Post Brexit Britain

[Hmm]

If Britain had declared a hard no deal Brexit 4 years ago, and established a WTO trade relationship with the EU at the end of 2016, they would have been begging for fishing licences at any price within days.

Mauritania is the only country that relies solely on WTO rules in relation to their trade with the rest of the world. All WTO members have better access to at least market than that provided under WTO rules, either through an FTA or duty-free preferences for developing countries. Don't forget that in a hard Brexit the UK will lose all it's FTAs with the rest of the world because these were obtained as an EU member. Canada agreed yesterday to continue with the UK on EU rules but only until a Canada-UK deal is negotiated. And as we are a much smaller economic power than the EU, we cannot get a better deal than the one we had. This is also true for all our future trade deals.

Fishing accounts for 0.1% of the UK economy whereas 43% of our trade is done with the EU so that's a red herring.

The EU wouldn't dare punish our exporters because we import from the EU more than they import from us. A trade war would hurt them real bad.

The EU can't "punish" our exporters because that would be unlawful. Like every other WTO member, it has to treat every other member the same as it treats its most favoured status member unless it has a FTA with them.

As over 43% of our trade is with the EU and only about 6% of EU trade is with the UK, a trade war is going to hurt us even more

 

[mindlight]

Mauritania is the only country that relies solely on WTO rules in relation to their trade with the rest of the world. All WTO members have better access to at least market than that provided under WTO rules, either through an FTA or duty-free preferences for developing countries. Don't forget that in a hard Brexit the UK will lose all it's FTAs with the rest of the world because these were obtained as an EU member. Canada agreed yesterday to continue with the UK on EU rules but only until a Canada-UK deal is negotiated. And as we are a much smaller economic power than the EU, we cannot get a better deal than the one we had. This is also true for all our future trade deals.

Fishing accounts for 0.1% of the UK economy whereas 43% of our trade is done with the EU so that's a red herring.



The EU can't "punish" our exporters because that would be unlawful. Like every other WTO member, it has to treat every other member the same as it treats its most favoured status member unless it has a FTA with them.

As over 43% of our trade is with the EU and only about 6% of EU trade is with the UK, a trade war is going to hurt us even more

We all know the measure of the problem, the point is where we go from here. There are rays of hope as with Canada in what you wrote as come "D-Day" things will just stay as normal until we complete negotiations. Fishing is a minor industry but illustrates very well the BREXIT problem. We have adopted a model of foreign ownership and global integration at the price of self sufficiency for a great many years. We have focused on core competencies like Banking and insurance at the expense of other sectors. Re-balancing the economy in a post BREXIT Britain will require massive local growth in some sectors and an acceptance of relative decline in others, deprived of privileged access to European markets.

The size of EU Exports to the UK may be a small % of the whole but not for some countries like the Low countries and Ireland for instance. So the 27 will need to look out for countries that could be most disrupted by blocks in this trade. That also applies to individual sectors of the economy. Also that there is a surplus on this trade for the EU right now is significant. 6% at a time of covid recession is a significant number.

I wonder for instance what a penalization of British banks will do to the availability of investment capital in EU markets.

 

[Hmm]

The Low Countries and the Irish Republic will be disproportionately affected but they have still made clear that the integrity of the Single Market is more important economically to them than the UK market is. The EU 27 have managed to maintain a united front throughout the whole Brexit negotiations which is more than the UK 1 managed!

I don't know where we go from here but I doubt it will be to the sunlit uplands that was promised. We can't possibly leave our biggest trading partner and be better off. And when things do go wrong, Brexiters won't hold their hands up and take responsibility. They'll blame the EU for punishing us, as we saw an intimation of in the post above, and scapegoat Remainers for not believing in the Brexitland unicorns hard enough.

 

[mindlight]

The Low Countries and the Irish Republic will be disproportionately affected but they have still made clear that the integrity of the Single Market is more important economically to them than the UK market is. The EU 27 have managed to maintain a united front throughout the whole Brexit negotiations which is more than the UK 1 managed!

I don't know where we go from here but I doubt it will be to the sunlit uplands that was promised. We can't possibly leave our biggest trading partner and be better off. And when things do go wrong, Brexiters won't hold their hands up and take responsibility. They'll blame the EU for punishing us, as we saw an intimation of in the post above, and scapegoat Remainers for not believing in the Brexitland unicorns hard enough.

I agree about debunking glitzy unicorns roaming freely in the sunlit uplands of the post BREXIT world. But still actions need to be taken, how can Britain meet this challenge? Does it go for:

1) self sufficiency or
2) global without EU or
3) does the EU remain crucial.

There are a number of different approaches that can be taken now.

 

[Hmm]

I think you're right, those are the options ahead of them. We are a small country and we've always been a trading nation. No country in the world is self-sufficient, not even North Korea.

It's all very well for Brexiteers to talk about global Britain but what does that mean in practice. We export very little that can't be exported cheaper by other countries, China in particular. The only things I can think of is Marmite and Downton Abbey and we'll struggle to run the country on that. Most of our trade is in services, particularly financial services in the City of London and as you said this is already being impacted by the loss of EU passporting rights.

The EU must remain central to our economic policy because we attract foreign investment largely because we have free access to the Single Market. We have already lost a lot of investment to the EU because of Brexit. Large companies have PR departments and won't say Brexit is the reason so as not to annoy the Brexiteers but Elon Musk, being the maverick he is, openly said that we lost out on the new European Tesla plant to Germany because of Brexit.

But it's not just economic. Hate crime has risen a lot since Brexit and, as I'm sure you've noticed, we are becoming an insular and nationalistic little island nation. I preferred being pragmatic, tolerant and outward looking.

 

[Andrewn]

2.The commonwealth is far more interested in the larger markets of China, USA and to a lesser extent Europe to give their former oppressers(in the case of the non white members) to give a 4x in regard to the UK, though Canada has agreed to trade on the same terms they agreed with the EU.

I think that including the UK would be good for NAFTA. Biden is a globalist and will probably welcome foreign treaties.

Also, the UK can have a role through the Commonwealth in the Asia Pacific Free Trade agreement. And I'd love to see more involvement in Africa to counteract Chinese influence.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

We already have 2, now we need aircraft and escort vessels for these. Also the carrier platform itself needs better armaments as these are quite sparse at moment

The focus is less empire than helping friends, global presence, trade protection and NATO

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Perhaps there would actually be civilian applications to those billions of pounds instead of new warships that might already be technologically obsolete with the rise of hypersonic anti shipping missiles.

Not like the survival of the British Isles is anymore tied to their navy like it was during Napoleonic wars or WWII.

 

[Hmm]

I think that including the UK would be good for NAFTA. Biden is a globalist and will probably welcome foreign treaties.

I agree but unfortunately for the UK, Biden cares about the effect that any post-Brexit trade deal has on the Good Friday Agreement which has maintained peace in Ireland for over 20 years. The withdrawal agreement signed by the UK and EU two years ago included a protocol guaranteeing that there would be no hard border at the Irish border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This is needed because if there is a return to custom posts these will be the object of attacks just like in the days of the Troubles. It is only because the UK and the ROI are both in the EU that a hard border is not needed.

Now that the UK is leaving there will have to be a border of some sort to check the flow of goods from the UK into the EU. Brexiteers say that we wouldn't impose a border so why would the EU and that it's a sign of bullying on the their part but the reality is that the EU has to impose a border because of the most favoured nation status clause of the WTO rules. England (perfidious Albion) has said in Parliament that we are willing to break international law and impose such a border because it doesn't like the EU proposal of a border in the North Sea between Great Britain and NI believing that would lead to a break up of the UK. Trump didn't care about the GFA but Biden has made it clear there will be no trade deal with the US if we endanger it.

Edited many typos!

 

[mindlight]

I think that including the UK would be good for NAFTA. Biden is a globalist and will probably welcome foreign treaties.

Also, the UK can have a role through the Commonwealth in the Asia Pacific Free Trade agreement. And I'd love to see more involvement in Africa to counteract Chinese influence.

Membership or associate membership of the USMCA would be good and you are right there might be some possibility for deals in Africa also. America would still have its EU relationship also. The benefit for the UK of having the US behind it in USMCA - EU trade negotiations is obvious also.

 

[mindlight]

I think you're right, those are the options ahead of them. We are a small country and we've always been a trading nation. No country in the world is self-sufficient, not even North Korea.

It's all very well for Brexiteers to talk about global Britain but what does that mean in practice. We export very little that can't be exported cheaper by other countries, China in particular. The only things I can think of is Marmite and Downton Abbey and we'll struggle to run the country on that. Most of our trade is in services, particularly financial services in the City of London and as you said this is already being impacted by the loss of EU passporting rights.

The EU must remain central to our economic policy because we attract foreign investment largely because we have free access to the Single Market. We have already lost a lot of investment to the EU because of Brexit. Large companies have PR departments and won't say Brexit is the reason so as not to annoy the Brexiteers but Elon Musk, being the maverick he is, openly said that we lost out on the new European Tesla plant to Germany because of Brexit.

But it's not just economic. Hate crime has risen a lot since Brexit and, as I'm sure you've noticed, we are becoming an insular and nationalistic little island nation. I preferred being pragmatic, tolerant and outward looking.

Fish is one thing we could export to other markets if we fished it ourselves. There are also things we can eliminate from imports like oil and gas with an alternative energy/electric transport strategy. A greater level of home agricultural production or cheap imports from the US might cut costs. There are high end products where Britain still excels and a global financial market is still possible from London. The entertainment industry , Scottish whiskey and other products are global players as are arms manufacturers. This is far from a hopeless situation. Keeping Britain outwards looking by joining USMCA and some kind of African trading zone might also be a way forward. Eventually some kind of normalcy will probably be restored to the EU relationship also.

 

[mindlight]

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Perhaps there would actually be civilian applications to those billions of pounds instead of new warships that might already be technologically obsolete with the rise of hypersonic anti shipping missiles.

Not like the survival of the British Isles is anymore tied to their navy like it was during Napoleonic wars or WWII.

Carriers can be offshore Aid coordination centers in a natural disaster or crisis, can provide security to countries that lack that. They can project both hard and soft power. For the moment such missiles are restricted to a handful of nations and there are some defenses against these.

 

[Hmm]

Carriers can be offshore Aid coordination centers in a natural disaster or crisis, can provide security to countries that lack that.

Though it's ironic that the announced increase in military expenditure is probably going to be at the expense of a reduction in the overseas aid budget.

 

[Albion]

That's an interesting point that the OP raises. If BREXIT were to happen during a Trump presidency, the UK would be 'sitting pretty' with post-BREXIT trade agreements with the USA and allied nations. Now, if it's Biden or Harris in charge, that's all out the window.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Carriers can be offshore Aid coordination centers in a natural disaster or crisis, can provide security to countries that lack that. They can project both hard and soft power. For the moment such missiles are restricted to a handful of nations and there are some defenses against these.

Sure they can be used for that but realistically it is probably too expensive to station an aircraft carrier for some humanitarian mission on regular basis especially if you are not a stinking rich superpower.

There are vastly more cost efficient ways to project soft power and there is a reason why US has been the only one capable of fielding continuous rotation of these behemoths around the globe for whatever gunboat diplomacy deemed necessary.

Also the price tag of these really makes them irreplaceable especially for UK who only has two of them so probably on the places they would do most good might be deemed to dangerous to actually send them.

I doubt we will see them on South China Sea supporting US carrier squadrons any time soon.

One of them will be on goodwill cruise to Oslo or something while the other one is doing refit/training/maintenance or whatever on dry dock.

 

[Hmm]

If BREXIT were to happen during a Trump presidency, the UK would be 'sitting pretty' with post-BREXIT trade agreements with the USA and allied nations.

We would have had a deal but with his America First would it have been a good deal for the UK. The Tory government is desperate for any old trade deals it could get to try to prove that Brexit isn't a disaster and a major concern among many here was that we would sign up to lower animal welfare standards in particular chlorinated chicken. The US could never replace the trade lost with the EU though because of the fact that all countriest do most of their trade with their geographical neighbours.

 

[Albion]

We would have had a deal but with his America First would it have been a good deal for the UK.

Yes. Absolutely. It would have been good for the USA because we would have had less reason to 'give away the store' to China or similar governments; and it would also be good for the UK because any loss from the EU arrangements would not have to be made up for by scraping together a flock of trading partners with smaller economies and less reliable governments.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

smaller economies and less reliable governments.

Scale of economy is undeniable but US and reliable have not been a word combo for some time. Like last 4 years...

 

[Albion]

Scale of economy is undeniable but US and reliable have not been a word combo for some time. Like last 4 years...

Very funny. No, really. Look at my face. I've never heard that retort before.

 

[mindlight]

That's an interesting point that the OP raises. If BREXIT were to happen during a Trump presidency, the UK would be 'sitting pretty' with post-BREXIT trade agreements with the USA and allied nations. Now, if it's Biden or Harris in charge, that's all out the window.

Yes true Trump would have made a deal. But that does not rule out President Elect Biden doing that. Britain is too closely tied to the US for a change of the guard to matter to the relationship and hopefully Biden will also want a trade agreement that works with the Good Friday agreement and works for both countries.

 

[mindlight]

Scale of economy is undeniable but US and reliable have not been a word combo for some time. Like last 4 years...

The US has not been an unreliable ally to the UK this last 4 years. It would have worked out with Trump , but it can also with Biden