One thing I forgot to add, the biggest risk of disruption after Brexit is going to be from jobsworths who will query every single process that they carry out and will not do anything with express instructions from their management, regardless of the consequences.
Think of traffic wardens who will ticket a car who’s driver fas just dropped dead of a heart attack.
The main difference I see between the GFC and Brexit is that the GFC was everyone in the West’s problem. They all had a vested interest in sorting it out. Is it in the EU’s/US/China’s stategic interset to dig Britain out of a hole?
The GFC only affected one part of the economy, the banks. Brexit is all parts of the economy, it also affects defence, education, transport, justice. That’s a lot of late nights, they’d want to be getting started last year to hit March '19.
Brexit is a regional problem, mostly Britain and Irelands with it’s ramifications lessening as it radiates out. I can’t see the US power structures sitting through the night like it did for the GFC to pass rules to allow Britain to trade as it does presently under the EU. Will the Chinese politburo?
Given the UK does a lot of trade with the rest of the world under EU trade agreements, what will happen there, we are all aware of how the EU will treat them but by the sounds of it the ROTW will treat them the same if there is a risk of WTO litigation on anything other than WTO rules without separate trade agreements? I’ve read nothing of trade negotiations with the ROTW.
I expect that global traders will continue to operate under existing rules until new rules supersede them, after all in the real world they want minimal disruption.
To take a silly analogy, you’re driving down a road and come to a section where the white line has worn away or is missing due to road works, would you stop driving because you can’t see the centreline any more or continue to drive but keep to the left, many here seem to believe that traders will do the former.
It is in everyone’s collective interest to pretend that nothing has changed, but it will not be in individual’s interest to do so.
Sometime after the Brexit date there will be a mundane routine issue. There will be a car accident, or something similar, which will leave a number of people seriously injured and the insurance company will be on the hook for millions in claims. It may be callous to call this a routine issue, but accidents like this happen every day. When this happens the insurance company will look through all the legal agreements in minute detail and come up with a Brexit related reason why they don’t have to pay. A car accident results in millions in insurance claims, airline accidents results in hundreds of millions. The numbers are just too big to pretend and play along that nothing has changed.
Does anyone really believe the insurance companies will pay out millions when they don’t have to?
I’m not sure it is a good analogy. How about this one: you’re flying on holiday and they don’t check your passport on the way out. When you arrive in Britain, your passport is expired. What do you reckon the British border force do with you? My guess is they ship you right back on the next flight from whence you came. The uncertainty at the point of send means goods won’t be accepted for send. It may be that some goods are already in flight and will be accepted under the ‘old’ rules, but this is a delay.
Back to your road analogy. Imagine if the rule that said you drove on the left also was no longer in force and it wasn’t clear what replaced it. The roads become a freeforall, would you be happy to drive on them?
edit: and, as the Curious One says, you’re also no longer insured… or might not be…
Using the Passport analogy, you’re referring to one individual, if all the arrivals has passports that that had expired all at the same time, would you turn back planeloads or boatloads. The chaos would be extreme in the least, that is why it may be prudent by all sides to carry on under the existing rules until they are replaced.
The road analogy fails on the side you drive on as everyone already knows which side to drive on but they may not know what speed limit is in force and would probably (mostly) continue at the same speed they were already travelling, until they see a sign that states otherwise.
The bottom line is that a hard Brexit only becomes a really difficult phase if certain people want it to be!
Yes, they would turn back planeloads and boatloads of people. As I say, it might not be on the night, but they can’t indefinitely have open borders otherwise what’s the point in Brexit?
You’re missing the point of the driving analogy. The point is not that the line is missing, the point is that the line is no longer relevant. You no longer have to drive ona particular side or at a particular speed, those laws don’t exist anymore. If you drive an armoured car, you don’t care, for everyone else…
Nah…Remember we live in a world where the people running things encourage the acceptance of boatloads (hundreds/thousands?) of undocumented people into their territory on a daily basis. Some of them even encourage millions of such persons to wander across entire continents through other people’s territories when it suits them. They send their own militaries into the Mediteranean in order to facilitate the money making schemes of people traffickers and call it humanitarianism. All in contravention of the rules that supposedly underpin the founding principles of their own societies. The rules are the rules until they become a hindrance to those who matter. Thats the life lesson of the post-2008 world. No different here.
The potential for the type of economic collapse that those with an interest in seeing Brexit fail wish to see, lies in said (mainly political) interests outweighing the competing, more pragmatic economic interests of those whose business depends on access to the UK. Im not aware that this has ever happened during the course of my life to date (ie the political/ideologial given preference over the economic). Maybe post-Brexit will be the first time but I seriously doubt that the money men in and around the city of London and south of England generally will be seriously impeded in any way.
People along the Irish border or in the housing estates of Belfast on the other hand, have the appearance of folk who could quite safely be fed to the wolves in support of a political point.
Wonder how recent polling might tip the scales in negotiations?
Will it make Brexit soft again? Increase the chance of a vote on the final deal?
As much as I think Brexit is madness, imagine the EU-UK negotiators came up with some kind of deal at the 11th hour. It then gets rammed through the UK Parliament in marathon sessions - and through 27 other parliaments in a major hurry - and then they vote on whether to accept it. What a colossal waste of energy and loss of face the whole exercise would be.
Of course, if the option is ‘take this soft Brexit deal or crash out on Friday’, then it could be the most consequential vote of the century.
(Thinking about it now, to have a vote on the final deal, they would have to agree a transition period regardless of the outcome or it would be chaos)
I think part of the issue is that the uk society seems to be split down the middle over this, when we’re talking only 2-3% swing needed then polls of 15,000 people or so just aren’t going to be accurate enough.