Post by lidar2 on Dec 31, 2020 11:23:50 GMT
Sad end to the year but it was never going to be anything else after the election result last year.
As predicted the deal was done, with a surrender spun as a triumph. But people will judge it according to their own preconceptions. Leavers will see it as a good result, remainers will see it as the inevitable bad deal. I don't think the deal will change anyone's mind on brexit in the short term.
The fishermen are crying betrayal. Fish has gone the way of Northern Ireland - once NI became a straight arm-wrestling match in December 2017 it lasted for almost 2 years but in the end the stronger party prevailed. Likewise with fish - the stronger party prevailed.
On the level playing field, the UK succeeded in shifting the EU from being able to unilaterally slap tariffs on the UK if the UK diverged to a position where the EU has to follow a structured procedure before it can slap on tariffs if the UK diverges. What a victory for good old Boris! We have moved from the original position where the EU could "punish" the UK for diverging to a position where if the UK exercises its sovereign right to diverge then the EU can in turn exercise its sovereign right to restrict our access to its single market (subject to following the procedures in the deal). Quite how the 2 differ in practice is beyond me, but if the ERG star chamber of brexiteer lawyers says it is preserves sovereignty then it must be ok. But it seems to me that that EU has succeeded in its basic objective of restricting UK access to the single market if the UK diverges in ways it doesn't like. So not a 3-nil victory for the EU, but probably fair to call it a 3-1 victory.
More fundamentally, the agreement covers goods and not services. The EU has a surplus with the UK when it comes to trade in goods, so it was very much in their interest to ensure the agreement covered goods. Services, which account for 80% of the UK economy, and in which the UK has a trade surplus with the EU, are not covered. Quelle surprise! So the UK will have to go cap in hand to the EU in 2021, having now played our best cards, and appeal to their better nature to get a good deal in services. Given how much the financial sector contributes to the UK economy and the UK exchequer this is a vital economic interest for the UK. No doubt the Boris's charm and pluck - because that's about the only leverage we are now left with - will ensure the EU nobly resists the temptation to try and poach as much of this business as possible. In reality of course, as has been the case since 2016, the EU will be calling the shots.
But these arguments are redundant now. Brexit is done and Starmer clearly sees no mileage in keeping the issue alive. It is not a case of Remain is dead, long live Rejoin. Remain is not about to morph into Rejoin. I said above that the deal will not change anyone's view on brexit in the short term. However I do think people's views will evolve. There will come a point, probably 5 or more years down the line, when we can assess if brexit has delivered. If it is perceived as a success, then Remainers will accept it and Rejoin/Renegotiate will never get off the ground. On the other hand if brexit is perceived to have failed to deliver, then we might move towards renegotiating the deal with a view to getting closer to what we would have called a softer brexit. But I think that would be something for a 2nd term Labour government if it happens at all. Maybe demographic changes and natural wastage in the electorate will lead to a more pro-EU sentiment as younger people tend to be more pro EU. On the other hand if Scotland and/or NI leaves the UK then that increases the proportion of Leavers in what's left of the UK electorate. Maybe the SNP / Lib Dems would make renegotiating a softer brexit the precondition to support a Labour government. Even the DUP could go for a softer brexit if it would reduce the hated Irish Sea border, it's not completely impossible that Labour could outbid the Tories for DUP support.
I think we can all agree that only in the fulness of time will we see the true costs and benefits of brexit. What criteria will we use to assess it in 5-10 years' time?
The most basic test of success for any country or government is its economic growth rate. How will the UK's compare to the EU's over the next 5 - 10 years? When the UK declined to join the EEC in 1957 its growth rate fell behind the 6 members, leading to its attempts to join in the 1960s and its eventual joining in 1973. Will history repeat itself and our growth rate slow relative to the EU27? - most economists seem to think so. If no-deal was a car crash, then hard brexit is a slow puncture. Ultimately the prospect of higher economic growth is why countries want to join the EU and whatever else its faults may be - and there are many - it has delivered higher growth.
When the next American or Asian multinational is looking to open a factory in Europe will they choose the UK or the EU? The EU can offer access to a much bigger market than the UK. What compensating benefits can the UK offer? A more favourable regulatory environment - hang on, the EU have closed that off because if we diverge the we lose access to the single market. Perhaps we could offer generous grants/subsidies? Darn, that won't work either - the level paying field in the deal means we can't offer more then the EU equivalent. Now that we have cast off the shackles of the EU, there will be less bureaucracy imposed by Brussels, although admittedly there is all the pesky new customs paperwork now we are outside the EU. Still, at least we have pretty weak trade unions in the UK - oops, now that we have ended freedom of movement, thereby decreasing the pool of available labour, we have increased the power of unions in the market. (Remind me again why Thatcherites were pro-brexit?)
When it comes to negotiating future trade deals, it will be interesting to see if it ever happens that the EU and UK are negotiating with the same 3rd country at the same time and who gets the better deal from the 3rd country. Given that the EU can offer access to a much bigger - and therefore more lucrative - market I would imagine the EU will get the better deals. The UK will have fewer red lines to defend (i.e. won't be seeking special protections for French wine/cheese, etc.) and a much simpler ratification procedure so it will have some advantages over the EU.
Other than economics, the main litmus test for whether brexit is a success or failure will be the future of the UK itself. With hindsight, will brexit come to be seen by future historians and the decisive turning point that led to the end of the UK, or will the UK continue on into the 22nd century with its current 4 members?
Since this is primarily a forum for people who are DW fans, I'll end with a quote from the good Doctor
"Time will tell, it always does"
As predicted the deal was done, with a surrender spun as a triumph. But people will judge it according to their own preconceptions. Leavers will see it as a good result, remainers will see it as the inevitable bad deal. I don't think the deal will change anyone's mind on brexit in the short term.
The fishermen are crying betrayal. Fish has gone the way of Northern Ireland - once NI became a straight arm-wrestling match in December 2017 it lasted for almost 2 years but in the end the stronger party prevailed. Likewise with fish - the stronger party prevailed.
On the level playing field, the UK succeeded in shifting the EU from being able to unilaterally slap tariffs on the UK if the UK diverged to a position where the EU has to follow a structured procedure before it can slap on tariffs if the UK diverges. What a victory for good old Boris! We have moved from the original position where the EU could "punish" the UK for diverging to a position where if the UK exercises its sovereign right to diverge then the EU can in turn exercise its sovereign right to restrict our access to its single market (subject to following the procedures in the deal). Quite how the 2 differ in practice is beyond me, but if the ERG star chamber of brexiteer lawyers says it is preserves sovereignty then it must be ok. But it seems to me that that EU has succeeded in its basic objective of restricting UK access to the single market if the UK diverges in ways it doesn't like. So not a 3-nil victory for the EU, but probably fair to call it a 3-1 victory.
More fundamentally, the agreement covers goods and not services. The EU has a surplus with the UK when it comes to trade in goods, so it was very much in their interest to ensure the agreement covered goods. Services, which account for 80% of the UK economy, and in which the UK has a trade surplus with the EU, are not covered. Quelle surprise! So the UK will have to go cap in hand to the EU in 2021, having now played our best cards, and appeal to their better nature to get a good deal in services. Given how much the financial sector contributes to the UK economy and the UK exchequer this is a vital economic interest for the UK. No doubt the Boris's charm and pluck - because that's about the only leverage we are now left with - will ensure the EU nobly resists the temptation to try and poach as much of this business as possible. In reality of course, as has been the case since 2016, the EU will be calling the shots.
But these arguments are redundant now. Brexit is done and Starmer clearly sees no mileage in keeping the issue alive. It is not a case of Remain is dead, long live Rejoin. Remain is not about to morph into Rejoin. I said above that the deal will not change anyone's view on brexit in the short term. However I do think people's views will evolve. There will come a point, probably 5 or more years down the line, when we can assess if brexit has delivered. If it is perceived as a success, then Remainers will accept it and Rejoin/Renegotiate will never get off the ground. On the other hand if brexit is perceived to have failed to deliver, then we might move towards renegotiating the deal with a view to getting closer to what we would have called a softer brexit. But I think that would be something for a 2nd term Labour government if it happens at all. Maybe demographic changes and natural wastage in the electorate will lead to a more pro-EU sentiment as younger people tend to be more pro EU. On the other hand if Scotland and/or NI leaves the UK then that increases the proportion of Leavers in what's left of the UK electorate. Maybe the SNP / Lib Dems would make renegotiating a softer brexit the precondition to support a Labour government. Even the DUP could go for a softer brexit if it would reduce the hated Irish Sea border, it's not completely impossible that Labour could outbid the Tories for DUP support.
I think we can all agree that only in the fulness of time will we see the true costs and benefits of brexit. What criteria will we use to assess it in 5-10 years' time?
The most basic test of success for any country or government is its economic growth rate. How will the UK's compare to the EU's over the next 5 - 10 years? When the UK declined to join the EEC in 1957 its growth rate fell behind the 6 members, leading to its attempts to join in the 1960s and its eventual joining in 1973. Will history repeat itself and our growth rate slow relative to the EU27? - most economists seem to think so. If no-deal was a car crash, then hard brexit is a slow puncture. Ultimately the prospect of higher economic growth is why countries want to join the EU and whatever else its faults may be - and there are many - it has delivered higher growth.
When the next American or Asian multinational is looking to open a factory in Europe will they choose the UK or the EU? The EU can offer access to a much bigger market than the UK. What compensating benefits can the UK offer? A more favourable regulatory environment - hang on, the EU have closed that off because if we diverge the we lose access to the single market. Perhaps we could offer generous grants/subsidies? Darn, that won't work either - the level paying field in the deal means we can't offer more then the EU equivalent. Now that we have cast off the shackles of the EU, there will be less bureaucracy imposed by Brussels, although admittedly there is all the pesky new customs paperwork now we are outside the EU. Still, at least we have pretty weak trade unions in the UK - oops, now that we have ended freedom of movement, thereby decreasing the pool of available labour, we have increased the power of unions in the market. (Remind me again why Thatcherites were pro-brexit?)
When it comes to negotiating future trade deals, it will be interesting to see if it ever happens that the EU and UK are negotiating with the same 3rd country at the same time and who gets the better deal from the 3rd country. Given that the EU can offer access to a much bigger - and therefore more lucrative - market I would imagine the EU will get the better deals. The UK will have fewer red lines to defend (i.e. won't be seeking special protections for French wine/cheese, etc.) and a much simpler ratification procedure so it will have some advantages over the EU.
Other than economics, the main litmus test for whether brexit is a success or failure will be the future of the UK itself. With hindsight, will brexit come to be seen by future historians and the decisive turning point that led to the end of the UK, or will the UK continue on into the 22nd century with its current 4 members?
Since this is primarily a forum for people who are DW fans, I'll end with a quote from the good Doctor
"Time will tell, it always does"