Westministenders: A LOOOONNNGGGGGGGG Hot Summer

[RedToothBrush]

May has officially demoted Raab and the Brexit Department to just being responsible for practical implimentation in the UK and not negogitions.

This shouldn't be a surprise, its been the case in reality for some time, much to David Davis annoyance.

The official government position now seems to be scare the shit out of everyone about the possibility of No Deal in order to force the EU to make a deal. Jeremy Hunt has been dutifully spelling this out, by talking about an 'accidental' Brexit.

The government are already outsourcing responsibility for this potential eventuality to industy and business by telling them they need to stockpile food in order to keep supply lines going. This WILL mean price rises will start to happen soon. It also means there is no coordinated government plan and if businesses can't afford to do this as its heavily dependant on having sufficient cash flow in reserve to be able to do it, or don't want to, then you, me and everyone else is going to be well and truly on their own. Whilst the public are not being told to stockpile, its hard to justify not doing so, if this is the current government line.

The government has also done a u-turn on when the repeal of the European Communities Act will come into force. They fought hard to have it fixed for 29th March 2019. Thats now been rolled back to Dec 2020. This is fine, but in practice, makes no difference what so ever if we have no deal or the EU refuse to honour a transition deal on the terms the UK want. The ERG will also go nuts at it and try to get May to roll back on it.

Raab has also made a point of saying that if we don't have a deal by October (rather than midnight 29th March 2019) we are going into No Deal land by default.

Parliament has now broken up for the summer, with May surviving, so things are likely to be a little quieter for a few weeks, but come September this is all going to blow up with avengance.

If you think the last few weeks have been a rollercoaster, just wait for the Autumn.

A new pro-Brexit thread has been started in AIBU, and (colour me surprised) the exact same posters who usually pile on to demand Brexit threads are moved out of common sight are, well, not piling on to demand the same. Not that I'm calling Leavers hypocritical or anything, you understand.

(I do have half a mind to report the thread to MNHQ to be moved 😈 but one single report wouldn't have the impact that the usual pile-on does).

Sidles in nervously...

I voted to leave, so am not sure that I am welcome here, but have been lurking for a good while and found the discussion interesting and thought-provoking. I accepted the undoubted risks of leaving but felt that the risks of remaining were themselves significant if slightly longer term: creation of an EU army vs role of NATO; fundamentally different economies operating within a single currency with no devaluation escape valve available in times of trouble (I know that not all of EU is inside monetary union but I think it indicates desired direction); horrendously high levels of youth unemployment don't suggest a functioning structure; the tension between decisions at an EU level and at a local level, particularly for countries bearing the brunt of an unquestionably awful migrant crisis; a creeping reduction in sovereignty (and a tendency to ask the question a second time if the "right" answer is not given the first).

Anyway, what I am leading up to is that I too have been wondering about WTO schedules and what it means for the UK's proposed schedule not to be certified, because as Hermione posted way upthread several countries have objected already, which is to be expected because negotiation will be required of the split of quotas between EU and UK.

So what actually happens if the schedule is not certified? Is it true as the FT article suggests that the EU itself has been trading under uncertified schedules since 1974?

www.ictsd.org/opinion/understanding-the-uk-0

www.ft.com/content/42b59126-794c-3a0b-b19a-6d4b0a11c990

Also found this interesting:
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/10-things-know-about-world-trade-organization-wto

And yes, I know that if I voted to leave maybe I had a responsibility to be a bit more au fait with WTO schedules before rather than after the vote, but I was not expecting such an absolute pig's ear to be made of the negotiations and naively believed that any government that offered the choice would have a plan on how to handle either outcome.

BTW, Cat when it comes to Arron Banks as far as I am concerned he has already reserved his own special place in hell

I find one of the most distressing aspects of being an atheist is not believing in an afterlife - when you're dead you're dead... sometimes the bastards really do just get away with it.

I for one am not going to attack you IWasntThere - believe it or not, despite accusations of being an echo chamber there have been other Leavers around here - the ones who are willing to actually engage in real discussion rather than fling empty slogans.

I'm afraid I don't know what happens with regard to WTO. I'm going to hazard a guess that it won't be good for us.

IWasntThere clearly the WTO position is complex. The UK will, effectively, be in a 3 way negotiation over the schedules and quota division. Perhaps you already have your answer in your own question:
"I was not expecting such an absolute pig's ear to be made of the negotiations and naively believed that any government that offered the choice would have a plan on how to handle either outcome".

You would need precisely the same government 'making a pig's ear' to deal with, at the same time, the WTO and WTO member states. My view would be that with even less UK experience in this type of international trade negotiation at a political or Civil Service level the likelihood of a further demonstration of 'pig's ear making' is a given.

Interesting that you do not mention the other obvious issue around WTO and that is the border on the island of Ireland. Where did that feature in your consideration of the risks of leaving?

I'm taking a leaf from the leavers book.

Hey, they're polite and haven't said "hysterical" "believe" or "it'll be fine" yet. The bar is pretty low, but I'll take what I can get.

Yet another fucking leaver coming on here asking US what the solution is...

It is rather ironic isn't it? "This thing I voted to make happen, can you lot who didn't want it to happen, um, make it happen?"

Iwasntthere I don't think we had to worry about being forced into the euro, but we would have to if we applied to join the EU again in future.
As for countries with high youth unemployment, I think some are heading for an upsurge in their economies.

The WTO... I heard on Radio 4 the other day (I wish I could remember the expert who said it) that the WTO isn't great but is actually currently being made worse by the fact that Trump is trying to destroy it.

Also not going to attack you. I think it's important to engage with both sides.

Actually, I think the best chance for preventing the worst possible brexit depends on discussion and fact finding rather than accusations and recriminations.

The problem is WTO still requires approval and agreement from other countries.

They are understandably reluctant to give us as favourable terms as we had in the EU - a block of 27 countries (or 28 as it currently is) is a lot more of an attractive proposition than just a single country.

And what do we produce that people want? Bearing in mind geographical limitations, shipping something to Australia or the USA is obviously going to be more costly than to say, France...so we are less attractive from that aspect too.

There is currently one country in the world (posted up thread, I've checked the methodology as best I'm able and it seems reasonable) that relies solely on WTO. Every other country are part of trade groups and customs unions similar to the EU.

It's not as simple as sliding into the same tarrifs we had with the EU.

And the introduction of tarrifs from and too the EU are also problematic. We simply don't have the infrastructure to cope with that. This is an area I am fairly confident in - I'm an indirect tax specialist so this is bread and butter stuff for me. The demand on the systems in place will double overnight and we do not have the resources to cope with this.

This is going to cause huge short term problems not just with eu imports (or acquisitions as they're currently known) but with third country imports who we be jammed up in the system.

However, I actually think that this talk of tarrifs and trading goods is something of a red herring.

The biggest export we have.... Services. The loss of financial passporting will be more of a disaster, I reckon.

Iwasn't

creation of an EU army vs role of NATO; fundamentally different economies

This situation has fundamentally changed. If Trump pulls the plug on NATO what then?

This is a distinct possibility with current politics and the direction they are headed.

Our defensive arrangements are also very closely tied with France on a bilateral basis.

We might have to face up to the reality this.

We could throw our lot in with the US, but we certainly wouldn't have any leading role. In a European army, we'd have much greater say. But less nuclear protection. A US led force would have little interest in European issues which affect us much more.

Before the ref this was not the same issue it is now.

I was concerned about an EU army pre ref but also have personally seen benefits of EU lead efforts by military personal in Bosnia, which I think is in our national interest to do.

I honestly don't know how I feel know. I think there are difficult conversations ahead whether Nato stays or goes now.

I thought it was quite brave of IWasntThere to come on and post. I do think you were conned though. How serious was the idea of the creation of an EU Army, for example? Why accept without question the role of NATO, which has always been US driven, and will it necessarily, given Trump's pronouncements, always do what is in the interest of Western Europe? There have been murmurs since the Brexit vote of an EU Army, which is something which Theresa May would be ready to sign up to.

We worry about the differences within EU countries, predominantly E v W Europe, but seem without question to accept the 'special relationship' with America, which just doesn't exist, and probably hasn't done for about 80 years.

I'm absolutely not asking you to "make it happen". I can go away and ask on a pro-Brexit forum if you would prefer but there has been some good information on here, and I am finding it tricky to see what happens in the interim while the 3 way negotiation is underway - which could take years.

And the NI border question featured in my assessment of the risks of leaving and I came to the conclusion that it is a question that is solvable with a combination of political will, technology, and checks at source and destination.

But it's quite ok (though in my view a bit sad) if you wish to keep these threads as a place to discuss amongst yourselves.

Thank you to those willing to engage - I will come back a bit later to read responses properly.

We worry about the differences within EU countries, predominantly E v W Europe, but seem without question to accept the 'special relationship' with America, which just doesn't exist, and probably hasn't done for about 80 years.

Yes, this^^

Of course there are cultural, political and economic differences between the countries of Europe. There's plenty going on in other EU countries that I rather disagree with. We're not all one big grey soup. But despite the common language and dominance of popular culture, in many ways, I feel there's a much greater gulf between us and the USA.

iwasnt helpful to hear your thinking.

red I am also significantly more inclined to an EU military force since the arrival of Trump and clear destabilising activity of Russia.

I think it's a bit rich to criticise leavers for not asking questions and then attack them when they do so.

Shit, I voted remain and I've learned so much that I didn't know from these threads.

And certainly much more than I knew at the time of the referendum.

I still maintain that the question shouldnt have been asked of the British public at that point - the government should have done its homework first and then presented the options, bearing in mind the EU's position has been straightforward throughout.

I'm not sure what happens at the WTO if there is an ongoing dispute involving a country that has just lost all its previous trade deals and regulatory bodies and started again at Year Zero.

Hoo boy, another thing to research and try to find sensible, evidenced sources. It wouldn't be so annoying if I didn't feel like our bloody GOVERNMENT that is pushing us down this path isn't bothering to do this work at all!

I am finding it tricky to see what happens in the interim while the 3 way negotiation is underway - which could take years.

I know nothing about these things except what I've learned from the more knowledgeable people on these threads. But it is obvious to me that the world is a very different place to what it was in the 1970s. And very very different to what it was when Britannia ruled the waves. I would imagine that now, being out in the cold and trying to negotiate favourable deals over the course of several years would be really bad for the country.

Anyone who thought that the Irish border could be solved by a combination of goodwill, technology and checks clearly had no understanding of Irish history and particularly the Troubles.
However as many elected U.K. politicians demonstrably had no clue either, I suppose it’s forgivable.

So the brief conclusion you are already drawing IWasntThere is that there is no swift solution to the additional negotiations the UK will be having with the WTO, WTO member countries and the EU27. I would point you again to your own words "I was not expecting such an absolute pig's ear to be made of the negotiations and naively believed that any government that offered the choice would have a plan on how to handle either outcome".

There is no sensible solution that can be reached in any sensible timeframe with the WTO. Those leave campaigners who said that the WTO would be easy, countries would be lining up to do FTAs with the UK, the UK would trade with non EU countries to both cover and improve on our trading of goods with our geographically closer EU 27 neighbours, they lied.

JRM also has answered, in a way, what happens in the interim - we lose out economically for the next 50 years.

As Clash explains above, the practical changes that both UK HMRC and UK businesses will need to make are far from being ready. This will lead to yet more uncertainty and cost for the businesses and also the UK Government - so more taxes or less spending on other areas such as education, transport, health and social care etc. The less than 1% of GDP that the UK pays to the EU has already been committed to alleviate other EU departure consequences (several times over).

So while we take years to sort out our trade in goods going forward we are also failing to ensure the 70% of our economy that is Services remains successful having already rejected seeking passporting rights to the EU27.

I am surprised to read you assessment of the solution to the border on the island of Ireland with no acknowledgement of the breach of an International peace treaty. Is that an acceptable position for a country to take when also wanting to commence negotiations to arrive at treaties with a number of other countries?

If this is not the negotiating situation you expected when you voted leave how do you think those who voted to remain with the status quo can help?

Personally, im at the point of being pleased at any leaver who engages and is willing to talk properly rather than engage in soundbites.

We can't afford bitterness over this.

We need realism and pragmatism to show its face now.

The political landscape in several areas has changed fundamentally.

The EU will HAVE to reform in certain areas due to domestic politics throughout europe. The EU elections will ensure it.

Turkey is another one which is vastly different. They were never going to join the EU despite what Leave said. They certainly won't post Erdogan's dictatorship.

The Balkans are very vulnerable atm. There is an escalating destablisation there.

Then theres the whole stuff with russia.

With questions over electoral integrity (which is relevant even if you are a leaver, because its about future elections too).

The irony of the nonsense of the EU ref vote being immovable and undemocratic to question, is that the vote reflects the world politics of over 2 years ago. The world hasn't stood still and things have changed hugely.

We need to be able to recognise this and factor these changes into what happens next.

Going to WTO could backfire even more if the Trump decides to try and destroy it, which from what he's said, seems a real possibility.

British politics is so inward looking its almost as if we have failed to notice the world hasn't stopped for us. Living in the politics of 2016 in itself, regardless of what happens with Brexit is detrimental to us.

We are not engaging internationally about anything else, and we need to.

iwasnthere look, I think it's great that as a leaver you are asking yourself if that was the right choice on many levels. Many dont and just spew tabloid soundbites. We'd need many more people to engage in that discussion and call the government to account.
Remainers have been on the receiving end of vile posts so I'm afraid some here will have a bit of a go. However, keep the dialogue open (And bring more of your reasonable leavers mates over who are also asking questions)

I wonder how many people realise that the GFA is an international treaty?

If Leave voters are upset at the pig's ear being made of the negotiations, how do you think Remainers feel when it's not something they wished for in the first place?