom]

The alternative to respecting democratic outcomes is the subversion of democratic institutions and/or processes. Setting aside the general arguments about EU membership, resisting such subversion is more crucial to the national interest than any benefit of remaining tied to the European Union. The English have already given up on the ancient liberties of free speech, privacy and the right to self-defence; the abolition of self-determination would be the final nail in the coffin.

The UK is not a country that's given over to referenda. Not holding one on EU membership or at least not holding one where the leave campaign was so rife with corruption wouldn't be subverting anything.

[Cope]

The UK is not a country that's given over to referenda. Not holding one on EU membership or at least not holding one where the leave campaign was so rife with corruption wouldn't be subverting anything.

Irrelevant. The Conservative Party won a parliamentary majority having pledged to hold an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was supported in principle by four-fifths of the Commons, with only the SNP opposing. The plebiscite itself - which was free, fair and legal - was won by the the Leave side and its outcome affirmed by the general elections of 2017 and 2019.

It is in the best interests of the country that the outcome of those elections are not subverted.

[Daruwind]

Irrelevant. The Conservative Party won a parliamentary majority having pledged to hold an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was supported in principle by four-fifths of the Commons, with only the SNP opposing. The plebiscite itself - which was free, fair and legal - was won by the the Leave side and its outcome affirmed by the general elections of 2017 and 2019.

It is in the best interests of the country that the outcome of those elections are not subverted.

That is one point of view. Another one is that in democracy the opinions may chance because new situation, new facts, just because time (actual fear to repeat referendum speaks for itself)... So while I fully agree that UK must be able to pursue own goals, just hope UK won´t do 180 u-turn in near future and head back into EU...

[pchalk]

Back when Brexit was not yet the reality of the matter, a lot of hot-headed EU fanatics in other countries would not shut up for two seconds about their doomsday predictions of how everything would go wrong and the UK would stagnate beyond recognition. I am not using strong expressions because I would be pro-Brexit or would even have stakes in the matter. I was just simply astonished at the strength of their conviction, and I could not see what evidence there was. We have not seen a country leave the EU and be reduced to a pile of rubble (or the contrary), but there are many countries that have never been members of the EU and are doing quite well.

So how is it now? Are there any positive or negative things that can be isolated from the ups and downs of general human or economical trends and can be said to be the result of that decision?

Here at least at least the discussions seem to be civil but when I am discussing Brexit in other places, with people from the pro EU side, it seems like there is little too much emotion coming from that camp. I feel like what should be more like a respected colleague finding a new job and parting his/her colleagues with cake, some hugs and handshakes has turned in to a situation more like a divorce where the one partner is insisting on taking the house and the kids and leaving the other partner in bad situation. And the more I read in to what issues are holding up the trade talks I do not get the feeling the EU side even on the political level is really serious about this deal. Which is sad really.

Three more weeks and we stil don´t know what will happen in January. To put it simple, EU has now more urgent matter - covid. Nobody caring about brexit neverending circuss. So we will see what will happen. Nobody is expecting UK to be wasteland by first January. But let´s wait ..year? What and how will happen? Shall we?

You are saing nothing is happening or countries outside are doing fine. But UK is still part of EU and after so long time, who is actually prepared for...for what actually. Now I hear there are some late talks and "no deal" and potential "trade deal" are very different scenarios. We will see in January what will actually happen and what will be reaction..from EU, UK, other countries, how it will work with covid as nothing is happening in vacuum...

apart from covid and looking solely from the point of Brexit, my feeling is the worst will be seen in the first few months. You mention the uncertainty and chaos of Brexit and it is that which is causing and will cause the most damage I think. At some point the chaos will subside and a new sense of normalcy with emerge. The question is when. Of course that could be avoided or at least cushioned with the trade deal. We will have to see what happens.

The insistence that EU fishermen should be allowed to continue fishing in British waters is starting to get on my nerves a bit. It compromises the credibility of otherwise completely valid concerns about the level playing field, relegating them to apparent bargaining chips, for the sake of rescuing a notoriously unsustainable industry. We all know this, so let's just take this as an opportunity to cull the EU's fishing fleets and be done with it?

For Britain I see the fishing rights as exactly that, a bargaining chip. On the EU side I think it is not of huge political importance but the political leadership in the affected countries do not want to lose votes among the fishing communities and I can see the stubbornness on that side though I think it is an issue where both sides should be able to find some agreement.

Honestly I would love to see a trade deal but understand the UK perspective of not accepting a deal under poor conditions. And it is the level playing field demand from the EU where, were I from the UK, I would not be able to support the trade deal, despite knowing the chaos no deal would bring. There is no reason the EU should set domestic policy in the UK, and signing off on a deal with that stipulation will tie the Brits' hands in the long term. In that sense I can fully understand that the UK has not budged on that issue.

[Alastor]

Here at least at least the discussions seem to be civil but when I am discussing Brexit in other places, with people from the pro EU side, it seems like there is little too much emotion coming from that camp. I feel like what should be more like a respected colleague finding a new job and parting his/her colleagues with cake, some hugs and handshakes has turned in to a situation more like a divorce where the one partner is insisting on taking the house and the kids and leaving the other partner in bad situation. And the more I read in to what issues are holding up the trade talks I do not get the feeling the EU side even on the political level is really serious about this deal. Which is sad really.

If it was just a respected colleague finding a new job, I would happily part ways with them with some cake and a few hugs, I wouldn't let them keep access to my sites and systems though. Which is what the UK expects. So this comparison is simply not apt. Also passions can run high on both sides, not just the pro-EU side. The anti-EU side displays no shortage of emotion.

Honestly I would love to see a trade deal but understand the UK perspective of not accepting a deal under poor conditions. And it is the level playing field demand from the EU where, were I from the UK, I would not be able to support the trade deal, despite knowing the chaos no deal would bring. There is no reason the EU should set domestic policy in the UK, and signing off on a deal with that stipulation will tie the Brits' hands in the long term. In that sense I can fully understand that the UK has not budged on that issue.

Then you should also understand the EU's perspective of not accepting a deal under poor conditions either. This is a negotiation, don't present it like a diktat. The EU is not trying to enforce things on the UK anymore than the UK is trying to enforce things on the EU. The level-playing field is of the utmost importance to the EU if the UK desires access to its internal market. The last thing the EU would want is a (emphasis here) proximate free-agent in that market, able to ignore its regulations and undercut its member states. If the UK wants to be able to do as it pleases, it can do so outside that market. Demanding access, while refusing to obey the rules that come with that access, is a no go.

[pchalk]

If it was just a respected colleague finding a new job, I would happily part ways with them with some cake and a few hugs, I wouldn't let them keep access to my sites and systems though. Which is what the UK expects. So this comparison is simply not apt.

Well I guess I could have elaborated my methaphor but that is not how I see it. To build on the metaphor: would you refuse to do business with this colleague at his/her new company, just because you are bitter that he/she left? Its not about the UK joining up again, its about trade, doing business. And companies, in the spirit of a business transaction or partnership are at times willing to give limited access to systems depending on the case.

Also passions can run high on both sides, not just the pro-EU side. The anti-EU side displays no shortage of emotion.

For this I have no doubt you are right. Was only quoting my experience but then again I am positioned in the middle of pro EU heartland so that is probably why.

Then you should also understand the EU's perspective of not accepting a deal under poor conditions either.

in general I of course agree

This is a negotiation, don't present it like a diktat.
The EU is not trying to enforce things on the UK anymore than the UK is trying to enforce things on the EU.

The level-playing field is of the utmost importance to the EU if the UK desires access to its internal market. The last thing the EU would want is a (emphasis here) proximate free-agent in that market, able to ignore its regulations and undercut its member states.

This is negotiation; you are right. But negotiations happen on good faith and like it or not the level playing field demand is exactly that, enforcing EU rules. It is ok to propose the such rules from the EU side and I would agree with you some regulations make sense. For example product quality and product health and safety standards are part of any trade deal. And I think the UK can accept that. However by hanging on to things like labor and environmental regulations and risking the trade deal on these issues shows a serious lack of understanding from the EU as to why the UK left in the first place. They don't want outside influence of domestic policy. Who would? And given that the EU has completed other trade deals without these requirements my feeling is that the reasons for this are more about politics than trade.

[Alastor]

Well I guess I could have elaborated my methaphor but that is not how I see it. To build on the metaphor: would you refuse to do business with this colleague at his/her new company, just because you are bitter that he/she left? Its not about the UK joining up again, its about trade, doing business. And companies, in the spirit of a business transaction or partnership are at times willing to give limited access to systems depending on the case.

When did the EU refuse to do business with the UK? The EU never suggested embargoing the UK. Business will continue, trade will continue, even under WTO rules. What is going to change is the rules. And that makes sense. Of course companies sometimes give limited access to systems, that's a trade deal, but rules need to be set and respected for that to happen. No sane company will allow accesses that undermine them.

This is negotiation; you are right. But negotiations happen on good faith and like it or not the level playing field demand is exactly that, enforcing EU rules. It is ok to propose the such rules from the EU side and I would agree with you some regulations make sense. For example product quality and product health and safety standards are part of any trade deal. And I think the UK can accept that. However by hanging on to things like labor and environmental regulations and risking the trade deal on these issues shows a serious lack of understanding from the EU as to why the UK left in the first place. They don't want outside influence of domestic policy. Who would? And given that the EU has completed other trade deals without these requirements my feeling is that the reasons for this are more about politics than trade.

Level-playing field is an EU demand in response to a UK demand for full access to the EU's internal market. So less demand and more a requirement for the UK's request to be met. If the UK doesn't want access to the EU's internal market, or a trade deal, then nobody demanded they follow any rules (except WTO).

The EU understands well enough why the UK left. Decades of finger-pointing by the UK's political establishment is to blame. The UK was always fully sovereign within the EU. Free to veto any and all rules and regulations the EU "forced" the UK to adopt. But that truth made the UK political establishment uncomfortable, because it would require them to own up to the fact that they freely agreed to, or even pushed for, all those rules popular or not. Instead they were happy to take credit for the good and scapegoat the EU dictatorship for the bad. That's why the people in the UK voted to leave. But that's done. Now we should focus on the present.

As for not wanting outside influence to domestic policy. The solution is simple, the UK can go its own way and do that, without expecting accesses that come with costs to be given to them freely. The requirement for full access to the EU's internal market is an agreement to all the policies you mention. Including labour and environmental regulations. All members of the EU have to obey them, hence why they have access to the internal market. In fact, the internal market exists, because of those standards and regulations. The UK gets to leave, ignore the rules and still enjoy the benefits? This makes no sense. Then all would do the same and there is no internal market anymore.

Also regarding other trade deals. Keep in mind what I wrote in my previous response about proximity. Canada for instance, even if it wanted to undermine the EU has fewer opportunities to do so due to distance. The UK is right next to the EU. Generally FTAs get stricter and stricter the more proximate the parties are. So no, the UK can't have the same deal as Canada... because it's not on the other side of the world's second biggest ocean.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Exactly. UK is nearly on the continent, so no transport costs to ship goods across the channel. As we already know anglo-american predator captalism, low worker wages and low environment regulations can be expected, which means flooding EU with in first line cheap products.

We need no wage and environment dumping race here in Europe.

My two cents.

[pchalk]

When did the EU refuse to do business with the UK? The EU never suggested embargoing the UK. Business will continue, trade will continue, even under WTO rules. What is going to change is the rules. And that makes sense. Of course companies sometimes give limited access to systems, that's a trade deal, but rules need to be set and respected for that to happen.

fair enough

No sane company will allow accesses that undermine them.

Bringing the metaphor back to the trade deal, how is the UK undermining the EU?

The EU understands well enough why the UK left. Decades of finger-pointing by the UK's political establishment is to blame. The UK was always fully sovereign within the EU. Free to veto any and all rules and regulations the EU "forced" the UK to adopt. But that truth made the UK political establishment uncomfortable, because it would require them to own up to the fact that they freely agreed to, or even pushed for, all those rules popular or not. Instead they were happy to take credit for the good and scapegoat the EU dictatorship for the bad. That's why the people in the UK voted to leave. But that's done. Now we should focus on the present.

I have no doubt bad politics plays a role as it does in most countries. Though your view on this really oversimplifies Brexit. There is enough blame to go around and it does not by a large margin lie solely in the UK's political leadership. If you have not noticed far right parties are unfortunately on the rise in almost every EU country. This and Brexit are symptoms of much larger fundamental internal EU problems.

Level-playing field is an EU demand in response to a UK demand for full access to the EU's internal market. So less demand and more a requirement for the UK's request to be met. If the UK doesn't want access to the EU's internal market, or a trade deal, then nobody demanded they follow any rules (except WTO).

As for not wanting outside influence to domestic policy. The solution is simple, the UK can go its own way and do that, without expecting accesses that come with costs to be given to them freely. The requirement for full access to the EU's internal market is an agreement to all the policies you mention. Including labour and environmental regulations. All members of the EU have to obey them, hence why they have access to the internal market. In fact, the internal market exists, because of those standards and regulations. The UK gets to leave, ignore the rules and still enjoy the benefits? This makes no sense. Then all would do the same and there is no internal market anymore.

You have said a couple times that the UK can go its own way and trade with WTO rules. I suppose that is fine but I find it is in both parties' interests to have a deal. The UK has more to lose but the EU does not get off with a slap of the hand. The UK made up about 15% of the EUs GDP. I don't think operating with an ultimatum really benefits either side. Though I can understand that applies to both the UK and EU. I would argue that some rules have more importance than others; granted that is an opinion and not simple to define in the context of a trade deal.

Furthermore, I will admit a bit of ignorance when asking this question. Are we really talking about full access? My understanding, without knowing some of the details is that the UK has seen the Canada style deal as it's goal. The Canada deal does not mean Canada has full access. A deal with limited access can mean one with negotiability when it comes to the rules. Or how do you see this?

I think our disagreement probably also stems from the fact that we likely disagree what rules even make sense within the EU and not just this trade deal. The more I read about many of the rules that the level playing field is based on, the less of a level playing field they seem to foster, in my view.

Also regarding other trade deals. Keep in mind what I wrote in my previous response about proximity. Canada for instance, even if it wanted to undermine the EU has fewer opportunities to do so due to distance. The UK is right next to the EU. Generally FTAs get stricter and stricter the more proximate the parties are. So no, the UK can't have the same deal as Canada... because it's not on the other side of the world's second biggest ocean.

I have read enough to know that you are correct in saying geography has played a role in trade up until now. And I am under no illusion that you can't copy and paste the Canada deal for the UK. There are different issues at stake. But I do wonder why is geography still important in an age of global commerce. Does this really play a role today? Furthermore we are talking about the UK here. With respect to the environmental and labor rules, we are not talking about Brazil or China. The UK is not far off from the EU in these policies relatively speaking. And decades of good relations should foster a sense of trust. The UK is not likely to damage the EU by going their own way and even so, the EU should still have ample means to counter such a poor situation in that event without tying British hands now.

[Basileos Leandros I]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ets-to-germany

Morgan Stanley plans to move about 100 billion euros ($120 billion) of assets to Frankfurt, the latest Wall Street bank to shift business away from the U.K.

The U.S. lender expects to transfer the bulk of the assets in the first quarter of next year, when the transition period for Britain’s exit from the European Union will likely have elapsed, people familiar with the matter said. They will sit in the Frankfurt-based subsidiary Morgan Stanley Europe SE, the people said, asking not to be named discussing private information.