Buitenlandse politiek

[ALenstra]

Volgens Donald Trump zal IS volgende week overal verdreven zijn.

 

[Atreides]

Volgens Donald Trump zal IS volgende week overal verdreven zijn.

Kan mooi in het rijtje van de muur waar de Mexicanen voor betalen.

 

[Kralinger]

Er wordt nu in Ierland gemeld dat er een akkoord kan komen waarbij er een referendum over Ierse hereniging komt. Dan is Ierland bereid wat eisen te laten varen.

Als dat referendum er komt, lijkt Ierse hereniging er ongetwijfeld te komen.

 

[Max]

Dat zou een enorme doorbraak zijn.

 

[Kralinger]

Dat zou een enorme doorbraak zijn.

De Brexiteers zullen het nooit hardop toegeven, maar het zou me niet verbazen als redelijk wat daarvan wel blij zouden zijn met Ierse hereniging. Zijn ze gelijk van een hoofdpijndossier m.b.t. Brexit af.

 

[Atreides]

Er wordt nu in Ierland gemeld dat er een akkoord kan komen waarbij er een referendum over Ierse hereniging komt. Dan is Ierland bereid wat eisen te laten varen.

Als dat referendum er komt, lijkt Ierse hereniging er ongetwijfeld te komen.

Waar haal je dat vandaan?

Lijkt me trouwens dat die Schotten dan ook gaan Brexitten.

 

[Max]

Ik zie het ook niet direct ergens terug. Heb je toevallig een linkje Kralinger?

 

[Mario]

Een Ierse eenwording zal zeker niet zonder slag of stoot verlopen, zeker niet vanuit het oogpunt van de unionisten.

 

[Max]

Het was vorige maand toch al even onrustig? Toch bleek uit peilingen dat het sentiment wel aan verandering onderhevig is sinds Brexit.

 

[Atreides]

Het was vorige maand toch al even onrustig? Toch bleek uit peilingen dat het sentiment wel aan verandering onderhevig is sinds Brexit.

Ook wel grappig. Er stromen veel Brexiteers uit doordat ze overlijden en komen veel Remainers bij doordat ze stemrecht krijgen.

 

[Atreides]

De Atreides heeft nog even in 'the Guardian' gekeken.

No-deal Brexit: UK exporters risk being locked out of world's harbours

Goods dispatched in coming days may not arrive until after 29 March deadline

Richard Partington Economics correspondent
@RJPartington

Thu 7 Feb 2019 14.33 GMT
Last modified on Thu 7 Feb 2019 15.21 GMT

Shares
470
Cranes unload containers from ships at the international container yard in Tokyo’s port.
British trade officials are rushing to secure deals with individual countries to roll over existing agreements. Photograph: Toshifumi Kitamura/AFP/Getty Images

British exporters sending goods to far-flung destinations in the coming days risk being locked out of harbours around the world as a no-deal Brexit looms, business leaders have warned.

The Confederation of British Industry, the EEF manufacturers’ lobby group and trade experts said exporters could be dispatching goods from UK ports imminently which would not arrive until after the 29 March deadline – raising the prospect of goods being stuck in ports or facing hefty additional costs in the event of a disorderly Brexit.

The maximum shipping time to anywhere in the world is about 50 days – with the furthest being Australia and New Zealand – meaning cargoes sent from this weekend could face disruption when they arrive around the 29 March deadline.
A no-deal Brexit won’t result in a siege. The EU will be more clinical than that
Tom Kibasi
Read more

Ben Digby, international trade director at the CBI, said: “In the event of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, there are ships that are setting sail from the UK today that will have to weather a thick extra fog of uncertainty on the high seas, as they could arrive in port effectively locked out of the very market they have travelled across the world to get to.”

He warned that a shipment of whisky going to South Korea could risk having to wait in its destination harbour until the situation becomes clear. As much as ?71m of bottles are shipped to Korea each year, with the potential for 20% tariffs to be slapped on bottles overnight should they not arrive in time for 29 March, costing the industry ?14m a year.

The problems for seabound British exports – and imports – applies to several countries with EU trade deals where the UK benefits from preferential trading rights as a member of the bloc, which risk being lost straight away under a no-deal scenario.

British trade officials are rushing to secure deals with individual countries to roll over those existing agreements, although they admitted to business leaders at a private meeting on Wednesday that the majority wouldn’t be ready in time.

The UK exports roughly ?5bn worth of goods, on average, to the 60 countries that have free trade agreements with the EU, highlighting the potential knock-on effect for the economy that a no-deal scenario would have on UK companies. The EU and the countries it has trade deals with cover about 32% of global GDP.

Seamus Nevin, chief economist at manufacturing lobby group EEF, said: “These problems don’t just start on 29 March. It takes several weeks for container ships to travel from the UK to East Asia, Oceania, or South America. Very soon, sea-freight will be leaving the UK with no idea of the trade rules that will be in place when the goods arrive.”
Business Today: sign up for a morning shot of financial news
Read more

The situation has parallels with the US-China trade dispute last year, when US ships raced across the world to deliver soybeans before Beijing could impose tariffs on them. Some boats were stuck in harbours after failing to miss the deadline.

It also comes after Greg Clark, the business secretary, warned on Wednesday that the real deadline for averting no-deal Brexit was much closer than 29 March, due to the amount of time businesses need to ship goods around the world.

Speaking in front of the parliamentary business select committee, he said firms shipping goods to Japan needed six weeks’ notice to make decisions. He added: “People often say these things at the last minute. The last minute for important exporters is fast approaching over the next few days and weeks.”

Industry insiders said they hoped that countries would show leniency and continue to accept shipments of British goods after the deadline. They warned, however, that these might come with higher tariffs set under World Trade Organisation rules, which would be higher than existing arrangements.

Lesley Batchelor, director general of the Institute of Export and International Trade, said that most countries would want to continue trading. She added: “If I was a shipper I would not ship anything knowing this was going on without checking what was happening.

“If it’s a deal and we have transition, it’ll be fine. It’s really just no-deal talk that’s scaring everyone.”

A spokesperson for the Department for International Trade said it would not comment on the private meeting, but that the government was continuing to prepare for all eventualities.

The spokesperson said: “We are making good progress on securing deals and have signed agreements with Chile, the Faroe Islands, and Eastern and Southern African Economic Partnership Agreement states. We have mutual recognition agreements with Australia and New Zealand, and expect others to follow soon. We have also agreed the text of a trade agreement with Switzerland, which the government expects to sign shortly. ”

Hup Brexit!

 

[Atreides]

Forget new trade deals – Britain’s struggling to keep the ones it has
Sam Lowe
Liam Fox said up to 40 would be ready one second after Brexit. Well, they won’t, and the government must be honest about it
@samuelmarclowe

Thu 7 Feb 2019 15.17 GMT
Last modified on Thu 7 Feb 2019 15.38 GMT

The trade secretary, Liam Fox.
The trade secretary, Liam Fox, promised trade deals would be in place by March 2019. Photograph: James Gourley/REX/Shutterstock

“Global Britain” advocates often fail to acknowledge the long list of countries the UK already has free trade agreements (FTAs) with, by virtue of its EU membership. The EU’s trade partners include Turkey, Israel, Morocco, South Korea, South Africa, Chile, Mexico and, more recently, Canada and Japan.
A no-deal Brexit won’t result in a siege. The EU will be more clinical than that | Tom Kibasi
Read more

And these agreements matter to British business: up to 15% of UK exports are to countries the EU already has a trade agreement with. It is of little surprise that the Brexit priority for most British businesses – after securing a deep relationship with the UK’s most important trading partner, the EU – is not future free trade agreements with the US, New Zealand and others, but replacing those that already exist.

Yet clarity from the government has been hard to come by. The Financial Times reported that frustrations boiled over in a meeting this week in which government trade officials told a group of business executives that even if the UK leaves the EU with a deal, they cannot guarantee that existing EU trade agreements will continue to apply to the UK during the subsequent two-year transition period.

This should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Replacing all of the existing agreements by 29 March was never going to be possible, and the withdrawal agreement only requires the EU to ask its FTA partners to continue to extend the benefits of the deal to the UK for the duration of the transition – it can’t guarantee the FTA partners will say yes.

Replacing the trade agreements that the UK enjoys through its EU membership was always going to be tricky. All need to be renegotiated, if only a little, and some – for example the EU’s customs union with Turkey – are entirely dependent on the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

The UK appears to have done a good job on the replications it has concluded. One of the big fears about the replaced agreements is that British exports would no longer qualify for the tariff-free treatment because not enough of the value-added is created within the UK – the “rules of origin” question. However, the recently published text of the future UK-Chile replacement deal reveals that British negotiators managed to convince the Chileans to continue allowing British exports to account for EU inputs as being British for the purpose of meeting local content requirements.
UK ambassador to Chile, Jamie Bowden, and Roberto Ampuero, Chilean minister of foreign affairs
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
‘British negotiators managed to attain a favourable replacement deal with Chile.’ The UK’s ambassador to Chile, Jamie Bowden, and Roberto Ampuero, Chile’s minister of foreign affairs, in Santiago in January. Photograph: Agencia Makro/Getty Images

Whether they will be able to convince bigger trading partners, such as South Korea, to do the same remains to be seen, but it is a notable achievement nonetheless.

The real problem has been the UK’s lack of transparency, and lack of honesty about the difficulties inherent to the process from the beginning. In October 2017, Liam Fox, the trade secretary, said, “I hear people saying, ‘Oh, we won’t have any [free trade agreements] before we leave’. Well, believe me we’ll have up to 40 ready for one second after midnight in March 2019.” While he has since gone back on this, and indeed official government policy has changed, such statements linger, and run the risk of lulling companies into a false sense of security.

When the government has been honest with business groups and stakeholders, the information has often been delivered late in the day and contained to small groups, with participants sworn to secrecy or made to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Not being open about the difficulties of replacing existing trade agreements has consequences. As anyone who talks to small businesses in the UK will tell you, even those with experience of exporting remain entirely unprepared and largely unaware that existing free trade agreements might no longer apply.

If the UK is going to make a success of any post-Brexit trade policy this secrecy will need to end. These discussions cannot happen behind closed doors, and the trade-offs and consequences of government decisions should be made public as early as possible. If not, anger will continue to grow, people and businesses will be caught by surprise, and even the successes will be tainted by resentment.

• Sam Lowe is a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform

Hup Brexit!

 

[Kralinger]

Ik zie het ook niet direct ergens terug. Heb je toevallig een linkje Kralinger?

http://www.irishnews.com/news/north...er-poll-solution-to-brexit-conundrum-1545975/
https://t.co/0neSKdH7iE
Sinn Fein heeft ook het recht een referendum te eisen als een van de partij?n in het vredesproces, helemaal bij verandering van de situatie bij Brexit.

Het was vorige maand toch al even onrustig? Toch bleek uit peilingen dat het sentiment wel aan verandering onderhevig is sinds Brexit.

In het geval van een harde Brexit is volgens peilingen een grote meerderheid (peilingen geven tussen 60% en 70% aan) van de Noord-Ieren voor hereniging. We zijn nu ruim 20 jaar verder en in die tijd is het een stuk rustiger geworden. Een hele generatie die nu stemgerechtigd is kan vooral herinneren dat ze onder begeleiding van politie/leger e.d. naar school moesten. Veel mensen denken bij een evt. referendum niet meer volgens de oude, starre, lijnen, maar zijn juist veel nuchterder. Ze zullen eerder kijken wat het beste is voor vrede en de economie. De mensen die onder angst naar school moesten als kind willen vaak koste wat het kost voorkomen dat hun kinderen dit mee gaan maken.

 

[gevegt]

Hup Marokko!

Marokko wil niet meer onder leiding
van Saudi-Arabi? meevechten in Jemen,
zeggen anonieme regeringsbronnen tegen
persbureau AP.Ze zeggen ook dat de
ambassadeur in Riyad is teruggehaald.

De relatie tussen de koninkrijken is
gespannen,onder meer door het verloop
van de oorlog in Jemen en de moord op
Washington Post-columnist Khashoggi.

De Marokkaanse regering zou zich storen
aan recente bezoeken van de Saudische
kroonprins aan andere Arabische landen,
terwijl hij ervan wordt verdacht achter
de moord op Khashoggi te zitten.Marokko
zou ook de uitnodiging voor een bezoek
van de kroonprins hebben ingetrokken.

 

[JMD]

Lijkt me trouwens dat die Schotten dan ook gaan Brexitten.

Dat was toch allang bekend?

 

[Kralinger]

Dat was toch allang bekend?

Onze premier Nicola Sturgeon zal vermoedelijk binnen enkele weken de datum van het referendum hier bekend maken. Ervan uitgaande dat Brexit niet alsnog vertraagt/stopt.

 

[Ska P 187]

Mogen ze dat zo maar, want het lijkt me sterk (en vooral dom) namelijk. Ze hebben hun refer?ndum al gehad daar. Eens in een decennium lijkt me meer dan genoeg.

 

[Ska P 187]

Atreides, je moet echt even samenvattinkjes doen of een alinea pakken met een link naar het volledige artikel. Dit is asociaal en kan het forum ook problemen mee krijgen.

Ik las overigens ook dat de Britten een serieus probleem met de USA gaan krijgen mochten ze het goede vrijdag akkoord op wat voor manier dan ook gaan schenden. Dan kunnen ze een handelsverdrag, waarin ze al afgeslacht zullen worden, voorlopig op hun buik schrijven.
Thank God for the WTO.

 

[Kralinger]

Mogen ze dat zo maar, want het lijkt me sterk (en vooral dom) namelijk. Ze hebben hun refer?ndum al gehad daar. Eens in een decennium lijkt me meer dan genoeg.

In mei 2016 zijn er verkiezingen geweest in Schotland waarbij de 2 belangrijkste pro-onafhankelijkheidspartij?n (Scottish National Party & Scottish Greens) allebei in hun programma opgenomen hebben dat er een nieuw referendum komt als Schotland in meerderheid stemt om in de EU te blijven en het VK de EU uit gaat. Samen hebben ze meer dan 50% van de stemmen en de zetels gehaald en 62% van Schotland heeft "remain" gestemd, waardoor de basis er is voor dat referendum.

De Britse regering kan het hooguit vertragen, niet stoppen. Dat heeft te maken met de politieke status van Schotland. Ik hoor mensen het weleens met een gebied als Cataloni? vergelijken. Het grote verschil is dat Cataloni? een autonome regio binnen Spanje is (dat is toch hun offici?le status? Ik heb het nu even niet over de huidige politieke spanningen daar). Schotland heeft de status van land binnen het koninkrijk, wat bijvoorbeeld Aruba, Curacao & St. Maarten ook zijn in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Hierdoor is het VN-verdrag wat landen het recht tot zelfbeschikking geeft wel op Schotland en niet op (bijvoorbeeld) Cataloni? van toepassing. Dus een weigering van de Britse regering kan eigenlijk niet, want dat kan de Schotse regering juridisch aanvechten.

 

[Atreides]

Thank God for the WTO.

Succes met de WTO. Ooit. Een keer.

UK cannot simply trade on WTO terms after no-deal Brexit, say experts

UK may face seven-year wait for frictionless trade under WTO rules if it crashes out of EU

Amelia Hill
@byameliahill

Sun 27 Jan 2019 17.31 GMT
Last modified on Wed 30 Jan 2019 09.54 GMT


The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.

The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.

It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.
Sign up to our Brexit weekly briefing
Read more

“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”

The government’s own statistics have estimated that under the worst case no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK stays in the EU, in 15 years.

There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.

Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule: 20 over goods and three over services.

To make it more complicated, there are no “default terms” Britain can crash out on, Howard said, while at the same time, the UK has been blocked by WTO members from simply relying on the EU’s “schedule” – its existing tariffs and tariff-free trade quotas.

The second hurdle is the sheer volume of domestic legislation that would need to be passed before being able to trade under WTO rules: there are nine statutes and 600 statutory instruments that would need to be adopted.

The government cannot simply cut and paste the 120,000 EU statutes into UK law and then make changes to them gradually, Howard said. “The UK will need to set up new enforcement bodies and transfer new powers to regulators to create our own domestic regimes,” she said.

“Basic maths shows that we will run out of time but any gap in our system will create uncertainty or conflict,” said Howard. “Some of these regimes carry penalties such as fines – even criminal offences in some sectors.”

Unless there is an extension to article 50, both these hurdles will need to be crossed by 29 March. This, said Howard, was an impossible task. “Negotiating and ratifying the international free trade deals with the rest of the world alone could take over seven years,” she said.

“A no-deal Brexit could double prices for some products like meat and dairy. There is also a greater risk of trade disputes and sanctions, resulting in reduced market access for UK businesses.

“It’s not just about money,” she said. “We are dependent on imports for a lot of things that we don’t make any more or don’t make enough of, or simply cannot make as they are patented or subject to rules of origin – like lifesaving drugs, radioactive isotopes, chemicals (such as helium for MRI scans), medical equipment, chemicals, electricity, petrol, even milk. Shortages and delays could cause panic buying or even civil unrest.”
The Brexiteers’ idea of how WTO rules would work is pure fantasy
Kojo Koram
Read more

Rhodri Thompson QC, a specialist in competition and EU law at Matrix Chambers, agreed. He said: “The truth is that this would be extremely difficult and would not cover much of the UK economy at all.”

Howard dismissed ideas of a transition period enabling a “gradual transition” to WTO rules as “unicorns”. “The UK will have to start negotiating over 50 free trade agreements from scratch once we leave the EU. In the meantime we will have to pay tariffs.”

Economists for Free Trade, a group with links to Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davis, claims there is “nothing to fear” from leaving the EU without reaching an agreement.

David Collins, a professor of international economic law at City University of London, said: “The UK can trade quite easily on an uncertified schedule.”

However, Collins conceded that an uncertified schedule “might be an indication of that complaining member’s intention to initiate a dispute against the member,” and that “the WTO dispute settlement process can take several years to resolve”.

• This article was amended on 30 January 2019. Radioactive isotopes are not used in MRI scans, as an earlier version quoted Anneli Howard as saying. After publication, Howard corrected this to refer to chemicals such as helium in MRI scans, and her quote as been updated accordingly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/27/uk-cannot-simply-trade-on-wto-terms-after-no-deal-brexit-say-experts

Ik las overigens ook dat de Britten een serieus probleem met de USA gaan krijgen mochten ze het goede vrijdag akkoord op wat voor manier dan ook gaan schenden. Dan kunnen ze een handelsverdrag, waarin ze al afgeslacht zullen worden, voorlopig op hun buik schrijven.

Bron?????

Atreides, je moet echt even samenvattinkjes doen of een alinea pakken met een link naar het volledige artikel. Dit is asociaal en kan het forum ook problemen mee krijgen.

Jeetje, plaats de Atreides ook een keer iets zonder hyperlink maar met expliciete bronvermelding.