Brexit Transition

[DimPrawn]

The most likely outcome is the slow death of the Tory government and a Labour government taking the UK into a Venezuelan style oblivion.

FTFY

[jamesbrown]

The most likely outcome is the slow death of the Tory government and a Labour government taking the UK into the abyss.

Yes, quite right.

[Eirikur]

The most likely outcome is the slow death of the Tory government and a Labour government taking the UK into a Swiss style deal.

Corbyn would more likely join his pay master Putin's Russia

[darmstadt]

Good, balanced, article by Martin Wolf in the FT today about where we’ll end up, namely CETA.

The implementation period seems likely to last no longer than 31 December 2020, but this is detail. The prospect of a GE is the ultimate barrier to any extended transition.

But there is no implementation or transition period decided upon yet, well there is by the UK government but as you might possibly be aware there are two parties to this and the other can just say 'Bollocks!' I mean they won't because "they need us more than we need them!"

[meridian]

Good, balanced, article by Martin Wolf in the FT today about where we’ll end up, namely CETA.

The implementation period seems likely to last no longer than 31 December 2020, but this is detail. The prospect of a GE is the ultimate barrier to any extended transition.

Hardly balanced, it simply regurgitates what most remain-leaning commentators have been saying for months, since Barnier produced his slide based on the UK’s red lines. And still nothing about Ireland.....

I disagree with this:

But it is a safe bet that a bonfire of UK regulatory, tax and public spending commitments is not going to occur.

mainly because of the paragraph above it. Lower GDP means less taxation, means less money for public spending. Not a bonfire, perhaps, but still a weakening of our rights and more “austerity” if we go out hard.

May’s language is moving more towards a softer Brexit, but she still doesn’t have the strength or power to tell the ERG outright to sod off. I reckon it will still be an exit in March, but closer to Norway than Canada after a 5 year transition.....

[jamesbrown]

Hardly balanced, it simply regurgitates what most remain-leaning commentators have been saying for months, since Barnier produced his slide based on the UK’s red lines.

You’re confusing a slide that describes the consequences of actions, quite accurately, with an analysis of whether those actions are likely. For a Brexit-as-apocalypse rag like the FT, this is an exceptionally difficult analysis to swallow, but they tried really hard, which is commendable.

[BlasterBates]

It is abundantly clear that the UK is going to end up with an FTA that is incredibly complex and indistinguishable from EU membership.

Think of it as a massive paste and copy exercise with different labels.

[meridian]

You’re confusing a slide that describes the consequences of actions, quite accurately, with an analysis of whether those actions are likely. For a Brexit-as-apocalypse rag like the FT, this is an exceptionally difficult analysis to swallow, but they tried really hard, which is commendable.

Not quite, I did say that it was the commentary triggered by the slide, rather than the slide itself. But commentary outside the polarised mainstream media, I should have clarified.

For balance, here’s a “moderate Brexiter” point of view:

http://www.norgroveblog.co.uk

[jamesbrown]

Not quite, I did say that it was the commentary triggered by the slide, rather than the slide itself. But commentary outside the polarised mainstream media, I should have clarified.

For balance, here’s a “moderate Brexiter” point of view:

Oliver Norgrove's blog

Anything that begins with a critique of JHB is almost, by default, going to be correct. I put her in the same basket as your Patrick Minfords. Slightly battulipe. Ignore.

However, what this analysis lacks, such as it is (because it is, afterall, a fairly basic description of the consequences of MFN), is adequate consideration of the political imperative to "take back control". Clearly, the EEA fails this in the most spectacular way possible. Queue all the gnashing of teeth about how we "didn't vote to get poorer". The central message of the leave campaign needs to be translated into policy that is consistent with the message. Again, queue the gnashing of teeth about "lies" and how it was never possible.

As I keep saying, the idea that we never voted to get poorer (or, rather, to accept the economic consequences of leaving) is complete b*llocks. Stronger together (or whatever the feck they were called ) put the economy front and centre and whined endlessly about the inevitable shock and/or severe shock scenario that was bound to ensue within nanoseconds of our voting to leave. They lost. You lost. The consequences of leaving will be what they are. But they must mean a very high degree of control over our regulations in various areas. This means, for example, that we should not commit, by treaty, to maintain regulatory equivalence or "alignment" (which has no technical connotation whatsoever, incidentally), and that the EEA is laughably contrary to the political imperative that we, the winners, created.

[meridian]

Anything that begins with a critique of JHB is almost, by default, going to be correct. I put her in the same basket as your Patrick Minfords. Slightly battulipe. Ignore.

However, what this analysis lacks, such as it is (because it is, afterall, a fairly basic description of the consequences of MFN), is adequate consideration of the political imperative to "take back control". Clearly, the EEA fails this in the most spectacular way possible. Queue all the gnashing of teeth about how we "didn't vote to get poorer". The central message of the leave campaign needs to be translated into policy that is consistent with the message. Again, queue the gnashing of teeth about "lies" and how it was never possible.

As I keep saying, the idea that we never voted to get poorer (or, rather, to accept the economic consequences of leaving) is complete b*llocks. Stronger together (or whatever the feck they were called ) put the economy front and centre and whined endlessly about the inevitable shock and/or severe shock scenario that was bound to ensue within nanoseconds of our voting to leave. They lost. You lost. The consequences of leaving will be what they are. But they must mean a very high degree of control over our regulations in various areas. This means, for example, that we should not commit, by treaty, to maintain regulatory equivalence or "alignment" (which has no technical connotation whatsoever, incidentally), and that the EEA is laughably contrary to the political imperative that we, the winners, created.

And therein lies the twin problems in two paragraphs....

Your middle paragraph claims that the central message of the leave campaign needs to be translated into policy, when: 1. We always had control (or at least enough that mattered) and influence. Brexit will increase a minuscule amount of control for a reduction in economic power and influence. IMO the value of the trade off simply isn’t worth it. 2. The government appears to have no idea what Brexit means, so well done you for knowing exactly what the vote means when the cabinet can’t agree. Perhaps you should call them? 3. The government has no mandate to deliver a specific promise made by a non-governmental coalition of people. They can deliver what was in their manifesto. 4. If what you want is not possible of is considered to be harmful to the U.K., MPs have a duty to say so. You want to have cake and eat it, but you need to put on your big boy pants and listen if you’re being told it’s not possible or that it’s harmful.


Your last paragraph can be summarised as “we won, you lost”. To be successful in any way in Brexit requires compromise and negotiation to gain the most benefit all around, both between the U.K. and EU, and between the various factions within the U.K. You’re continuing the attitude of “52% means we can do whatever we want”, instead of comprehending that 48% of the voting electorate plus an additional 20% of the population that are not eligible to vote still need their rights and considerations to be taken into account by their MPs. A true winner would look for a win/win solution and some compromise.

Out of interest, because you’ve banged on about it a fair bit, what regulations do you want more control over to change? Which regulations (or areas of regulation) if we changed, would increase the quality of life or our trade balance?