Looking forward to the hilarious reactions of Brexiteers once they realise EU immigration has been replaced by a different kid of immigration.
Literally always the way this was going to go and a great many people (including me and others in this thread) have said so since 2016. They're just going to end up replacing Poles with Pakistanis or whoever else we end up being forced into visa concessions with in exchange for trade deals.
Looking forward to the hilarious reactions of Brexiteers once they realise EU immigration has been replaced by a different kid of immigration.
Literally always the way this was going to go and a great many people (including me and others in this thread) have said so since 2016. They're just going to end up replacing Poles with Pakistanis or whoever else we end up being forced into visa concessions with in exchange for trade deals.
And is just barely starting. Talked a bit on the US Foreign Policy thread about how Trump is going to take the UK to the cleaners since not only the US is the only realistic trading partner (the UK press talks about Turkey, but that would mean conving Erdogan to buy from the UK exclusively, everybody else is too small or too far or too much bad blood), but the last 3 years of Brexit extensions finished off any leverage that the UK may have.
It probably comes as no surprise that British food isn’t…good. A big piece of the explanation is geographic. The UK is a short-summer, cool-temperature, low-sun country with mediocre soil quality. Those aren’t the sorts of conditions that generate a wild diversity of high-quality foodstuffs. What improvements to British agriculture and rural prosperity that have occurred during the past four decades are largely due to EU exposure.
On the production side, the few things the Brits do well – certain types of meat, dairy and especially fish – are exported to the EU market, a market that soon will be largely closed. On the financial side, the EU’s agricultural subsidy program is among the world’s most lavish. It has slowed technological uptake and consolidation that has defined global agriculture since the 1970s. With Brexit those subsidies will vanish in a day.
Like it or not, low-cost, high-quality American agriculture is about to swamp the British market, and American trade negotiators will blast away whatever protectionist measures the Brits will want to erect to protect their own farmers. Phytosanitary requirements, hormones, tariffs, quotas, you name it. It will all vanish and 66 million UK consumers will soon be American fed.
Second, manufacturing.
Even after seven decades of integration, most European countries take great pains to protect their manufacturing networks from foreign involvement. The UK included. For the Americans, who have already integrated with Canada and (to a greater extent) Mexico, that won’t fly. The Brits will have to join the American manufacturing supply chain system based on the NAFTA model.
If the Brits thought that tussling with the French over aerospace or the Germans over automotive was a frustrating experience, it's nothing compared to dealing with the colossal, tangled networks of North America where mammoth economies of scale can drown the Brits out. What will likely hurt the most is sudden exposure to Mexican manufacturers. US and Canadian manufacturers have had decades to adjust to the ever-more-skilled but always-less-expensive Mexican workforce. UK manufacturers will have to do so nearly overnight.
Third, finance.
London has been the world’s second-most important financial center for decades, a position it solidified with its membership in the EU. Put simply, the Brits penchant for low taxes and lower regulations has long encouraged many Europeans to handle their finances in London rather than at home. This is doubly true for any pass-through monies that sought to escape the bloc for greener pastures.
The agony of endless Brextensions has taken the shine off that system. With the specifics of the UK’s future in doubt, the UK is no longer the holder of value it once was, and pass-through money is more likely to skip London altogether. The wildly gyrating pound only underlines both weakenings. U.S. trade talks will end both roles altogether. The Americans will demand the relocation of the bulk of the London financial district to New York City.
And if Brexiteers don't like it, well:
Most of the pro-Brexit crowd voted the way they did because they don’t like faceless European bureaucrats deciding issues for Britain. The reality is that Britain’s only way forward post-Brexit is to assign even greater levels of authority to American bureaucrats.
Is that bad. And is coming before the year is over. Just telling you all beforehand.
Home Secretary Priti Patel said the passport will "once again be entwined with our national identity".
She said Brexit had given the UK "a unique opportunity to... forge a new path in the world" and enabled a return to "the iconic blue and gold design".
The UK was never formally compelled to change the colour of its passport in the 1980s but did so with other member states.
How utterly devoid of identity do you have to be that the colour of your passport makes a single significant shit to you?
Is the colour going to help with trade negotiations? Does it grant a +1 bonus to the Negotiation skill or something?
This is the first of 2016's "I told you so" chickens coming home to roost. Up to now there had been no real brexit disadvantages because it hadn't actually happened yet. All that postponed, stored up pain is coming now and nearly all of it was very easily and obviously predictable.
has anyone challenged boris or farage on the passports being made in france poland by a french-dutch company thing?
I can't find any snippets on youtube or google..
Home Secretary Priti Patel said the passport will "once again be entwined with our national identity".
She said Brexit had given the UK "a unique opportunity to... forge a new path in the world" and enabled a return to "the iconic blue and gold design".
The UK was never formally compelled to change the colour of its passport in the 1980s but did so with other member states.
How utterly devoid of identity do you have to be that the colour of your passport makes a single significant shit to you?
Is the colour going to help with trade negotiations? Does it grant a +1 bonus to the Negotiation skill or something?
Think about how absolutely insignificant the colour on a passport is.
Now think that Brexiters have seized upon it and made it a rallying point because that almost non-existent benefit is still one of the few tangible benefits of Brexit.
has anyone challenged boris or farage on the passports being made in france poland by a french-dutch company thing?
I can't find any snippets on youtube or google..
And specifically, over the British company that was making them up until this latest tender.
It'd be different if there wasn't a British company willing or able to do it. But they decided to farm out to a foreign country something that's arguably a national security issue. Sure, the British company could have been vulnerable, but it would have been much easier for the UK government to keep controls/security checks up to date on a British company than they could on a French/Polish one.
This is the first of 2016's "I told you so" chickens coming home to roost. Up to now there had been no real brexit disadvantages because it hadn't actually happened yet. All that postponed, stored up pain is coming now and nearly all of it was very easily and obviously predictable.
If it helps, as bad and one sided the US-UK deal will be, is still better than the alternative of not having any deal before the year is over and the UK falling into a Great Depression.
This is the first of 2016's "I told you so" chickens coming home to roost. Up to now there had been no real brexit disadvantages because it hadn't actually happened yet. All that postponed, stored up pain is coming now and nearly all of it was very easily and obviously predictable.
If it helps, as bad and one sided the US-UK deal will be, is still better than the alternative of not having any deal before the year is over and the UK falling into a Great Depression.
So...it could be worse.
Not really, a bad deal that makes things cost more for you than they do currently with the country that makes up 20% of your exports, isn't going to mitigate the damage of not having a deal with the bloc that makes up 75% of your exports.
This is the first of 2016's "I told you so" chickens coming home to roost. Up to now there had been no real brexit disadvantages because it hadn't actually happened yet. All that postponed, stored up pain is coming now and nearly all of it was very easily and obviously predictable.
If it helps, as bad and one sided the US-UK deal will be, is still better than the alternative of not having any deal before the year is over and the UK falling into a Great Depression.
So...it could be worse.
Not really, a bad deal that makes things cost more for you than they do currently with the country that makes up 20% of your exports, isn't going to mitigate the damage of not having a deal with the bloc that makes up 75% of your exports.
Just having 'a' deal is pretty meaningless.
I'm comparing it with the alternative of not having any deal at all. Because quite simply, those exports to the EU are gone. And they aren't coming back. So, while is catastrophic, having something is better than nothing.
This is the first of 2016's "I told you so" chickens coming home to roost. Up to now there had been no real brexit disadvantages because it hadn't actually happened yet. All that postponed, stored up pain is coming now and nearly all of it was very easily and obviously predictable.
If it helps, as bad and one sided the US-UK deal will be, is still better than the alternative of not having any deal before the year is over and the UK falling into a Great Depression.
So...it could be worse.
Not really, a bad deal that makes things cost more for you than they do currently with the country that makes up 20% of your exports, isn't going to mitigate the damage of not having a deal with the bloc that makes up 75% of your exports.
Just having 'a' deal is pretty meaningless.
I'm comparing it with the alternative of not having any deal at all. Because quite simply, those exports to the EU are gone. And they aren't coming back. So, while is catastrophic, having something is better than nothing.
Maybe. Depends on how long term the US contract is.
It's like quitting because you fucking hate your coworkers. Sometimes staying unemployed in the short term means getting a better job, than jumping into the first shitty job you can find, but being locked into that job for an excessive length of time, and not being able to take a better job.
And you can bet the house that the trade deal the United States offers under Trump, is gonna suck for the UK. One of Trump's only "talents" is taking advantage of people who are at a disadvantage, and screwing them as hard as possible. And given he needs a win to sell domestically, he absolutely will, and then will brag about it at length, such that everyone in Britain will hear about it.
At least that's one thing. The UK public won't be as easily conned by the Tories, because they won't be able to keep the details under wraps, because Trump won't be able to stop himself from blabbing about it.
Not to mention the assumption than an EU deal is even possible. Zeihan writes about it on that article, but TL, DR: Is not.
We are talking about a deal that pleases all EU members and also passes through Parliament. Even in normal circumstances that's a long reach, but with all the bad blood on both sides? Is a non starter. That goes double for the December timeline, it would take at least a decade to just get a preliminary agreement. That's an unrealistic time for the UK to be without any trade arrangement.
Which is why the smart money is on Johnson taking Trump's deal, especially with a fragmented opposition.
+2
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
God fuck the Tories and fuck every last person who voted for this shitshow. I can barely even follow the news at the moment because it just gets me so fucking angry.
Not to mention the assumption than an EU deal is even possible. Zeihan writes about it on that article, but TL, DR: Is not.
We are talking about a deal that pleases all EU members and also passes through Parliament. Even in normal circumstances that's a long reach, but with all the bad blood on both sides? Is a non starter. That goes double for the December timeline, it would take at least a decade to just get a preliminary agreement. That's an unrealistic time for the UK to be without any trade arrangement.
Which is why the smart money is on Johnson taking Trump's deal, especially with a fragmented opposition.
bad blood on both sides?
I thought the eu were pretty patient and well mannered about it all.
It's Johnson who's reneged on the WA, not even 24h after leaving.
The UK public won't be as easily conned by the Tories
What exactly about the last five years makes you this optimistic
Not as easily. But still easily. It's not a binary option.
You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Addendum for the modern era: Though you only need to fool enough people at the right time, and let apathy and disillusionment take care of the rest.
Not to mention the assumption than an EU deal is even possible. Zeihan writes about it on that article, but TL, DR: Is not.
We are talking about a deal that pleases all EU members and also passes through Parliament. Even in normal circumstances that's a long reach, but with all the bad blood on both sides? Is a non starter. That goes double for the December timeline, it would take at least a decade to just get a preliminary agreement. That's an unrealistic time for the UK to be without any trade arrangement.
Which is why the smart money is on Johnson taking Trump's deal, especially with a fragmented opposition.
bad blood on both sides?
I thought the eu were pretty patient and well mannered about it all.
It's Johnson who's reneged on the WA, not even 24h after leaving.
Write "irreconcilable differences" then, is not the point. The point is that an EU deal is simply not possible.
Not to mention the assumption than an EU deal is even possible. Zeihan writes about it on that article, but TL, DR: Is not.
We are talking about a deal that pleases all EU members and also passes through Parliament. Even in normal circumstances that's a long reach, but with all the bad blood on both sides? Is a non starter. That goes double for the December timeline, it would take at least a decade to just get a preliminary agreement. That's an unrealistic time for the UK to be without any trade arrangement.
Which is why the smart money is on Johnson taking Trump's deal, especially with a fragmented opposition.
bad blood on both sides?
I thought the eu were pretty patient and well mannered about it all.
It's Johnson who's reneged on the WA, not even 24h after leaving.
Write "irreconcilable differences" then, is not the point. The point is that an EU deal is simply not possible.
And taking a horrible US deal is doubling down on the idiocy.
I suppose the timing of it all will matter, given that Trump might not be in power anymore when the deal gets signed.
This is the first of 2016's "I told you so" chickens coming home to roost. Up to now there had been no real brexit disadvantages because it hadn't actually happened yet. All that postponed, stored up pain is coming now and nearly all of it was very easily and obviously predictable.
If it helps, as bad and one sided the US-UK deal will be, is still better than the alternative of not having any deal before the year is over and the UK falling into a Great Depression.
So...it could be worse.
Not really, a bad deal that makes things cost more for you than they do currently with the country that makes up 20% of your exports, isn't going to mitigate the damage of not having a deal with the bloc that makes up 75% of your exports.
Just having 'a' deal is pretty meaningless.
I'm comparing it with the alternative of not having any deal at all. Because quite simply, those exports to the EU are gone. And they aren't coming back. So, while is catastrophic, having something is better than nothing.
So am I, no deal doesn't mean no trade is possible - it just happens on less favourable terms. The EU deal on just goods will probably go through as it's pretty much just a placeholder and is one of the cases where EU businesses would get hit harder than we do - we buy a lot of stuff and do things for people. I think it keeps the 'just-in-time' businesses open and probably some of the high tech manufacturing but also doesn't cover 80% of our trade with the EU.
I think we'll see the EU hold this hostage to start with in order to try and get the UK to the table rather than obsessing over it's delusion aspirations to be a tax haven - but when push comes to shove, it's an easy fix that limits harm to businesses in the EU.
I also think the various talk of trade deals with Trump are also excluding the tax haven thing. I think Boris/Cumming's plan is probably to try to steal Company HQs from the states - wouldn't put it past them to even cover US tax obligations for individuals. That and the fact it's not really going to do much, makes me think the deal won't be as one-sided as people make out. It's all going to come far more down to corruption, imaginary ferry style. Who can offer the better deal for some specific individuals - as the UK can walk away from a bad US deal with political capital (you bet Boris would love to go down forever being famous for his Love Actually moment) and not that much worse a hit economically. One of the advantages of rock bottom.
Tastyfish on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2020
the uk is not doing a substantive trade deal with the us, there will be rhetoric but nothing more
one of the major changes recently is that the tory party has been inured to the problems of putting up trade barriers - they have turned loss of future growth and economic damage into just a few percentage points at the margins, project fear, etc - and there has been a lot of chatter about "we wont do a deal with the americans that has anything in it we dont like"
this is partly because, wait for it, the economic benefits of a trade deal with the us are miniscule for both us and the americans
ie a us trade deal is a pr stunt for domestic consumption, not an actual economic move, and it is easier for them to get basically nothing and yell about how revolutionary it is and how free trading we are than to actually get something serious because nobody actually gives a shit about the details of trade policy.
the uk is not doing a substantive trade deal with the us, there will be rhetoric but nothing more
one of the major changes recently is that the tory party has been inured to the problems of putting up trade barriers - they have turned loss of future growth and economic damage into just a few percentage points at the margins, project fear, etc - and there has been a lot of chatter about "we wont do a deal with the americans that has anything in it we dont like"
this is partly because, wait for it, the economic benefits of a trade deal with the us are miniscule for both us and the americans
ie a us trade deal is a pr stunt for domestic consumption, not an actual economic move, and it is easier for them to get basically nothing and yell about how revolutionary it is and how free trading we are than to actually get something serious because nobody actually gives a shit about the details of trade policy.
I admire your optimism considering that nothing really makes sense in politics at the moment. No one has done sensible, logical decisions, for the benefit of the country, in some time.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
this is not the sensible decision... its the cynical position that maximises domestic advantage <-- this is good heuristic
this is not the sensible decision... its the cynical position that maximises domestic advantage <-- this is good heuristic
Well, that's cool and all, and the UK can always choose to tough it up on it's own and just scream "Project Fear". Zeihan believes that Johnson won't do it, but the chances aren't zero:
The Brits could always say no. They could try to fly solo against a more insular and prickly America, an unleashed France, a rapidly rearming Germany, a resurgent Turkey, and a desperate Russia in an environment of wildly higher energy prices and food prices. (Spoiler alert: There’s a full chapter in Disunited Nations on each of these countries’ pasts and futures.) The Brits could choose to slip into permanent military irrelevance and strategic vulnerability. They could choose to suffer an economic disconnect as bad as the Great Depression that would include dramatic reductions in standards of living and employment and energy availability and health care. Some countries, when faced with the choice between pride in poverty vs relative wealth and security, go with the former.
But I doubt it. The Brits tend to be pretty pragmatic. Stiff upper lip and all that.
Like Johnson can talk tough now and do stuff like taking the Huawei contract (which is a moronic decision, but "is either us or the chinese spying on you" is not the best rhetoric), but give it a few months to see if it holds.
I don't see how, exactly, not having a FTA with the US is going to trigger Great Depression levels of hit to the UK. Especially when they don't right now. Yes, it'll make trade with the US slightly more expensive. And..?
I don't see how, exactly, not having a FTA with the US is going to trigger Great Depression levels of hit to the UK. Especially when they don't right now. Yes, it'll make trade with the US slightly more expensive. And..?
The uk is currently in the transition period so nothing much is going to change until december where Alexander the flaccid Johnson is going to reveal a whopping 0 trade deals have been secured at which point food/medicine/brains shortages become apparent.
If, hypothetically, Trump and the UK make a trade deal before the end of the year, wouldn’t medicine pricing and other things that affect UK’s NHS be on the list as something Trump would want a piece of?
If so, what is the expected consequence once the populace finds out? Like, what are their options if they reject it? Is there anything that can be done aside from protests and wait for the next election?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2020
us trade is irrelevant to uk. we just dont trade much with the us. thats not where the cracks would show
us trade is irrelevant to uk. we just dont trade much with the us. thats not where the cracks would show
desperation would lead to deals with the eu
US trade does not have to be irrelevant, it could replace much of EU trade, but even if a deal with the US can be struck, there will be an enormous amount of shock to the UK system due to the vastly different character of a US trade deal (where the US, Mexico and Canada will all want to engage in significant dumping in the UK market) vs an EU trade situation (where extensive subsidies are intended to provide cheap food and keep local production going)
In the best possible case, every UK farm is bankrupt or owned by a multinational within a year or two
It took 10 years to negotiate an EU-Canada trade deal. And that's with friendly relationships. Which is not the case now.
Like, even if there was the will, is just not possible on any reasonable timeframe. And, as repeated above, there's going to be far bigger things to worry about than just medicine prices.
It took 10 years to negotiate an EU-Canada trade deal. And that's with friendly relationships. Which is not the case now.
That's basically it. Even if Paris and Berlin are all for the UK returning to the EU, all it takes is a few regions of countries going "lol, no" and throwing up roadblocks to potentially sink a deal. If Poland insists that one of the conditions that they consider mandatory is that the British Prime Minister must make an annual visit to Poland, put on a monkey suit, and spend the day dancing for the amusement of all in the main square of Kraków, it's going to be hard to make headway.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
us trade is irrelevant to uk. we just dont trade much with the us. thats not where the cracks would show
desperation would lead to deals with the eu
US trade does not have to be irrelevant, it could replace much of EU trade, but even if a deal with the US can be struck, there will be an enormous amount of shock to the UK system due to the vastly different character of a US trade deal (where the US, Mexico and Canada will all want to engage in significant dumping in the UK market) vs an EU trade situation (where extensive subsidies are intended to provide cheap food and keep local production going)
In the best possible case, every UK farm is bankrupt or owned by a multinational within a year or two
There is a reason people mostly trade with their neighbors rather than halfway around the world. Even the ur example of US-China trade is only just comparable to trade with Canada and Mexico.
If, hypothetically, Trump and the UK make a trade deal before the end of the year, wouldn’t medicine pricing and other things that affect UK’s NHS be on the list as something Trump would want a piece of?
If so, what is the expected consequence once the populace finds out? Like, what are their options if they reject it? Is there anything that can be done aside from protests and wait for the next election?
From what I've seen so far, US pharmaceuticals wouldn't mind a piece of the NHS in one shape or another. It could just be contracts for generic drugs with US typical inflated prices, although Boris made some comments in 1995 about the NHS being too freelinky.
Given that he said a Tory government wouldn't harm the NHS and what followed was cuts to NHS funding .. I dunno, it doesn't look good.
Regarding reactions, well, I assume it'll be very much like what has happened so far (see: NHS bus, irish sea border, no dealing out and other lies). For other comparisons, just look at your own Trump who violates some human norm or law daily and gets away with it. There are people who are outraged but can currently do nothing about it and there's a loyal base that will do some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics to accommodate reality warping events.
I think an interesting difference is that it isn't a person that's central to a cult in the UK but an idea. The people supporting Brexit are not doing so because they have a rationale for it. Their loyalties reside with Brexit and not necessarily with Boris, so while those two overlap to 95% right now, if things were to get really bad they might turn against Boris. But not against Brexit. Because in that particular scenario, Boris had failed Brexit.
Thing is though, much like the GOP and Trump, I've thought we'd have passed the breaking point for "ok this is a silly idea", but every time we hit one the Brexiteers double down. So while Boris might be done in 5 years, I don't think Brexit will be and there's a good chance that its supporters will vote for someone worse.
Misc: One of the first few bills passed once Boris was in was that trade deals were to be conducted in secret. Whatever is coming isn't something the people will know about until the last moment. At best, people can write their parliamentary representative and tell them if they vote for any NHS shenanigans then their career is over but I'm not sure Britain as a society can pull that off.
The other day, I was asked the most piercing question for any politico: “What do you actually do?” It’s a simple query, but one that should be asked more often of campaigning organisations. Particularly if, unlike the TaxPayers’ Alliance, they dip into a £40 million pot of taxpayers’ money to do it.
New TPA analysis reveals a number of campaign groups in receipt of public cash. Of course, a healthy civil society representing a range of views is welcome – but it becomes problematic when groups take taxpayers’ money and then lobby overtly against the government that gave it to them.
This is like the opposite of the issue?
Like I get they are a right wing hack group just from the name, but come on.
The other day, I was asked the most piercing question for any politico: “What do you actually do?” It’s a simple query, but one that should be asked more often of campaigning organisations. Particularly if, unlike the TaxPayers’ Alliance, they dip into a £40 million pot of taxpayers’ money to do it.
New TPA analysis reveals a number of campaign groups in receipt of public cash. Of course, a healthy civil society representing a range of views is welcome – but it becomes problematic when groups take taxpayers’ money and then lobby overtly against the government that gave it to them.
This is like the opposite of the issue?
Like I get they are a right wing hack group just from the name, but come on.
Just because something isn't true doesn't mean it can't be official Government policy.
Posts
Ah but brexit will have put a stop to all immigration. Any immigrants you may encounter are due to ‘the last labour government’.
Literally always the way this was going to go and a great many people (including me and others in this thread) have said so since 2016. They're just going to end up replacing Poles with Pakistanis or whoever else we end up being forced into visa concessions with in exchange for trade deals.
And is just barely starting. Talked a bit on the US Foreign Policy thread about how Trump is going to take the UK to the cleaners since not only the US is the only realistic trading partner (the UK press talks about Turkey, but that would mean conving Erdogan to buy from the UK exclusively, everybody else is too small or too far or too much bad blood), but the last 3 years of Brexit extensions finished off any leverage that the UK may have.
Geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan had an article of what the US will ask back on December, right before the elections. Drug prices are a very small part of it, and is a diagnostic as cheery as a London winter morning:
And if Brexiteers don't like it, well:
Is that bad. And is coming before the year is over. Just telling you all beforehand.
New blue British passport rollout to begin in March How utterly devoid of identity do you have to be that the colour of your passport makes a single significant shit to you?
Is the colour going to help with trade negotiations? Does it grant a +1 bonus to the Negotiation skill or something?
Yup. France.
Steam | XBL
I can't find any snippets on youtube or google..
Think about how absolutely insignificant the colour on a passport is.
Now think that Brexiters have seized upon it and made it a rallying point because that almost non-existent benefit is still one of the few tangible benefits of Brexit.
And specifically, over the British company that was making them up until this latest tender.
It'd be different if there wasn't a British company willing or able to do it. But they decided to farm out to a foreign country something that's arguably a national security issue. Sure, the British company could have been vulnerable, but it would have been much easier for the UK government to keep controls/security checks up to date on a British company than they could on a French/Polish one.
If it helps, as bad and one sided the US-UK deal will be, is still better than the alternative of not having any deal before the year is over and the UK falling into a Great Depression.
So...it could be worse.
Not really, a bad deal that makes things cost more for you than they do currently with the country that makes up 20% of your exports, isn't going to mitigate the damage of not having a deal with the bloc that makes up 75% of your exports.
Just having 'a' deal is pretty meaningless.
I'm comparing it with the alternative of not having any deal at all. Because quite simply, those exports to the EU are gone. And they aren't coming back. So, while is catastrophic, having something is better than nothing.
Maybe. Depends on how long term the US contract is.
It's like quitting because you fucking hate your coworkers. Sometimes staying unemployed in the short term means getting a better job, than jumping into the first shitty job you can find, but being locked into that job for an excessive length of time, and not being able to take a better job.
And you can bet the house that the trade deal the United States offers under Trump, is gonna suck for the UK. One of Trump's only "talents" is taking advantage of people who are at a disadvantage, and screwing them as hard as possible. And given he needs a win to sell domestically, he absolutely will, and then will brag about it at length, such that everyone in Britain will hear about it.
At least that's one thing. The UK public won't be as easily conned by the Tories, because they won't be able to keep the details under wraps, because Trump won't be able to stop himself from blabbing about it.
What exactly about the last five years makes you this optimistic
We are talking about a deal that pleases all EU members and also passes through Parliament. Even in normal circumstances that's a long reach, but with all the bad blood on both sides? Is a non starter. That goes double for the December timeline, it would take at least a decade to just get a preliminary agreement. That's an unrealistic time for the UK to be without any trade arrangement.
Which is why the smart money is on Johnson taking Trump's deal, especially with a fragmented opposition.
bad blood on both sides?
I thought the eu were pretty patient and well mannered about it all.
It's Johnson who's reneged on the WA, not even 24h after leaving.
Not as easily. But still easily. It's not a binary option.
You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Addendum for the modern era: Though you only need to fool enough people at the right time, and let apathy and disillusionment take care of the rest.
Write "irreconcilable differences" then, is not the point. The point is that an EU deal is simply not possible.
And taking a horrible US deal is doubling down on the idiocy.
I suppose the timing of it all will matter, given that Trump might not be in power anymore when the deal gets signed.
So am I, no deal doesn't mean no trade is possible - it just happens on less favourable terms. The EU deal on just goods will probably go through as it's pretty much just a placeholder and is one of the cases where EU businesses would get hit harder than we do - we buy a lot of stuff and do things for people. I think it keeps the 'just-in-time' businesses open and probably some of the high tech manufacturing but also doesn't cover 80% of our trade with the EU.
I think we'll see the EU hold this hostage to start with in order to try and get the UK to the table rather than obsessing over it's delusion aspirations to be a tax haven - but when push comes to shove, it's an easy fix that limits harm to businesses in the EU.
I also think the various talk of trade deals with Trump are also excluding the tax haven thing. I think Boris/Cumming's plan is probably to try to steal Company HQs from the states - wouldn't put it past them to even cover US tax obligations for individuals. That and the fact it's not really going to do much, makes me think the deal won't be as one-sided as people make out. It's all going to come far more down to corruption, imaginary ferry style. Who can offer the better deal for some specific individuals - as the UK can walk away from a bad US deal with political capital (you bet Boris would love to go down forever being famous for his Love Actually moment) and not that much worse a hit economically. One of the advantages of rock bottom.
one of the major changes recently is that the tory party has been inured to the problems of putting up trade barriers - they have turned loss of future growth and economic damage into just a few percentage points at the margins, project fear, etc - and there has been a lot of chatter about "we wont do a deal with the americans that has anything in it we dont like"
this is partly because, wait for it, the economic benefits of a trade deal with the us are miniscule for both us and the americans
ie a us trade deal is a pr stunt for domestic consumption, not an actual economic move, and it is easier for them to get basically nothing and yell about how revolutionary it is and how free trading we are than to actually get something serious because nobody actually gives a shit about the details of trade policy.
I admire your optimism considering that nothing really makes sense in politics at the moment. No one has done sensible, logical decisions, for the benefit of the country, in some time.
Well, that's cool and all, and the UK can always choose to tough it up on it's own and just scream "Project Fear". Zeihan believes that Johnson won't do it, but the chances aren't zero:
Like Johnson can talk tough now and do stuff like taking the Huawei contract (which is a moronic decision, but "is either us or the chinese spying on you" is not the best rhetoric), but give it a few months to see if it holds.
The uk is currently in the transition period so nothing much is going to change until december where Alexander the flaccid Johnson is going to reveal a whopping 0 trade deals have been secured at which point food/medicine/brains shortages become apparent.
If so, what is the expected consequence once the populace finds out? Like, what are their options if they reject it? Is there anything that can be done aside from protests and wait for the next election?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
desperation would lead to deals with the eu
US trade does not have to be irrelevant, it could replace much of EU trade, but even if a deal with the US can be struck, there will be an enormous amount of shock to the UK system due to the vastly different character of a US trade deal (where the US, Mexico and Canada will all want to engage in significant dumping in the UK market) vs an EU trade situation (where extensive subsidies are intended to provide cheap food and keep local production going)
In the best possible case, every UK farm is bankrupt or owned by a multinational within a year or two
Like, even if there was the will, is just not possible on any reasonable timeframe. And, as repeated above, there's going to be far bigger things to worry about than just medicine prices.
That's basically it. Even if Paris and Berlin are all for the UK returning to the EU, all it takes is a few regions of countries going "lol, no" and throwing up roadblocks to potentially sink a deal. If Poland insists that one of the conditions that they consider mandatory is that the British Prime Minister must make an annual visit to Poland, put on a monkey suit, and spend the day dancing for the amusement of all in the main square of Kraków, it's going to be hard to make headway.
There is a reason people mostly trade with their neighbors rather than halfway around the world. Even the ur example of US-China trade is only just comparable to trade with Canada and Mexico.
From what I've seen so far, US pharmaceuticals wouldn't mind a piece of the NHS in one shape or another. It could just be contracts for generic drugs with US typical inflated prices, although Boris made some comments in 1995 about the NHS being too free linky.
Given that he said a Tory government wouldn't harm the NHS and what followed was cuts to NHS funding .. I dunno, it doesn't look good.
Regarding reactions, well, I assume it'll be very much like what has happened so far (see: NHS bus, irish sea border, no dealing out and other lies). For other comparisons, just look at your own Trump who violates some human norm or law daily and gets away with it. There are people who are outraged but can currently do nothing about it and there's a loyal base that will do some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics to accommodate reality warping events.
I think an interesting difference is that it isn't a person that's central to a cult in the UK but an idea. The people supporting Brexit are not doing so because they have a rationale for it. Their loyalties reside with Brexit and not necessarily with Boris, so while those two overlap to 95% right now, if things were to get really bad they might turn against Boris. But not against Brexit. Because in that particular scenario, Boris had failed Brexit.
Thing is though, much like the GOP and Trump, I've thought we'd have passed the breaking point for "ok this is a silly idea", but every time we hit one the Brexiteers double down. So while Boris might be done in 5 years, I don't think Brexit will be and there's a good chance that its supporters will vote for someone worse.
Misc: One of the first few bills passed once Boris was in was that trade deals were to be conducted in secret. Whatever is coming isn't something the people will know about until the last moment. At best, people can write their parliamentary representative and tell them if they vote for any NHS shenanigans then their career is over but I'm not sure Britain as a society can pull that off.
Like I get they are a right wing hack group just from the name, but come on.
Just because something isn't true doesn't mean it can't be official Government policy.
My basic assumption is that they are the private mouthpiece of a small number (or possibly just one) particularly wealthy individual