Brexit.

[seafoid]

Brexit is destroying the reforms of the 80s. Thatcher revamped the motor industry around foreign companies with access to the Single market and deregulated the City.    Meanwhile attention is focused on the Irish border. Priorities are pitiful

And the Tories are driving this. While Heidi Allen says that most of her fellow backbenchers were Government puppets. Probably.

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." Nietzsche

                https://www.ft.com/content/b2aa3eb8-3437-11e9-9be1-7dc6e2dfa65e
 
The deregulation of financial services that followed the Big Bang in 1986 made London the destination of choice for global finance. For financial services, in which the UK has a large surplus, this is bleak, with the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, reckoning that a free trade agreement would shrink exports to the EU by almost 60 per cent. This means job losses among the 2.2m people employed in the financial and professional services ecosystem



https://www.ft.com/content/8c32704c-344c-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5


That was why Thatcher put so much effort both into forming the single market and courting the companies her party now attacks. Part one of her strategy for remaking the UK economy was eliminating the regulations and union obstructionism that had burdened many companies. Having (often brutally) cleared them away, part two was to implant an alternative.

The Japanese carmakers did her a huge favour by having faith that the UK would be a stable European base. They led the way for others, helping to reinvigorate an industry that was in deep trouble to remarkable effect. Before Brexit started to hurt, the industry had bounced back to making 1.7m cars and 2.7m engines in 2017, employing 850,000 people directly or indirectly.Swindon was among the biggest beneficiaries of her strategy for economic restoration. A town of 100,000 that relied heavily for jobs on Isambard Kingdom Brunel's former Great Western Railway works (which employed 17,000 at its peak but had fallen to 2,000 by the time it shut in 1986) transformed into a cluster for high-value manufacturing and professional services."

None of this is rational

[seafoid]

As things stand, the outline trade deal will prioritise "comprehensive arrangements" for goods but neglect services where

Who is that outline trade deal with? (can't see the article)

Outline deal with the EU

[sid waddell]

The SDP was founded in 1981 with mostly Labour defectors and a small number of Tories.

The Tories remained in power until 1997.

I have seen the argument that having the SDP actually reduced the Tory majority as it gave those disaffected with Labour swing to the hard left (Militant Tendency were the Momentum of their day)  a way to vote against the Tories.

Basic maths says that argument is nonsense.

It's the same argument that tries to make out that if somebody like Howard Schultz attracted a sizeable vote in the 2020 US election would it hurt Trump more than the Democratic candidate. It wouldn't.

[seafoid]

Meanwhile

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/discover/watch-claire-byrne-and-sammy-wilson-in-dispute-over-leo-varadkars-threats-905495.html

[LeoMc]

The SDP was founded in 1981 with mostly Labour defectors and a small number of Tories.

The Tories remained in power until 1997.

I have seen the argument that having the SDP actually reduced the Tory majority as it gave those disaffected with Labour swing to the hard left (Militant Tendency were the Momentum of their day)  a way to vote against the Tories.

Basic maths says that argument is nonsense.

It's the same argument that tries to make out that if somebody like Howard Schultz attracted a sizeable vote in the 2020 US election would it hurt Trump more than the Democratic candidate. It wouldn't.

There was a book about it.
It is mentionedin this article. It compares the swing between the elections and looks at where the middle ground coters came from and argues the impact was negligible.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/did-the-sdp-really-split-the-left-in-1983

[Rossfan]

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0221/1031954-beef-brexit/

[armaghniac]

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0221/1031954-beef-brexit/

One positive step would be to outlaw vegans.

[RedHand88]

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0221/1031954-beef-brexit/

One positive step would be to outlaw vegans.

But what about the cow farts killing the planet?

[heganboy]

Looks like Corbyn may now lean towards a second referendum.
with the splits in both parties- I'd say that passes parliament without the DUP support.

may has been angling towards a two option vote- my deal vs no deal

doesn't look like she's going to get what she wants...

[GJL]

Looks like Corbyn may now lean towards a second referendum.
with the splits in both parties- I'd say that passes parliament without the DUP support.

may has been angling towards a two option vote- my deal vs no deal

doesn't look like she's going to get what she wants...

The lunatic British public might still vote leave and with no deal.

[armaghniac]

The DUP assure all that all will be well
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/paisley-expects-eu-to-pressure-ireland-to-move-aside-in-brexit-talks-1.3802079

[omaghjoe]

The DUP assure all that all will be well
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/paisley-expects-eu-to-pressure-ireland-to-move-aside-in-brexit-talks-1.3802079

Course he left out the obvious convenience of the use of the "Irish problem" by EU to give the Brits a good kicking.

[seafoid]

The DUP assure all that all will be well
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/paisley-expects-eu-to-pressure-ireland-to-move-aside-in-brexit-talks-1.3802079

Magical thinking

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/21/theresa-may-faces-ministerial-revolt-over-no-deal-brexit

[seafoid]

The all Europe senior hurling final

https://www.ft.com/content/738a995a-35ca-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5

   How no-deal sets the stage for Brexit's biggest negotiations
      
      
               EU goal will be to make UK pay its €45bn bill and agree backstop

               Alex Barker in Brussels

If Britain leaves the EU without a deal next month, Europe's Brexit negotiators will not end talks but reset their clocks to a new cliff-edge date: April 18.After 20 days of likely disorder at ports, supermarkets and borders, the deadline will be Britain's chance to avoid a more lasting rupture with its biggest trading partner — if it can stomach the price. By April 18, according to European Commission contingency plans, Britain must confirm whether to make around €7bn of net contributions to the EU's budget for 2019. The first payments, which require House of Commons approval, are scheduled for April 30; EU negotiators say missing them will "ruin" relations.The budget ultimatum, cast by Brussels as a generous offer to provide continuity for Britain after the country's scheduled March 29 departure, is one of the most striking examples of the diplomatic crunch that looms in the immediate aftermath of a no-deal exit.Driving the EU side will be a new aim: making Britain meet its withdrawal treaty obligations, including the €45bn budget bill and backstop arrangements to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, even though the treaty itself will have perished. As a result, a no-deal exit would kick off the most fast-paced and consequential period of negotiations since the Brexit referendum in 2016. "This is when it all shakes out," said one senior EU diplomat closely involved in Brexit.In the white-heat of a traumatic break with four decades of shared sovereignty, the two sides will confront decisions that will frame relations for years to come. The choices made in the space of a few weeks may determine whether a no-deal Brexit becomes a hostile divorce or a more managed break that keeps a path to reconciliation open.

"Here in Berlin, people are starting to realise that no-deal Brexit is not an event in itself but a new phase of the process," said Nicolai von Ondarza of the German Institute for International and Security Studies. "It will not mean the breakdown of negotiations but a different form of negotiation."No-deal Brexit threat focusing minds, says Philip HammondEU sets its deadlines and demandsA "managed no-deal" scenario has long been derided by the EU, in part to stop Brexiters from claiming that the benefits of the Britain's exit treaty could be replicated through "mini-deals" after Brexit that have fewer downsides. "If there is a no deal there is no more discussion. There is no more negotiation. It is over," said Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator, last year. "Each side will take its own unilateral contingency measures."But contingency plans issued by the commission since December tell a different story about the type of interaction imagined after Brexit — if the politics will bear it. There will be no overarching UK-EU treaty, nor the soft landing of a full transition, as established by Theresa May's draft withdrawal treaty. But through "unilateral" arrangements it has already put in place for no-deal, Brussels has set up a series of deadlines and demands — covering areas ranging from fish and money to flying rights — that will inevitably require dialogue with London."The Brits will be back to the negotiating table within weeks," said one senior EU figure directly involved in handling Brexit. "We will say, yes, by all means let's discuss the future. First, here is the backstop and the financial settlement."Three strands to the talksSeen from the EU, talks would fall into three related strands. First are areas such as fisheries and money, where the EU as demander wants the UK to continue existing arrangements so that divisive fights between the remaining 27 EU states are avoided. Here self-interest prevails. For instance, Brussels' contingency proposals on fisheries push the EU's no-deal principles to their limit in a bid to retain access to UK waters that fishermen in France, the Netherlands and Belgium depend on. The draft plans call on the UK to maintain existing agreements for 2019 and allow member states to negotiate swaps of fishing quotas. These swaps, which would then be approved by the commission, are exactly the kind of mini-deals that the EU has long said would be banned.

A second area covers fundamental concerns — such as the maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland, financial stability in markets, and public health — in which co-operation may be essential, even if UK-EU relations badly sour. One senior EU official said that issues such as the Irish border were things that "both sides will need to sit together and discuss", even in the weeks before a no-deal exit. "There will be pragmatic solutions found," the negotiator said. One EU ambassador said talks, at an informal level, had already started. Leo Varadkar, the Irish premier, maintains that the ultimate solutions will mirror the backstop plan, in which at least Northern Ireland would remain under the EU's customs union and regulatory regime — a measure loathed by Eurosceptics and Mrs May's allies in Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist party."I don't think that we'll get to anything very different to the agreement . . . even if that involves a period of uncertainty after 29 March," Mr Varadkar said this week.

Managing Britain as a 'third country'

The final big area of concern is the wider economy, and how to manage Britain suddenly becoming a "third country". Brussels' aim is to mitigate the worst effects of a break-up and give European businesses time to adapt. But at the same time it wants to show that EU membership has irreplaceable benefits, and keep pressure on the UK to yield on fish and financial payments. The Commission's contingency plans temporarily relax laws for around a year — for example extending visa-free travel rights and allowing airlines to maintain basic point-to-point flight schedules with Britain — so as long as the steps are "reciprocated" by London. The hitch comes if Britain does not reciprocate, or says it will only do so if access arrangements are improved in one or more sectors. In the past the EU has only taken such "equivalence" decisions — which unilaterally grant market access rights to foreign companies — after having held extensive exchanges with third country governments. The difference with a no-deal Brexit would be the sheer number of areas covered at pace, against the backdrop of a legal revolution.

EU's view of its bargaining power

The EU sees its bargaining power as coming from managing the implementation of rules that can cause huge disruption to trade — such as customs checks or providing authorisations. The challenge is taking advantage of that leverage that without doing further harm to EU interests. The EU has particular sway in the area of agricultural trade. UK exports face 100 per cent checks under EU law after Brexit. But, for this point even to be reached, Brussels must first authorise the UK as "competent" to export to the EU — a decision that one senior EU diplomat noted might take a day or "maybe a lot longer", depending on the state of relations. Michael Gove, Britain's environment secretary, admitted to farmers this week that, by holding back on this authorisation decision, the EU could completely halt Britain's sales of beef, sheep meat and dairy to the bloc.

"As things stand, just six weeks before we are due to leave, the EU still have not listed the UK as a full third country in the event of no deal being concluded," Mr Gove said. "That means as I speak that there is no absolute guarantee that we would be able to continue to export food to the EU." Capitalising on this bargaining power is a high risk strategy for the EU. Britain could impose tariffs, as Mr Gove suggested this week, or indeed ban EU imports, a move that would hit Ireland particularly hard.

But some in Brussels see Britain having few options but to lower trade barriers if it wants to avoid food shortages. "The UK has no incentive whatsoever unless they want empty shelves," said one official, who predicted some EU states would make fishing rights in UK waters a condition for granting market access to UK farmers.Shifts in British politics difficult to predictCalculations on the balance of power in a no-deal scenario depend heavily on one factor: they assume the UK government will have the political leeway and authority to do deals. While some EU negotiators are confident the UK will have little choice but to co-operate, because of the economic hit in a no-deal scenario, some member states are more unsure. "How exactly is British politics going to turn around after no deal and agree to the backstop that was the cause of them crashing out? I don't understand," said one senior official overseeing Brexit for an EU government. Another senior EU diplomat in close touch with Downing Street over Brexit speculated that, when the UK's exit from the bloc becomes a reality, it will be impossible to predict shifts in British politics, whether because of resignations or elections. "I cannot imagine a hard Brexit will mean business as usual in British politics," the adviser said. "Something has to happen."

[seafoid]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/no-deal-brexit-medieval-siege-eu-britain-industries

A no-deal Brexit won't result in a siege. The EU will be more clinical than that

Tom Kibasi



Talk of rotting food at Calais is hysterical: instead, no deal would see the EU calmly dismantle Britain's industries over time


One of the most striking features of the ongoing Brexit shambles is the consistent failure of Britain's political class to correctly assess the consequences of their decisions or the likely response from EU member states or institutions. So it is with the prospect of a no-deal Brexit.

With every passing week, new heights of hysteria are reached about the impact of crashing out of the bloc. Politicians and the media have embraced the aesthetic of the disaster movie, outlining all the most vivid ways in which our economy and society will fall to pieces after exit day in an imagined dystopia.

The government amplifies rather than dampens the threat in the hope that fear will bring MPs from both main parties into acquiescing to the prime minister's Brexit deal. And the EU, keen to assist the government in getting the deal through parliament, does little to lower the temperature. But almost all of the fear-mongering is wrong.

  The hysteria needs to stop and the sobering reality of the scale of the stakes for the future must be better understood
 

In truth, the short-term impact of a no-deal Brexit would be not nearly as bad as predicted, but the long-term impact will be much worse than feared. Why? Because the British political class still fails to understand how the EU will respond to the crisis.

In a no-deal Brexit, the EU will not place the UK under some medieval siege; there won't be trucks filled with rotting food in Calais or shortages of medicines in pharmacies. Planes will continue to fly, though British travellers would face longer queues at borders (yet still enjoy visa-free travel). A thin agreement – covering areas from aviation to contract continuity – would be quickly concluded.

Most households would feel the impact not through shortages but through rising prices, the result of a rapid weakening in sterling driving up the cost of imports. Living standards that have barely improved for more than a decade would get noticeably worse. But 3,500 troops are not going to be deployed to the streets.

Instead, the EU's response to a no deal will be strategic: opening up advantage, sector by sector, calmly and patiently dismantling the UK's leading industries over the course of a decade. They will eat the elephant one bite at a time. The problem with abandoning the rules of the international order is that you no longer enjoy their protection.

A no-deal Brexit would hand the EU enormous power: it would decide how and when to introduce new frictions between the UK and the single market, giving sufficient time for firms like Airbus, Nissan or AstraZeneca to relocate production. As recent decisions have demonstrated, even seemingly fixed capital investment is more mobile than many Brexiters imagine.

The EU would set out a timeline over which it would introduce compliance and rules of origin checks on the UK's most competitive exporting sectors. It is not hard to imagine checks on automotive parts from 2021, pharmaceuticals from 2022 and aerospace from 2023, alongside constantly shifting sands of equivalence for financial services. This would allow firms an orderly departure from the UK to the single market. It will be a steady drift away from the UK, not an avalanche. Moreover, the absence of any agreement would mean lasting uncertainty that would deter future investment. The UK is particularly exposed in this regard: our serious lack of competitiveness is demonstrated by persistently large trade deficits. This means the UK is heavily reliant on foreign investment – the "kindness of strangers" – which would likely collapse. It is not hard to imagine a future government going cap in hand to the IMF for a bailout.

The Brexit fantasists' riposte is that the Europeans have as much to lose since the UK is an important export market and we run a large trade deficit with the single market. But one of the legacies of Thatcher's deindustrialisation is that the UK lacks the industrial base to switch from foreign to domestic production. It simply no longer exists, thanks to the 1980s shock therapy of the very same disaster capitalists that now champion no-deal.

Those same Brexiters who have marched from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm still bizarrely believe that the UK could pocket the £39bn divorce bill while pursuing trade deals around the world. Yet the EU would, calmly and rationally, place tariffs on UK trade until it had collected what it is owed. And the damage to trade with the single market could not be replaced by new trade deals – in addition to the EU27, the UK has the benefits of trade deals with 40 other countries through the EU, all of which would evaporate overnight in no deal. That requires 67 deals to be signed just to stand still.

Yet it is for these reasons that no deal remains the least likely outcome, its probability in the single digits. What began as a political hoax is now affecting real investment decisions in the economy, as Nissan's recent decision has shown. The hysteria needs to stop and the sobering reality of the scale of the stakes for the UK's future prosperity must be better understood. It is a damning indictment and a severe dereliction of duty that such a calamity as a no-deal Brexit is a possibility, no matter how unlikely. It's time to rule out no deal, once and for all.