Poor Brexit outcomes

[IvanV]

Similar type of graph, but percentage growth in goods exported from Q1-2016 to Q2-2-23

Much as Ireland is famously over-represented in GDP stats, the Netherlands is famously over-represented in goods export stats, because of trans-shipments through Rotterdam. The effect of trans-shipments on trade statistics is a rather more pervasive issue than the Irish GDP issue.

Looking just at goods exports you tend to get funny numbers. You need to look at goods imports and services trade too to get an overall picture. There are measurement problems with services trade. And there are general problems with trade stats, because when you add them up the world has a substantial trade deficit. Some if it is lost in transit, and there's smuggling and the black economy. But there isn't a convincing explanation for the magnitude of the number that comes up, and what we ought to do about it in consequence.

But, oh look, we tore up our trading agreements with our nearest neighbours, which had knock-on effects for everywhere else we trade, and now our export growth is a whole load less than theirs, what a surprise.

Though I wonder what the net position is. People trying to import components from the continent tell you it is a nightmare these days. So import growth might also have been slowed.

[headshot]

Andrea Leadsom has said today that “Brexit checks ‘price you pay for being a sovereign state again’”

“Andrea Leadsom says businesses experiencing ‘some friction’ should ‘adapt’ to changes in trade rules”

I hope you all enjoy fresh sovereignty for dinner, instead of vegetables.

[sTeamTraen]

Andrea Leadsom has said today that “Brexit checks ‘price you pay for being a sovereign state again’”

“Andrea Leadsom says businesses experiencing ‘some friction’ should ‘adapt’ to changes in trade rules”

I hope you all enjoy fresh sovereignty for dinner, instead of vegetables.

Well, at least that's vaguely honest, compared to "Nothing will change" and "We will have an even better deal after Brexit than before". People can decide if they want to continue with that friction. If they don't, they can vote for the Labour party, who have promised to take the UK back into the SM and CU at the earliest oh wait

[IvanV]

Andrea Leadsom has said today that “Brexit checks ‘price you pay for being a sovereign state again’”

“Andrea Leadsom says businesses experiencing ‘some friction’ should ‘adapt’ to changes in trade rules”

I hope you all enjoy fresh sovereignty for dinner, instead of vegetables.

Well, at least that's vaguely honest, compared to "Nothing will change" and "We will have an even better deal after Brexit than before". People can decide if they want to continue with that friction. If they don't, they can vote for the Labour party, who have promised to take the UK back into the SM and CU at the earliest oh wait

I think she was kind of thinking that many would believe that any price is worth paying for retrieving sovereignty. And it plays into a myth that being in the EU we entirely lost our sovereignty.

Whereas the reality is that signing up to the Treaty of Rome was just one of 100+ treaties we have signed up to that limit our sovereignty to decide things for ourselves to some degree. Probably it reduced it more than any of the others, but still we could decide many things for ourselves - Westminster and the devolved administrations were still very busy. And apparently with all the rest of those treaties, the reduction in sovereignty is worth the benefits, for we aren't proposing to leave any of them. Well there are occasional complaints about the ECHR by some of them, but that's the only one.

[Lew Dolby]

Surely, the bigger loss of sovreignty is signing up to trade deals that allow secret courts, run by and for private companies to meet behind closed doors to stop governments passing laws, or if they do, to get compensation if those laws impact on their profits.

Never hear the Tories complaining about them.

[bjn]

Surely, the bigger loss of sovreignty is signing up to trade deals that allow secret courts, run by and for private companies to meet behind closed doors to stop governments passing laws, or if they do, to get compensation if those laws impact on their profits.

Never hear the Tories complaining about them.

This. In spades.

[sTeamTraen]

I think she was kind of thinking that many would believe that any price is worth paying for retrieving sovereignty. And it plays into a myth that being in the EU we entirely lost our sovereignty.

There is a quite powerful message from the anti-EU lobby that "EU law has primacy over UK law". This is partly true, and the inferred consequences can readily appeal to low-information people of with only moderate mistrust of furriners.

The answer is of course (1) only in those areas where the member states have devolved power to the EU[*], (2) only with either qualified majority voting or in some cases unanimity from the Council, and (3) the laws they make tend to be very dull indeed. However, the statement on its own, and without those qualifications, makes it sound like Ursula von der Leyen can wake up one morning and ban Marmite or something, and the explanation of the truth takes too long for many of the aforementioned low-information people.

[*] I remember during Covid seeing several Leave-minded people shouting about how the EU should to more to take charge of public health across the member states. When it was pointed out to them that the EU would probably love to do this but public health was a devolved matter, these people seemed remarkably keen for sovereignty to be almost forcibly removed from the member states. Similar debates can be seen among pro-Ukraine but EU-skeptical people of my acquaintance about how the EU should do more on defence, when I know that many of them voted Leave at least partly to avoid "the coming EU Army".

[IvanV]

I remember during Covid seeing several Leave-minded people shouting about how the EU should to more to take charge of public health across the member states. When it was pointed out to them that the EU would probably love to do this but public health was a devolved matter, these people seemed remarkably keen for sovereignty to be almost forcibly removed from the member states. Similar debates can be seen among pro-Ukraine but EU-skeptical people of my acquaintance about how the EU should do more on defence, when I know that many of them voted Leave at least partly to avoid "the coming EU Army".

That type of highly inconsistent thinking was certainly much identified among leave voters at the time of the referendum too.

As you go further towards the political extremes in either direction, or religious extremes, then to maintain such positions it becomes increasingly necessary to hold multiple inconsistent points of view simultaneously. Indeed, demonstrably holding plainly false or inconsistent points of view is often an important badge of fidelity to such causes.

I remember some 25 or 30 years ago, when "neo-conservatism" was a relatively novel term in Britain, asking an American what it meant. They told me that neo-conservatives are people who believe stuff regardless of the evidence. I found this odd at the time. Some of these neo-conservatives didn't seem quite that stupid, foolishly thinking that you had to be really stupid to believe stuff regardless of the evidence. As time went on, it became clear I had been given a very accurate definition. But it is also true of harder left people too, religious people, etc. In fact, believing stuff regardless of the evidence is probably a common phenomenon in just about all of us, to some degree. None of us like having our preconceptions challenged.

[Sciolus]

As you go further towards the political extremes in either direction, or religious extremes, then to maintain such positions it becomes increasingly necessary to hold multiple inconsistent points of view simultaneously. Indeed, demonstrably holding plainly false or inconsistent points of view is often an important badge of fidelity to such causes.

I remember some 25 or 30 years ago, when "neo-conservatism" was a relatively novel term in Britain, asking an American what it meant. They told me that neo-conservatives are people who believe stuff regardless of the evidence. I found this odd at the time. Some of these neo-conservatives didn't seem quite that stupid, foolishly thinking that you had to be really stupid to believe stuff regardless of the evidence. As time went on, it became clear I had been given a very accurate definition. But it is also true of harder left people too, religious people, etc. In fact, believing stuff regardless of the evidence is probably a common phenomenon in just about all of us, to some degree. None of us like having our preconceptions challenged.

The capacity for doublethink is, I believe, deeply wired into the human brain. For instance, I know I will die one day, but I don't believe it. I believe that my family are better, more valuable and more important than other people, but I know that isn't actually true. I know I should eat better and exercise more, but I don't believe it. I believe that good-looking people are better people, but again I know that isn't true.

Some of these examples have obvious evolutionary benefits. Others are psychological biases which may have benefits or may be an unfortunate emergent property of our complex brains. But virtually everyone shares them.

The problem, needless to say, is when people allow this doublethink to spread, embrace their fantasies, and subjugate their rational minds when making decisions that affect others.

[sTeamTraen]

The capacity for doublethink is, I believe, deeply wired into the human brain. For instance, I know I will die one day, but I don't believe it. I believe that my family are better, more valuable and more important than other people, but I know that isn't actually true. I know I should eat better and exercise more, but I don't believe it. I believe that good-looking people are better people, but again I know that isn't true.

Some of these examples have obvious evolutionary benefits. Others are psychological biases which may have benefits or may be an unfortunate emergent property of our complex brains. But virtually everyone shares them.

The problem, needless to say, is when people allow this doublethink to spread, embrace their fantasies, and subjugate their rational minds when making decisions that affect others.

Hmmm. Maybe this is semantics, but for my part, I both know and believe (or know to be untrue and don't believe) most of those things. I would describe my doublethink as "sometimes I behave as if I don't know/believe them", which I think is quite different.

[Beaker]

So we sold some honey to the Saudis, and about four pallets of drugs to Columbia. Really worth it taking a month longer to get our products into the EU than it used to.

[Woodchopper]

British car exports to Canada are facing tariffs of more than 6 per cent within days, as a deadlocked trade dispute between the two allies descended into further acrimony on Wednesday.

British government officials said Kemi Badenoch, UK trade secretary, felt like she was banging her head “against a brick wall” as the tariff cliff-edge of April 1 approached.

Tensions escalated last month when Canada denied Badenoch’s claim that trade talks were continuing, even though she had unilaterally suspended them on January 25.

[…]

The resulting stand-off means that on April 1 a post-Brexit trade arrangement with Canada will expire, leaving some British car exports facing a 6.1 per cent tariff if they contain significant EU content.

The dispute started in January when Badenoch halted free-trade negotiations with Ottawa in a row over Canadian hormone-treated beef, a move that left British cheesemakers and carmakers facing significant tariffs.

The UK and Canada have a trade agreement that was rolled over when the UK left the EU. The deal included preferential terms on rules of origin for certain products; these will expire on April 1.

British-origin cars must be 50 per cent UK-made in order to qualify for export to Canada without paying tariffs, a proportion that rises to 55 per cent in September.

Until April 1, UK carmakers can include parts from their EU supply chains to meet this threshold. Preferential terms for UK cheesemakers expired at the end of last year.

After pulling the plug on talks on January 25, Badenoch told MPs she was continuing to talk to Canada. Ralph Goodale, Canada’s high commissioner to London, denied that claim on February 20.

[…]

The dispute covers a relatively small area of trade: while eight in 10 UK-made cars are exported, Canada accounts for only 1.3 per cent of exports — worth about £700mn in 2023 — which are dominated by Jaguar Land Rover.

The Canadian High Commission in London said: “Canada has been clear that any agreement to extend these provisions must be mutually beneficial.

https://www.ft.com/content/51f6afd3-920 ... 4e089d3081

Seems like trade deals are difficult.

[headshot]

Especially when you're more focussed on domestic culture wars and interal party politics.

[IvanV]

The Canadian High Commission in London said: “Canada has been clear that any agreement to extend these provisions must be mutually beneficial.

Seems like trade deals are difficult.

Indeed. I would translate what the High Commission said as follows. Britain is in a weaker position to negotiate trade deals as a nation than as part of the EU, and we will negotiate to our best advantage.

Now we are not in the EU, we can no longer enforce things that Canada had to accept to get a pan-EU agreement. So it seeks to chip those off in an individual agreement.

This, of course, was precisely why the EU prevented individual EU countries from making trade deals, and insisted on pan-EU deals. It actually achieved freer trade that way, contrary to Brexiters' gripes. The EU as a whole could get a better deal for the EU as a whole, because it could enforce some things on external nations that they wouldn't agree to in individual deals. At the same time, such an overall deal might have enforced some stuff on individual nations that they would have sought to avoid in individual deals.

The Brexiters went, free trade is a wonderful thing, and the EU has not been as much of a free trade enthusiast as we would like. So we can have freer trade outside the EU. But the reality is that in trade talks, both sides look to maximise their advantage, just as is happening here. Free traders tend to be countries like Singapore and Gulf States that have little to lose from freer trade, as their exports have competitive advantage and there isn't much they have that they might want to protect from imports. You can just roll over, as Britain did with Aus and NZ. Britain gets cheaper food, but at a cost of making much of our agriculture uncompetitive. And that tends to be a point at which most nations with material agriculture, that isn't internationally competitive, start to think that actually agriculture is strategic and needs a degree of protection.

[TopBadger]

Another Brexit Benefit:

Drug shortages, now normal in UK, made worse by Brexit

Take that remoaners!!