Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
Fair enough.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »- The procedure relating to Article 50 is straightforward.
- The agreed terms of Brexit might be straightforward, especially if there is a hard Brexit.
- The factors that will be carefully analysed and discussed before arriving at said terms will be various and complex.
0 -
But the EU is considerably larger than the UK. Per head of population, the UK stands to lose far, far more.solodeogloria wrote: »I disagree with your analysis that Britain has more to lose. The EU will lose out on the trade that Britain does with it which is greater than the amount that the UK sells into the EU.
I find it very hard to believe that you’re having trouble grasping this.
“Too many immigrants” is a positive message now?solodeogloria wrote: »I don't know why so many on this thread are so keen to see it either. The UK is actually approaching this from a positive perspective.
No, free movement of labour is an absolute fundamental of single market membership according to the entire EU (excluding the UK).solodeogloria wrote: »Single market membership requires free movement according to Juncker, Schulz and Tusk and some member states.0 -
The overwhelming majority of immigrants to the UK are vastly more educated and qualified than the average native. This idea that immigrants are generally unskilled and willing to work for peanuts is hopelessly out of date.The former employer of that Yorkshireman (who campaigned against Brexit) complains that he can't get a Yorkshireman to take up a job. What he really means is that no Yorkshireman will accept the poor pay and conditions that an eastern european or an asian immigrant will settle for.
Restricting immigration will do absolutely nothing to change the fact that a worryingly large chunk of the UK workforce lack even the most basic skills and training.
And they’ve done it all while remaining fervently pro-freedom of movement. Britain take note.Now, you may argue that it is not possible for a modern European (or indeed American) state to produce industrial goods in the global market at a competitive price, using its own citizens as the labour force, and treating them well, but I think Germany pre-2015 consistently proved that theory wrong.0 -
Good afternoon!But the EU is considerably larger than the UK. Per head of population, the UK stands to lose far, far more.
I disagree with that assessment. A number of countries the UK included would suffer in the event of the EU pushing for punitive treatment post-Brexit.
That's why - it isn't in anyone's interest that the UK is "punished" for making a democratic decision.I find it very hard to believe that you’re having trouble grasping this.
“Too many immigrants” is a positive message now?
No, free movement of labour is an absolute fundamental of single market membership according to the entire EU (excluding the UK).
It depends on how you look at it. Progressive laws around immigration and enabling skilled people to come in to Britain easily from all over the world is a positive vision. Curbing unskilled migration is also positive. That has clearly contributed to the outcome. I don't think the UK will be more closed as a result of this decision to the world rather they will be able to make reasonable choices about who enters Britain. I suspect migration will be probably at only a slightly lower level than we see today.
As for "single market membership" - you have to bear in mind that the UK may only be seeking "single market access" on good terms. That aside - it's a position that's still going to be up for discussion in the negotiation. The EU could come up with a new arrangement. Just because they say something now doesn't mean that is how it will end up.
Sovereignty over laws and borders isn't an unreasonable position to come from. It's what every sovereign nation has by default.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Immigration is a red line for the UK. The four freedoms are a red line for the EU.
We are not saying that someone has to break their red line - we are saying no-one will break either, which means hard Brexit.
Hard Brexit is inevitable - not because of what you outline above - but because that is all Article 50 has a mandate to provide. Article 50 negotiations are not the Future framework Negotiations.
Discussions about Red-lines occur after Article 50 negotiation concludes and Hard Brexit is in effect. They must leave fully, then negotiate for what they want from the EU.
Nate0 -
Advertisement
-
This report (sections 25-27) indicates that the Article 50 negotations include future relationship with the EU especially around the existing EU citizens in the UK and existing UK citizens in the EU
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/13805.htm#_idTextAnchor0140 -
No.solodeogloria wrote: »That's my point. Every single country that trades with the EU has single market access without free movement. Including countries with free trade agreements like Canada, South Africa, and South Korea.
And again, no.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Well it depends what you mean by participation. CETA will allow Canada to 'participate' in the Single Market without being a member of it, and whilst retaining migration controls.
There's a huge difference between (a) participation in the single market and (b) a free trade agreement with the single market. The EU effectively functioned as a free trade area right from the get-go, but only established a single market forty years later, in 1997 (and, even then, not completely). With a free trade agreement there are no tariffs, but there may (and generally are) be significant non-tariff barriers and there is no commitment to free movement of goods, capital, services or people. Estimates of the amount of EU GDP which is attributable to the introduction of the Single Market vary from 5% to 12% - which is to say, we would be 5% to 12% poorer today if we had not introduced the single market in 1997, but had just stuck with free trade.
Single market access, as distinct from participation, seems to me to be a trivial concept. Apart from countries which are the subject of sanctions, the whole world enjoys single mareket access, in that the import of goods and services from non-member countries is not banned.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »There's a distinction between single market access and single market membership. Single market membership requires free movement according to Juncker, Schulz and Tusk and some member states.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria
I don't think you understand the concept of the Single Market0 -
Participation is distinct from membership.Peregrinus wrote: »No.
There's a huge difference between (a) participation in the single market and (b) a free trade agreement with the single market.
No normal person expects the UK to be a member of the single market. But it might be able to participate in the single market.
I suspect you are deliberately using a strained interpretation of what I wrote whereby you are interpreting participation with membership, or having every benefit of membership.
There are already trade barriers within the single market, let alone in free trade agreements.With a free trade agreement there are no tariffs, but there may (and generally are) be significant non-tariff barriers0 -
The alienation, marginalisation and neglect of white lower socioeconomic groups caused this shift to the right. Don't blame the voters.0
-
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »No.
Good afternoon!
Why no?
I'm referring to access (trading into it) to the single market rather than membership.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
The alienation, marginalisation and neglect of white lower socioeconomic groups caused this shift to the right. Don't blame the voters.
That sounds as if anybody casting his vote has no responsibility regarding the result of an election. No, I can only strongly disagree with you on that one.0 -
The alienation, marginalisation and neglect of white lower socioeconomic groups caused this shift to the right. Don't blame the voters.
Will quote myself from AH, where you posted the above earlier:Your being rather unfair to them. They made there choice. There not children who don't know what there doing. If things don't work out, due to the choice they made, then its on them.
BTW, America has been a democracy this whole time. So all those other decisions that people disagree with. Guess what, also the fault of the people who elected them.
In a democracy you get the government you deserve, and nothing more. If it doesn't work out, then choose better next time, and stop making excuses.
Replace America with the UK above and it applies to this thread as well.0 -
As pointed out, the whole world can trade into the single market, with the possible exception of countries which are for the time being under UN sanctions. Single market access is nothing special.solodeogloria wrote: »Good afternoon!
Why no?
I'm referring to access (trading into it) to the single market rather than membership.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria
What the UK will presumably want is single market access on preferential terms. In other words, they'll want a free trade agreement of some kind with the EU.
They'll get it, too. But the devil is in the detail; the terms of that agreement remain to be seen. They'll get the most favourable trade agreement by opting for the softest Brexit. For example, if the UK agrees to continue to implement EU product standards, unrestricted entry for UK-produced goods should be easily attained. On the other hand, agreeing to the continued enforcement of EU legislation in this area would leave a lot of Brexiters spitting with rage. On the other other hand, why should the EU allow unrestricted, unmonitored entry of UK goods with no guarantee that they are produced to the same standards, and with the same protections, that apply to goods produced within the EU? It's not just a question of consumer safety; expect European producers to object to the free inflow of goods from UK producers who don't have to comply with EU labour market regulations, for example, or who may enjoy state aids that EU competition law prevents them from getting from their own governments.
Basically, there are tough choices to be made, and it's mainly down to the UK to make them. The most favourable access to the single market is got by participating in the single market, but the UK doesn't want to do that. But the more aspects of single market participation that the UK rejects, the more barriers to the free entry of UK goods and services arise. This isn't some kind of quid pro quo imposed to punish the British; it's the natural and forseeable consequence of the choices with the UK are making. It's reasonable for the UK to aspire to the right to take decisions autonomously, but the UK must live with the consequences of the decisions it takes.0 -
You disagree that the EU is larger than the UK?solodeogloria wrote: »I disagree with that assessment.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again, even though nobody is disagreeing.solodeogloria wrote: »That's why - it isn't in anyone's interest that the UK is "punished" for making a democratic decision.
Absolutely nobody on this thread, and I mean nobody, believes that the UK leaving the EU is going to be good for anyone – it’s bad for the UK and it’s bad for the EU.
However, the trading relationship that results between the EU and UK post-Brexit absolutely has to be worse than the existing arrangement, because that’s what the UK wants. Referring to such as “the EU punishing the UK” is just plain daft.
Ignoring for a moment that the overwhelming majority of people migrating to the UK from the EU are not “unskilled”, explain how curbing migration is positive?solodeogloria wrote: »Progressive laws around immigration and enabling skilled people to come in to Britain easily from all over the world is a positive vision. Curbing unskilled migration is also positive.
Yes it will. Greater restrictions on migration means a “more closed” economy.solodeogloria wrote: »I don't think the UK will be more closed as a result of this decision…
No, they won’t – there is absolutely no way the EU is going to fundamentally reshape itself to suit the UK. That is staggeringly arrogant.solodeogloria wrote: »As for "single market membership" - you have to bear in mind that the UK may only be seeking "single market access" on good terms. That aside - it's a position that's still going to be up for discussion in the negotiation. The EU could come up with a new arrangement.0 -
You’re clearly not reading solodeogloria’s posts.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Participation is distinct from membership.
No normal person expects the UK to be a member of the single market.0 -
I think we're just using terminology slightly differently, Tyrant. But I don't think my usage is strained, and it certainly isn't deliberately strained.A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Participation is distinct from membership.
No normal person expects the UK to be a member of the single market. But it might be able to participate in the single market.
I suspect you are deliberately using a strained interpretation of what I wrote whereby you are interpreting participation with membership, or having every benefit of membership.
To participate in something is to be involved in it, to take part in it, to be a part of it. I am treating "participate" as meaning the same as "be a member of", and it's only now that I am realising that you are not. But, given that you're not, I'm still not entirely clear what you do mean by "participate" in this context. Does every country that does any trade into or out of the single market "participate" in the single market? Or does participation in the market involve more than trading, but still less than membership? And, if that's the case, what does participation involve?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »As pointed out, the whole world can trade into the single market, with the possible exception of countries which are for the time being under UN sanctions. Single market access is nothing special.
What the UK will presumably want is single market access on preferential terms. In other words, they'll want a free trade agreement of some kind with the EU.
Good afternoon,
Therefore we agree on our understanding of access to the single market.
I agree with your assessment also.
I was confused by your 'No'.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
I'm using participation to mean that a country has access to the Single Market on preferential terms, in exchange for certain quid pro quos.Peregrinus wrote: »I'm still not entirely clear what you do mean by "participate" in this context. Does every country that does any trade into or out of the single market "participate" in the single market? Or does participation in the market involve more than trading, but still less than membership? And, if that's the case, what does participation involve?
For example, CETA is an FTA that will allow Canada to freely trade into the European Single Market in respect of most goods, but it must agree to be bound by European regulatory demands, it must be flexible on labour force movement into Canada by British firms (which is different to freedom of movement, of course), and other obligations that don't ordinarily attach to third country trade with the EU.
Canada hasn't been plunged into the Single Market, but it's toes are effectively in it, and it's getting a lot of the trade benefits.
I consider this participation in the Single Market, without going so far as being full participation, and certainly not membership.0 -
Good afternoon!You disagree that the EU is larger than the UK?
You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again, even though nobody is disagreeing.
Please read my post. I said I don't agree that the UK will stand to lose far more. I never said anything about population sizes.Absolutely nobody on this thread, and I mean nobody, believes that the UK leaving the EU is going to be good for anyone – it’s bad for the UK and it’s bad for the EU.
However good or bad it will be will depend on the line that the EU will take. There are options that wouldn't be punitive.However, the trading relationship that results between the EU and UK post-Brexit absolutely has to be worse than the existing arrangement, because that’s what the UK wants. Referring to such as “the EU punishing the UK” is just plain daft.
It's never daft to call a spade a spade. It's up to the EU to decide if it wants to hurt Britain and in return itself and by how much. There are also non-punitive options.Ignoring for a moment that the overwhelming majority of people migrating to the UK from the EU are not “unskilled”, explain how curbing migration is positive?
Yes it will. Greater restrictions on migration means a “more closed” economy.
No, they won’t – there is absolutely no way the EU is going to fundamentally reshape itself to suit the UK. That is staggeringly arrogant.
I agree that most are skilled which is why I believe migration for skilled people will remain as it is today. Letting people in according to need is important because it ensures that British people aren't competed out of work in tight sectors. This is how immigration works in most western countries. It is in Britain's interest to have a very open border for skilled necessary migration. Most people in the UK are supportive of allowing relatively free skilled migration. Controls where they are necessary are important because it ensures that British people aren't out competed for work in certain sectors. The UK should be a country for everyone and if controls on unskilled migration help that then they are on the cards. These concerns have been around for a while. David Cameron tried to get concessions last year. They weren't good enough for the British people. No controls on migration was widely deemed to be a failure in those talks.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Advertisement
-
solodeogloria wrote: »
However good or bad it will be will depend on the line that the EU will take. There are options that wouldn't be punitive.
Er no, it depends if the UK demands are seen as reasonable by the remaining 27 members of the EU. If the UK demands are deemed unreasonable, they will not be accepted0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
I think we need to get away from this notion of "punishment". Freedom of movement is there not to "punish" any state. Rather its in the EEA's collective interest.0 -
Objectively, and logically, relative to the pre-Brexit situation, every aspect of single market participation that the UK rejects, is likely become one more trade barrier to the free entry of UK goods and services, with the significance varying as a function of how tall each barrier is or becomes, if not in negotiations then in practice.Peregrinus wrote: »<...> But the more aspects of single market participation that the UK rejects, the more barriers to the free entry of UK goods and services arise. <...>
Some NTBs are likely to amount to 100% from the get-go, and a simple (anecdotal) example to easily explain this issue to solodeogloria, is that which my (UK) industry is now facing in respect of rights of audience at the EU Intellectual Property Office.
To have access to the EUIPO as a practitioner, one has to be (IP-) qualified in an EU member state.
For the EUIPO to communicate with representatives (or with a self-representing EU trade mark or design applicant), the IP professional or their firm (or the self-representing applicant) must be based in an EU member state.
That is how and why an EU-based applicant can self-file an EU TM application, but a non-EU (e.g. Swiss, US, <etc.>) applicant cannot: they have to come to me (figuratively speaking: any professional on the EUIPO Register) to get it done.
Now, currently still, the UK's single market membership means unfettered access by the UK IP profession (UK trademark attorneys) to the European trademark and design registration system of the EUIPO.
Right now, if a UK client, or an Irish client, or a US client, or a Japanese client <etc.> rings my office in the UK, I can file an EU TM or design for them at the click of a button. My market is global and my competition is EU-wide, EU and non-EU clients can come to me or go to Manfred in Munich or Gérard in Paris <etc.>
Currently, there is no other 'barrier' in that respect, than price competition: we Brit, French, German, Spaniard <etc.> trade mark attorneys are all equal before the EUIPO and EU/non-EU clients. A proper pan-European commodity service.
But take Brexit now: anything less than single market membership (i.e. access to the single market access on any model less than membership), means no access for the UK IP profession (UK trademark attorneys) to the European trademark and design registration system of the EUIPO.
Yes, that's an outright loss of all rights of audience at the EUIPO for the UK profession. NTBs don't come much taller than that: you are simply forbidden from accessing this "market" (filing EUTMs and designs and representing applicants at the EUIPO as a professional service) entirely.
A simplistic analogy for the less legally-literate: this European Court's doors are now shut to British solicitors, permanently and without exception, so hand your cases over to the EU competition and go do your stuff at your own British Courts.
And no, that can't be negotiated (at all as I believe, for statutory reasons as much as self-interested lobbying by the EU competition).
So what's the net effect, practically? Loss of global competitiveness for the UK profession and higher cost of protection for UK rights owners.
Post-Brexit, if a UK client, or an Irish client, or a US client, or a Japanese client <etc.> rings my office in the UK and wants an EU TM or design, I'll have to ask an Irish attorney, or a French attorney, or a German attorney <etc.> to do it for me.
No tariffs whatsoever in the above, 100% NTB, and 100% effective in shutting out the Brit competition from that particular EU services market.
And it won't be the EU "punishing" the UK either, as all of the above is simply a straightforward and inevitable application of decades-old law, predicted and discussed months before the Referendum: the law says that to use this system as a representative you must be EU-qualified and -based. Once you're neither and/or nor (because the UK is out), you cease to fulfil the criteria, so you can't use the system. Simple as.
That's just my industry, very niche and specialist. Feel free to research and extrapolate how far/wide the principle holds true.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »They weren't good enough for the British people
The £350m per week to the NHS was good enough though0 -
But I did. You’re disagreeing that, per head of population, the UK stands to lose more than the EU?solodeogloria wrote: »Please read my post. I said I don't agree that the UK will stand to lose far more. I never said anything about population sizes.
Please answer the question directly, rather than repeating the same old vagaries. If you disagree, then explain why.
There you go again with the “punitive” nonsense. As explained above by Peregrinus, how restrictive the EU-UK relationship is post-Brexit is largely up to the UK. Nothing substantive need change – it’s entirely up to them.solodeogloria wrote: »However good or bad it will be will depend on the line that the EU will take. There are options that wouldn't be punitive.
You can keep repeating all you want that the EU refusing to budge on it’s core principles equates to some sort of punishment of the UK, but it’s a rather warped view of reality.
First of all, ensuring that “British people aren’t out-competed” is in nobody’s interest in the long run. Rather than restricting migration, it makes far more sense to ask why British people are being out-competed, if they are at all – unemployment figures suggest that they’re not to any great extent.solodeogloria wrote: »Letting people in according to need is important because it ensures that British people aren't competed out of work in tight sectors.
Secondly, the market essentially controls who is needed and who is not – introducing red tape to manage a flow that is largely self-regulating is inefficient. People, “skilled” and “unskilled”, move to the UK to take available jobs. Those jobs are available because British people are either not qualified to take them or do not want to take them for other reasons. “Protecting” British workers from immigrants won’t change that fact – it will just make it more difficult for employers to fill vacancies, which is bad for the economy.
Why are you conflating “skilled” with “necessary”?solodeogloria wrote: »This is how immigration works in most western countries. It is in Britain's interest to have a very open border for skilled necessary migration.
No they’re not. Most people in the UK want to see a reduction in immigration – they don’t care whether it’s “skilled” or “unskilled”.solodeogloria wrote: »Most people in the UK are supportive of allowing relatively free skilled migration.0 -
Jep Gambardella wrote: »I think we need to get away from this notion of "punishment". Freedom of movement is there not to "punish" any state. Rather its in the EEA's collective interest.
Excellent point. Not getting what you want from the other guy isn't punishment. The EU doesn't owe the UK anything and vice versa. The EU acting in its own interests is just that, not punishment.0 -
Good afternoon,But I did. You’re disagreeing that, per head of population, the UK stands to lose more than the EU?
Comparing the whole EU to Britain isn't sensible. Individual member states could suffer about as much as Britain if not more. Obviously the impact on Brexit depends on the amount of exposure the member state has to the UK. Ireland for example would suffer greatly without a good deal for Britain.Please answer the question directly, rather than repeating the same old vagaries. If you disagree, then explain why.
There you go again with the “punitive” nonsense. As explained above by Peregrinus, how restrictive the EU-UK relationship is post-Brexit is largely up to the UK. Nothing substantive need change – it’s entirely up to them.
If it hadn't been widely documented in many forms of media that some other member states and from the European institutions want to make Brexit painful for Britain then I agree the word punitive wouldn't need to be used.You can keep repeating all you want that the EU refusing to budge on it’s core principles equates to some sort of punishment of the UK, but it’s a rather warped view of reality.
I haven't actually said that. What I've said is that red lines are malleable on both sides of a negotiation and compromise is usually reached. We don't know if Britain is even going to shoot for single market membership at this point.First of all, ensuring that “British people aren’t out-competed” is in nobody’s interest in the long run. Rather than restricting migration, it makes far more sense to ask why British people are being out-competed, if they are at all – unemployment figures suggest that they’re not to any great extent.
It is in the interests of the people who are affected. Unemployment figures aren't a useful metric because they are for the whole not sector by sector based. Wages for unskilled workers need to be considered also.Secondly, the market essentially controls who is needed and who is not – introducing red tape to manage a flow that is largely self-regulating is inefficient. People, “skilled” and “unskilled”, move to the UK to take available jobs. Those jobs are available because British people are either not qualified to take them or do not want to take them for other reasons. “Protecting” British workers from immigrants won’t change that fact – it will just make it more difficult for employers to fill vacancies, which is bad for the economy.
I disagree. Controls are only needed where there is an oversupply of labour and where there is an adverse affect on wages for unskilled workers. I think that's an important takeaway from the referendum. Most countries in the world have a system for handling this. Heck, even the EU has a system for protecting their economies from this. If they didn't they wouldn't bother with external borders to anywhere.Why are you conflating “skilled” with “necessary”?
No they’re not. Most people in the UK want to see a reduction in immigration – they don’t care whether it’s “skilled” or “unskilled”.
Most people in the UK want skilled migration (migration that satisfies a need in the economy) to continue from polling in the Guardian.84% say EU citizens already living in the UK should be able to stay. This includes a majority of both Leave voters (77%) and Ukip supporters (78%);
■ Only 12% want to cut the number of highly skilled workers migrating to Britain; nearly half (46%) would like to see an increase, with 42% saying that it should stay the same;
■ Almost two-thirds (62%) want numbers of low-skilled workers reduced.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
I would seriously doubt the malleability of EU Red Lines.
I'm afraid that compromising the Single Market and the EU as a whole just isn't plausible.0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:There are already trade barriers within the single market, let alone in free trade agreements.
Which ones?0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19381
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement