Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

Of course the situation with Hungary and Poland is a much bigger concern than a British FTA. That's just about money. The conflict with Hungary and Poland is about core values.

[Sheilbh]

@Sheilbh: I think you are mischaracterizing the "ratchet clause". It's not automatic, just on mutual consent. Without consent, unilateral tariffs to protect the new regulation can be levied. That does not limit each sides freedom to diverge, it just puts a price on it.

That's a fair point and as I say both sides have to have improved their regulations in the first place. I think it is the way to look at this: we get the tariffs now or we get them later as a price for divergence.

I think it's also worth remembering the way that European law/standards have been used by political forces in the UK because that matters in how these bits of the agreement are viewed domestically. They've generally not been based on broad consensual support - rather they've been supported by governments/parties as a way of fettering the other party.

The harsh governance mechanism is a direct result of British shenanigans. Self-inflicted.

I disagree - I think that's just power politics. In a negotiation on a contract if you've got more power/leverage you want more freedom to exercise that, if you're weaker then you want to formalise it into procedural mechanisms.

The point I am making is that I think at this point in time there is no EU political cost to a no deal Brexit and possibly there are political benefits to it, especially compared to a deal that would allow British cherry picking because THAT could have high political cost indeed.

We have a very hard deal Brexit. The UK will not be in the single market or the customs union. The terms of leaving been negotiated. This is different than May's approach where if there was no FTA we would basically stay, like Northern Ireland is now - the ultimate in cherry-picking, Michael Gove rightly described Northern Ireland's status as "the best of both worlds" But what's at stake now is a free trade agreement after we have this very hard Brexit.

I think it's wrong to think there's no political costs to this. I think that idea and the idea that the UK will come "crawling back" or whatever is sort of the EU equivalent of Johnson's magical thinking. It might happen but it strikes me as pretty unlikely.

I think this is key consideration has been consistently missing from British analysis and narrative which in general struggled to grasp the true priority and nature of impact for the EU.

I think it depends who you're reading - give Garton-Ash's background I'd be astonished if he didn't know and understand EU thinking on this. I think the objective of protecting the single market is perfectly reasonable and has been attained - we are leaving the single market.

I would also say the opposite is true. Every time I read European papers or opinion pieces it feels like they've only spoken to ex-Cameroons or Blairites, so the read on the political dynamics here seem to come from another planet - the early 2000s

Edit: Incidentally one point I think on political difficulties is why the weirdness of this happening during a covid recovery and expectations matter. If the dominant political expectation in, say, France and Italy as other countries with significant Eurosceptic parties is that the UK will basically enter a depression and (unrelated to Brexit - actually because of the covid recovery) the reality is the UK economy grows quite rapidly, especially if it's growing more than those countries, then I think that creates a political challenge. Expectations matter on that sort of thing, it's similar with the financial sector in London. There'll be disruption in the first half of next year but the real economic cost of Brexit is likely to be lower growth in the medium-long term so we will be poorer than our neighbours (and we would have otherwise been) a few years down the line. If that isn't the understanding in other countries then it will be politically easier to say Brexit was actually some form or success.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting letter to the editor at the Financial Times regarding how the Brexiteer position regarding fisheries of "retaking control of our territorial waters" is, basically, a made up fantasy:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eoy_OyoW8AIYjgm?format=jpg&name=large

Incidentally on this I think that's true but not particularly relevant given that the legal position now is in the law of the sea.

Aside from anything else I'm quite worried about this because I think there's genuine potential for actual fist fights between fishing crews. It - especially at the beginning - is probably going to require policing by the various navies/coast guards. I think it has the potential to get nasty quickly.

[garbon]

Aside from anything else I'm quite worried about this because I think there's genuine potential for actual fist fights between fishing crews. It - especially at the beginning - is probably going to require policing by the various navies/coast guards. I think it has the potential to get nasty quickly.

I don't see why that would be key concern or worry. Fine them and lock them up.

[Sheilbh]

I don't see why that would be key concern or worry. Fine them and lock them up.

I don't see that working because I think the politics in every country will be to back "their" fishermen not enforce the law. So I imagine, say, the French or Belgian authorities turning a blind eye to fishermen from those ports going into UK waters. There's then risk of clashes with any UK based fishermen, or the Royal Navy having to enforce and turn boats back with much attention from the media which'll probably just inflame the politics at home whatever they are (which will be different in the UK v, say, France or Beligum).

Edit: I had to look it up and it would be Navy - apparently the Coastguard literally just does search and rescue which I did not know.

[Zanza]

Regarding your point on expectations: At least here, GDP growth figures in the UK will not matter. What matters is German perception that Britain is now ruled by hard-right corrupt clowns who will fully damage democratic norms and institutions. The message we take from Brexit is that such actions fore up political extremism. The economic argument is not as important, just like in Britain.

[garbon]

I don't see why that would be key concern or worry. Fine them and lock them up.

I don't see that working because I think the politics in every country will be to back "their" fishermen not enforce the law. So I imagine, say, the French or Belgian authorities turning a blind eye to fishermen from those ports going into UK waters. There's then risk of clashes with any UK based fishermen, or the Royal Navy having to enforce and turn boats back with much attention from the media which'll probably just inflame the politics at home whatever they are (which will be different in the UK v, say, France or Beligum).

Edit: I had to look it up and it would be Navy - apparently the Coastguard literally just does search and rescue which I did not know.

Well then they are welcome to violence on the seas. Not sure why that should worry an everyday person.

[mongers]

I mean (sup yister), the only thing keeping the UK from being the #1 laughing stock of the world is the US.

This.

And soon the US returns to sanity and starts rejoining international organisations and agreement; meanwhile the UK is left out in the cold, shaking a tin, shouting "penny for the farage" and rambling incoherently about 'taking back control'.

[Tamas]

The future of the British chemicals industry is Brexit in microcosm. Boris Johnson wants a trade deal that eliminates all tariffs on goods, including chemicals. Yet even if he gets this, it will do little to soothe the headaches that arise from leaving the single market. A project that promised to throw off the eu's system of regulation will instead replicate it in miniature, creating a Brussels-on-Thames. Chemical firms, foreign airlines, lawyers and internet companies—all will face new burdens if they wish to keep doing business in Britain.

At root is a grand misunderstanding. Brexiteers often think of the eu's single market as a mere rule book. Thus, they suggest, Britain simply needs to copy those rules into domestic law, and then tweak them at leisure. But the single market is better thought of as an ecosystem: an elaborate regime of registration, surveillance and enforcement. Goods and services percolate freely across national borders because governments can rely on Brussels to keep watch for unwanted adulterations.

Reach, the bit of the single market governing chemicals, is especially strict. Firms selling into Europe must submit lengthy dossiers detailing how their products were made, and appoint an agent on European soil, who can be collared if things go wrong. The system is overseen by the European Chemicals Agency (echa) in Helsinki, which has 600 staff and a budget of more than €100m ($120m). The enforcement is done by a network of national agencies, such as Britain's Health and Safety Executive (hse), based in Liverpool. The result is a free-flowing pool of 23,000 chemicals for Mr Clarke and his continental rivals to choose from, underpinned by a vast database of safety information which regulators can scour for risks.

Theresa May, Mr Johnson's predecessor, asked to stay in Reach, having been convinced there was little to gain from divergence. But this was rejected by the eu, who called it "cherry-picking". So Britain will try to replicate the regime at home, under the title of "uk Reach". The names of chemicals originally registered by British companies will be copied into domestic law. The hse will take on the echa's job, funded by fees on users. European companies will need a legal footprint to trade in Britain, and British companies vice versa.

The most difficult task will be replicating the echa's database. Ministers at first insisted they could simply copy-and-paste it. They could not: it is stuffed with commercially-sensitive intellectual property, and there is little incentive to give a departing state a leg-up. The eu has so far rebuffed Britain's request for a chemicals data-sharing clause in the trade deal.

Instead, the government will require Mr Clarke's suppliers to submit the data themselves. But many dossiers were produced by consortia of companies, and there is little reason for a French firm to bail out a British rival. basf, a big German chemicals firm, reckons registering with uk Reach will cost them £70m ($90m). Small British distributors whose continental suppliers file paperwork under the eu system may find themselves designated "importers". One boss calculates a bill of £1m in registration fees if he has to lodge all the substances he imports, on an annual turnover of £15m: "We'd be bankrupt in a week."

George Eustice, the environment secretary, now admits some firms may find the task "both expensive and time-consuming", and this summer delayed the timetable for lodging dossiers for some products from 2023 to 2027. But more time does not help much, says Peter Newport of the Chemicals Business Association. "It's a change from a guillotined beheading to a death by a thousand cuts over a six-year timescale," he sighs.

There are two scenarios for how this will play out. One is that ministers push on with uk Reach, and substances are pulled from the British market as manufacturers conclude that registration costs make low-volume products unviable. The so-called "salt-and-pepper" additives used in tiny quantities in paints are particularly vulnerable. The flow going the other way is already shrinking. Only 70% of the British firms that registered chemicals with the echa before Brexit have started transferring their dossiers to new legal entities in Europe, the regulator notes. "We'll become very insular, and they'll become equally self-absorbed," says Mr Clarke. As a result, Britain would be a less attractive place to open an assembly line.

The second scenario is that uk Reach founders. The deadlines could be pushed back further, or the new rules left unenforced. With an empty database, says Michael Warhurst of chem Trust, an environmental charity, the regulator in Liverpool would be less able than the one in Helsinki to spot hazards, or to defend its decisions against deep-pocketed companies in court.

The promise of Brexit was that Britain would be the master of its own regulation, acting more nimbly or stringently than the eu if it wished. But the outcome Mr Warhurst fears would not be deregulation by design, but one forced upon ministers because their ambitions to match European standards have failed. A big market means Brussels can afford to be strict in its regulation. Britain will learn that it cannot.

That is so typical to the whole bloody process. Arrogant twats encountering that the EU-granted benefits were actually EU granted benefits and not just the world giving Brits their proper due.

[Syt]

(apparently Merkel and Macron refused a joint call with Johnson, pointing out he needs to talk to the EU Commission)

[Zanza]

Allegedly Johnson requested to talk to Macron and Merkel on Monday, but both refused and told him to talk to vdL and Barnier. Quite a diplomatic snub, which shows that people don't want to work with the Johnson government anymore.

Which he then did Wednesday. Rumour has it that the meeting was a disaster. An uncredited source:


So now Britain rejects the LPF and governance provisions, which means tariffs apply on January 1st. The alternative would to have no tariffs and only potentially face retaliatory tariffs once significant divergence actually occurred. I guess having the whole pain at once is somehow preferable for the UK govt.

One possible reason is that UK government somehow still believes they could get a better deal, but that is delusional at this point.

[Sheilbh]

(apparently Merkel and Macron refused a joint call with Johnson, pointing out he needs to talk to the EU Commission)

Lord. One of the downsides of the internet is that the entire world is aware of our idiot MPs

Which he then did Wednesday. Rumour has it that the meeting was a disaster. An uncredited source:

I saw former Europe Minister under New Labour Denis MacShane (and it should be noted someone whose expenses were so egregious he was imprisoned for it) sharing that. I'm not sure how true it is because I thought the dinner included Barnier and Frost. But it certainly wouldn't surprise me if Johnson thought his unique charm could win people over - but his charm is very English and I think only appeals to English people if any

So now Britain rejects the LPF and governance provisions, which means tariffs apply on January 1st. The alternative would to have no tariffs and only potentially face retaliatory tariffs once significant divergence actually occurred. I guess having the whole pain at once is somehow preferable for the UK govt.

One possible reason is that UK government somehow still believes they could get a better deal, but that is delusional at this point.

I've said before but I think too much on both sides have been seeing each other's positions as negotiating moves and I've always though no deal was a strong possibility because actually the two parties just had irreconcilable positions. This is partly why I think not extending the transition period was probably a good decision because it's not technical detailed bits that need to be worked out, it's the fundamental of what the future relationship looks like.

From the EU perspective Brexit is a mistake, but it is necessary to ensure the UK doesn't actually obtain a competitive advantage from it, from the UK government perspective the entire purpose of this is "taking back control" and divergence, but what does that actually mean and look like in practice and what is the cost.

[The Minsky Moment]

So when Boris comes to negotiate the US-UK trade agreement is MP Khan going to flip out when Governors Cuomo and Newsom politely decline to discuss the matter over the phone and refer the PM to the US Trade Rep?

[Zanza]

British press salivating at the thought of fighting another Cod War.

[Tamas]

Sending in gunboats was more of an empire thing I think.