Brexit discussion thread II

Samaris

To add to that, the EU and Canada had a FTA deal cleared not long before Brexit. It took seven years and nearly fell through. Britain did some hopeful flailing on that direction to get some freelancing trade negotiators as they really do not have enough of their own (40 at the start, vs 550 EU ones).

Samaris

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What I find disconcerting is that the only party that has shown any concern for Northern Ireland is the European Union. NI was barely an afterthought in the campaigns. The Leave side didn't mention it at all whereas the Remain side seemed to busy with economic projections designed to woo potential Tory Leave voters into voting remain.

The EU have made the border issue a central element of the negotiations, so much so that negotiations cannot progress until agreement is reached.

As I understand it, the EU acts as a sort of co-guarentor of the rights of citizens regarding the GFA. It played a role in the GFA that tends to get rather sidelined in talks about it. It's a good deal for RoI's sake as a member (and the EU was, at base, a -peace project-, through economic integration), but it is also honouring committments made during the formation of the deal.

Unfortunately, "honour" is such a rare quality in current politics that it's almost surprising to see even one party to these talks showing it.

MPFGLB

David Davies may not be Brexit minister for much longer. His own Civil Servants have frozen him out and German Business leaders have shown contempt for his grasp of EU trading principles.
He fails to convince anyone he even understands the basics

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/exclusive-david-davis-could-quit-frozen-brexit-strategy-civil/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_ApwphPPxn735

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/david-davis-derided-german-business-leaders-british-gentleman/



Boris Johnson is one of the laziest politicans ever ...with Ken Clarke saying during the week that even Boris will have to read his ministerial papers to get some grip on Brexit
Hammond is one of Mays biggest rivals that she would dearly love to get rid of
Gove is a piece of work and blinded by his need to be 'right' all the time

May really has the worst collection of minsters seen in a British Government in a long time

But that aside no one Brexiter I have heard/seen can offer any real answers to the key issues facing UK after Brexit.
This really is a major shooting yourself in the foot by the UK

The Brexit side have now started to change their tune to forthcoming excuses for when things go belly upit ...it will be the fault of the remainers undermining the process ?? as if

Labour are just as bad with Corbyn and McDonnell biding their time ...almost happy to see things go belly up if there is a chance they will get power...Not just the Tories who put party first ...and the looney Lexits like Field , Hoey etc are so far out of their depth and so idiot. Hoey said the other day that Ireland and EU should sort the border if they want one

The emotional arguments of Brexiteers like -
we are better than the awful EU
they need our trade
we can walk without paying a penny
we are the greatest
no one tells us what to do
we can get our country back
the EU are bullying us
the Irish PM is an imbecile and shoud keep his gombeen nose out
we will put borders in every port and airport on main land UK
we won the war
hands off our terriority
everyone in the world needs us
every Remainer is a traitor
every Tory MP that does not tow the line shouldl be vilified and branded for public humilitation
Did I mention we are the greatest ?


all go to show logical argument has disappeared down a drain hole

MPFGLB

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

May has no ideas, because there are no ideas that make Brexit workable or a good idea. It is imply IMPOSSIBLE.

- you cannot have a border on the island of Ireland and simultansously not have a border on the island of Ireland
- you cannot retain, let alone improve, your trading position by leaving a trade agreement with the biggest trading block in the world, which also happens to be on your doorstep, when the existing trade agreement is abslutely NO tarrifs or barriers
- you cannot not allow migrant workers into the UK because you dont want foreigners coming into the UK, and simultaneously, want foreigners coming into the UK to keep your economy going
- you cannot decline to give permanent residency rights and benefits to EU residents in the UK, yet expect the EU to allow UK residents currently living in the EU to retain residency rights and benefits there
- you cannot not pay a bill you have outstanding to the tune of 60-100bn, and expect those who you are not paying to still be your friends. (Even if you call their response to your non payement 'punishment')

I would excuse the UK of any consequential negatives from Brexit to the EU or particular EU countries (Ireland, even if extreme negatives), if they were able to make Brexit work for themselves. They have a right to determine their own future, without thinking of other countries if they want to think that way.

But the situation is that they cant. It wasnt thought through before the referendum, and even in all the effort since, it has proven impossible to square the circle, have the cake and eat it, of these inherently contradictory Brexit aims.

It just cant be done in any way that the UK comes out any way other than severly harmed. The whole of the UK govt knows this. But not how to get the UK out of the political corner it has backed itself into, knowing it cannot deliver what anybody had in mind as even only mildly harmful Brexit, let alone a positive Brexit outcome.

Time now to call a halt. Be a great politician May, and do something great for your country.
Lead the Brexit retreat and retraction. Difficult indeed. But possible. Unlike Brexit.






This is a perfectly valid post and observation. The irony from Davis is astounding, and shows how far out from reality his thinking is.

Great post ...if only you could deliver that to Downng Street

Capt'n Midnight

Calina wrote: »

Absolutely everything is worse than the status quo. The UK needs to look within to understand why Germany is whipping its ass in trading with non-EU countries - the problem is not now EU membership.

PS: the answer to why is complex, features government education and industrial policy to begin with.

The key points here is that the UK productivity has only gone up recently as more people are employed.

Individual productivity hasn't gone up and so falls behind the countries where it has.

The fall in sterling has resulted in a real fall in labour costs. So far there's been no sign that this has provided a Brexit boost.

Two things to watch out for
The UK budget is on Wednesday.
Friday is Black Friday , for what it's worth these days , but should be an indication of customer sentiment of those who still have a disposable income.

Samaris

When and why did we feel the need to drag the commercial, hysterical scrum that is Black Friday over to this side of the Atlantic? It's a rotten idea, an attempt to stir up what amounts to a feeding frenzy for shopping.

Meh. Humbug.

Calina

Samaris wrote: »

When and why did we feel the need to drag the commercial, hysterical scrum that is Black Friday over to this side of the Atlantic? It's a rotten idea, an attempt to stir up what amounts to a feeding frenzy for shopping.

Meh. Humbug.

Amazon yeah?

The point is, I'm not sure on its own it would be enough to see how things are. Retail was slipping during the summer, and the pre-Christmas turnover will be interesting. Black Friday on its own isn't totally indicative I think.

I think this is the problem I have with a lot of this - there are no simple answers, approaches or indicators. I had a look at education related stuff for an answer a few weeks back and one of the things which interested me was that research was done on the question of whether people staying in school past 16 made more money or not over life and this was seen as a criteria regarding the benefit of doing so.

But very often, the benefits of a social policy - like keeping as many people in school or full time education past 16 are felt at a community level rather than at an individual level. There are pieces of research involving general health - the more highly educated you are, the better your health is generally likely to be. For somewhere like the UK where health care is free at the point of care, you really need to be looking at community measures - like ensuring more people are better educated and reduced cost public transport - to see if it reduces subsequent costs in, for example, community health care.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Black Friday tells us nothing on its own regarding the health of the UK economy which also is not necessarily a good individual indicator on the health of UK society as a whole. In the same way as "more sovereignty" or "More freedom to make FTAs" on their own do not indicate whether Brexit is a good or bad idea. But a lot of indicators together can give you a fair indication of whether something is a) a good idea or b) going well. Arguably, the signs for Brexit have to be very carefully cherry picked to indicate benefits. As noted above, the fall in the value of sterling does not appear to have done the expected in terms of extensively increasing exports in the past year. Some might argue that is because Brexit is bad; I'd add it may well be because the way the supply chain is coupled with repeated import/exports for some of the UK's main manufacturing base (automotive and aerospace to take a couple of good examples) mitigates against messing with sterling as a tool to up industrial output now. The own currency may no longer be the tool it used to be for the UK because so much of its supply chains are defined in euros...

Samaris

You're right on that. It is just one indicator, soecifically of consumer confidence, whether people feel they can afford to be a little fluhoolock and get Christmas shopping done, etc.

Regarding the sterling, yeah, it wasn't going to boost exports in a way that benefitted the economy, because Britain has always been more of a trading hub. What they manufacture relies heavily on imports of raw materials, so the costs just went up as well, resulting in little (if any) benefit, while still dealing with the domestic burdens of the slide in the currency.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

BUt you oppose remaining in the single market and customs union though. Varadkar is just looking out for the Irish which is important given that Westminster clearly couldn't care less about either the Northern Irish or those in the Republic.

That's manipulative language.

I oppose remaining in the single market and the customs union because it would be a bad deal that doesn't honour the referendum result. It doesn't take back any control. The UK will simply reject any such proposal and rightly so because it's a bad deal.

I support the border remaining open, and I think there's scope for that being possible with a bespoke agreement. This depends on discussing customs and trade terms. (I.E - it cannot be agreed in phase 1)

There's precedent for such a border if you look to Switzerland for example. Only 2% of consignments have to be checked at all. The head of the Swiss customs service to gave evidence to Westminster's Northern Ireland affairs committee. There is scope for other options here. These should be explored.

If the EU insists on the UK or any constituent part thereof remaining in the customs union or the single market that will be rejected and we'll be heading for no deal. I'm pretty sure of this. I'm personally happy for the Government to explore any model that is consistent with the referendum result and taking back control.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This was the referendum question
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-question-assessment

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

[] Remain a member of the European Union
[] Leave the European Union

That is it.

The only 'requirement' if the referendum was a legally binding referendum would be for the UK to leave the EU. They could do this in a multitude of ways.

Stop trying to use the referendum (which only posed the question above) as something it was not (a proclamation on the UK that should come about post-EU).

It is intellectually dishonest.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

I oppose remaining in the single market and the customs union because it would be a bad deal that doesn't honour the referendum result. It doesn't take back any control. The UK will simply reject any such proposal and rightly so because it's a bad deal.

Why exactly is it a bad deal? One of the key benefits of it is that it keeps goods flowing between UK factories and European factories for the complex supply chains and additionally, it is a completely frictionless trading area which benefits UK manufacturing. It seems to me the only rationale for saying it is a bad deal is that effectively, some people think it goes against the heart of the vote as it took place.

The other problem is that the good things it could lead to - ie free trade agreements with non-EU countries - are not guaranteed to be to the UK's benefit. For example, the UK is unlikely to be able to manufacture and sell too many cars to interest the US or Chinese markets. I asked before what the UK had to sell these countries and I don't believe you answered that question.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I support the border remaining open, and I think there's scope for that being possible with a bespoke agreement. This depends on discussing customs and trade terms. (I.E - it cannot be agreed in phase 1)

The fact that you can type this, potentially with a straightface is deeply disappointing. No one is expecting walls to get built; however, if there are two different customs regimes, which, regardless of what free trade agreements are put in place post exit, there will have to be controls. You clearly do not understand enough about WTO regulation or in fact, single market legislation to be able to make the assertion which you've made below.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's precedent for such a border if you look to Switzerland for example. Only 2% of consignments have to be checked at all. The head of the Swiss customs service to gave evidence to Westminster's Northern Ireland affairs committee. There is scope for other options here. These should be explored.

2 per cent is a) greater than nothing so yes it's a controlled border and b) dependent on what goods are concerned. A lot depends on what on what the UK agrees with the EU but what it wants to agree with third countries which do not, for example, adhere to EU sanitary standards and other regulation. PS, I've crossed the border from Italy to Switzerland lately. They check individuals as well. On trains. They do not mess about. This is something you don't have to deal with on intra-EU trains.

The UK has not demonstrated consistency here and their ability to strike any sort of a FTA with the US will involve opening up their agri-sector. You are putting the card before the horse here. If the UK wants to widely open up their agri/food sector to countries like the US, then frankly, there is almost nothing that can be said in trading agreements with the EU that allows you to limit the extent to which customs and related controls happen particularly with respect to rules of origin.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU insists on the UK or any constituent part thereof remaining in the customs union or the single market that will be rejected and we'll be heading for no deal. I'm pretty sure of this. I'm personally happy for the Government to explore any model that is consistent with the referendum result and taking back control.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Arghh. I'm not sure I want to explain this again because reading twitter, it is evident that the UK does not get this.

There needs to be an exit agreement. A tying up the loose ends side of things. After that, there needs to be some arrangement about future trading.

The UK has made it clear what they want in future trading. They are acting in very bad faith in terms of tying up the loose ends on exit. We are not talking about no deal. We're talking about two no deals.

At least.

So frankly, if the UK wants a grown up trading relationship with the EU, it needs to start acting like a grown up. This involves dealing with the line item calculations of what the UK's liabilities will include rather than flinging around round figures right left and centre. You're guilty of that with your "I could accept X amount" posts earlier in the thread.

It also needs to come to some good faith arrangement on the question of EU citizens in the UK. I'm aware that you think that serious gold has been offered here but in the context of the UK sending deportation notices to EU citizens already, I think we can safely suggest good faith is not present at the moment. Denying this is denying reality.

The border arrangements for Ireland are interesting and not a little bound up by the fact that the UK has engaged in wholesale vandalism of Ireland, a country which perhaps they would have been better to see as a potential ally and treat with some respect. This respect has been absent, and we've seen the results this week. We've also seen the Sun editorial which won't have helped UK currency as good faith negotiators.

As a general note, one of the things which interests me watching from where I am is that a good outcome for Brexit has not really been officially defined on the UK side. Despite Florence speeches and Lancaster House speeches and that train crash in Germany with Davis during the week and that other train crash in Dublin with Johnson on Friday. there isn't a tick box list of deliverables. I'm willing to bet you don't have the slightest notion what a good FTA with either China or the US would even look like.

I get that you believe it can all be wonderful. I just don't understand when you will even be able to make an assessment on how it has become all wonderful at any point in the future.

It's like I read people talking about how technology will lead to other jobs even if some jobs disappear. That's fine but it could take four generations for new jobs to come along to replace the ones disappeared by automation. All these things have a human cost. We know from some surveys that there are some people who believe that cost is worth it at any price, even people losing their jobs involuntarily even if that's what they never wanted in the first place. We had this conversation on the aviation sector.

It seems to me that you, and people with similar views have to avoid the short term reality because if you faced it, it would wreck your world view.

Here's the point. The EU single market is the best free trade agreement in the world. There is nothing like it. You walk out of it, the chances of you replacing it with something with China and the US are fairly limited, not just because of the geographic thing, but because they are not going to be negotiating in UK interest. And the US currently has a protectionist regime in place. As for China, there is almost nothing that the UK has that China needs. Some finance stuff but where I live there are a good few more Chinese banks than UK banks in evidence.

Vronsky

MPFGLB wrote: »

David Davies may not be Brexit minister for much longer. His own Civil Servants have frozen him out and German Business leaders have shown contempt for his grasp of EU trading principles.
He fails to convince anyone he even understands the basics

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/exclusive-david-davis-could-quit-frozen-brexit-strategy-civil/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_ApwphPPxn735

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/david-davis-derided-german-business-leaders-british-gentleman/

...

When it comes to the Telegraph to have to remember that it isn't a serious paper anymore. It should be considered more like a Tory newsletter where different factions of the party fight for dominance on it's pages.

The article that DD was thinking of resigning was clearly an attempt to undermine him, most likely from other members of the cabinet. It was without a source or basis in reality.

Today they've given a voice to Priti Patel so she can ingratiate herself with hardline brexiteers so she can build a solid base for her comeback. This is someone who deserves to be ignored and pushed to irrelevance for a long long time given her deplorable carry on.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's precedent for such a border if you look to Switzerland for example. Only 2% of consignments have to be checked at all. The head of the Swiss customs service to gave evidence to Westminster's Northern Ireland affairs committee. There is scope for other options here. These should be explored.

The same Switzerland which is a full member of the single market (save for services) and participates in the customs union. The Swiss are very close to being full members of the EU so I don't see why you are giving this as an example.

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

I support the border remaining open, and I think there's scope for that being possible with a bespoke agreement. This depends on discussing customs and trade terms. (I.E - it cannot be agreed in phase 1)

There's precedent for such a border if you look to Switzerland for example. Only 2% of consignments have to be checked at all. The head of the Swiss customs service to gave evidence to Westminster's Northern Ireland affairs committee. There is scope for other options here. These should be explored.

The dependence is on UK following ALL EU rules which you've already ruled out; same as Switzerland does and being in the customs union. The moment you rule out customer union and ensuring EU standards you will have a hard border with high level of controls. To lower those controls you need to ensure alignment on checks are done to EU level of standards which we already gone over multiple times will take a minimum of 6 months assuming the department and laws are in place on day 1 and that the laws continue to follow EU standards and not deviate. FTAs such as USAs chlorinated chicken etc. will piss all over such ideas and ensure high level of checks will continue so you can talk all you want about discussions on customs and trade terms but ruling out customs union already removes that possibility because if not part of customs union you're not meeting the standards required to lower the checks to any reasonable level.

embraer170

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The same Switzerland which is a full member of the single market (save for services) and participates in the customs union. The Swiss are very close to being full members of the EU so I don't see why you are giving this as an example.

Switzerland is part of Schengen but not the customs union.

ancapailldorcha

embraer170 wrote: »

Switzerland is part of Schengen but not the customs union.

I said it participates in the customs union. Solo says that only 2% of goods need to be checked.

Inquitus

Just back from a weekend in Belfast, great city, lets be honest, with the border the way it is, they'll need to start building one early next year to cater for a Mar-19 hard Brexit date, and that's just to cover the major routes..........

Samaris

There will not be another Swiss agreement for Britain. The EU hates the deal and the Swiss are confused by it. It is ridiculously complicated and is highly unlikely to be an experimented repeated again.

Alan_P

solodeogloria wrote: »

I oppose remaining in the single market and the customs union because it would be a bad deal that doesn't honour the referendum result./QUOTE]
You can repeat this as often as you like, it remains a stupid ignorant lie. You are making an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to prove it. Please present cites from pro Brexit leaders before the Referendum where this was assumed.

Frankly defending this is bizarre. It's like Theresa May now claiming that the result of the recent election entitles her to be head of the judiciary and supplant the Queen.

Leaving the SM and CU is a puerile, disgusting exercise in Tory party management initiated by it's current, fatally weak leader, who thought it would provide her a few months of relief. Defending her position is an exercise for idiots.

The Rape of Lucretia

Alan_P wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

I oppose remaining in the single market and the customs union because it would be a bad deal that doesn't honour the referendum result./QUOTE]
You can repeat this as often as you like, it remains a stupid ignorant lie. You are making an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to prove it. Please present cites from pro Brexit leaders before the Referendum where this was assumed.

To be fair, I think Gloria is entirely reasonable on this point. The essence of the EEC/EC/EU was the single market and customs union. If you have a referendum on leaving the EU, it is natural that this include leaving the sm and cu. It wasnt spelled out because it is naturally included.
A bit like having an abortion referendum in Eire and claiming afterwords that it wasnt explicitly stated that we were voting about aborting babies, and that actually it would only be possible to abort fetuses if they were over 18 years old and consented to being aborted.

Zubeneschamali

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Alan_P wrote: »

To be fair, I think Gloria is entirely reasonable on this point. The essence of the EEC/EC/EU was the single market and customs union. If you have a referendum on leaving the EU, it is natural that this include leaving the sm and cu. It wasnt spelled out because it is naturally included.

So why were the Telegraph and various prominent Brexit campaigners arguing for a Norway deal before the referendum?

Because you are wrong. It is perfectly possible to leave the EU and stay in the CU or SM. The referendum made no choices in that regard at all - indeed Labour are proposing to stay in the SM while leaving the EU just as soon as May's Government collapses. The EU negotiators have already spoken to them.

The Rape of Lucretia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

So why were the Telegraph and various prominent Brexit campaigners arguing for a Norway deal before the referendum?

Because you are wrong. It is perfectly possible to leave the EU and stay in the CU or SM. The referendum made no choices in that regard at all - indeed Labour are proposing to stay in the SM while leaving the EU just as soon as May's Government collapses. The EU negotiators have already spoken to them.

Because that is the form of post EU deal those papers advocated - they were not the law. It was part of the totally confused discussion on what Brexit was about, and what a post-Brexit scenario would be - and this confusion persists to this day with Mays govt.

I am correct. Yes it is possible. But leaving the EU guaranteed retention of nothing. It was a rejection of everything EU. With the post EU never rationally discussed or target position precised. People imagined or preferred different degrees of decouplement - but to say this or that version was the agreed one is nonsense - there just was no precision of what Brexit meant. Hence the mayhem unfolding in front of us now.

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The same Switzerland which is a full member of the single market (save for services) and participates in the customs union. The Swiss are very close to being full members of the EU so I don't see why you are giving this as an example.

And because they are a small landlocked country surrounded by the EU they import very little food that hasn't been produced in the EU or if not hasn't been inspected by an EU customs officer upon entry into the union.

Switzerland is literally a terrible example to give.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't about "putting it off" until phase 2. It is that the border can only be effectively discussed with trade and customs terms. How open or closed the border will be depends on what the EU will offer Britain in respect to trade and customs.

On the contrary, the whole point of requiring commitment to the border issue up front will determine the kind of FTA the EU will be willing to accommodate. That is the whole point of the EU requiring it is settled up front.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

And because they are a small landlocked country surrounded by the EU they import very little food that hasn't been produced in the EU....

Actually South America is one of the main sources of food imports....

Jim2007

Samaris wrote: »

There will not be another Swiss agreement for Britain. The EU hates the deal and the Swiss are confused by it. It is ridiculously complicated and is highly unlikely to be an experimented repeated again.

Very true and the EU has already stated that it will never repeat the mistake. However both sides realise that reversing it at this point is simply not possible.

murphaph

Jim2007 wrote: »

Actually South America is one of the main sources of food imports....

But I bet it's mostly going through EU customs checks like the south American food in my local German supermarket rather than being flown directly to CH.

Jim2007

embraer170 wrote: »

Switzerland is part of Schengen but not the customs union.

Would that it were that simple! We are not in the customs union nor the single market, but we do have access to both through the bilateral agreements.

For example:
- We have mutual recognition of all manufacturing standards etc...
- We have mutual recognition of all certification of drugs etc.
- We have mutual recognition of professional and technical qualifications
- We have agreement on pensions, unemployment benefits, health insurance etc.
- We have a legal framework that allows customs and police to conduct operations on both sides of the border.
- We accept Freedom Of Movement
- We accept ECJ rulings on trade
- We contribute to the structural funds as well

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

I would love to know where solo sees the UK in that picture.

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

I would love to know where solo sees the UK in that picture.

Good evening!

In the Council of Europe which would include the ECHR and continuing the Common Travel Area. Outside the EU, Schengen Area, Customs Union, Eurozone, and the EEA. I've been pretty clear on that.

If you redrew the diagram it would mean the UK part of the CTA circle would be in the red Council of Europe area and not in the blue EU / purple EEA area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

In the Council of Europe which would include the ECHR and continuing the Common Travel Area. Outside the EU, Schengen Area, Customs Union, Eurozone, and the EEA. I've been pretty clear on that.

If you redrew the diagram it would mean the UK part of the CTA circle would be in the red Council of Europe area and not in the blue EU / purple EEA area.

I would envision the UK continuing in Europol and contributing towards it. There's no direct ECJ jurisdiction over it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Pretty much out on their own then.

Inquitus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

In the Council of Europe which would include the ECHR and continuing the Common Travel Area. Outside the EU, Schengen Area, Customs Union, Eurozone, and the EEA. I've been pretty clear on that.

If you redrew the diagram it would mean the UK part of the CTA circle would be in the red Council of Europe area and not in the blue EU / purple EEA area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thing is you'll be alone in your own CTA without Ireland.....

solodeogloria

Inquitus wrote: »

Thing is you'll be alone in your own CTA without Ireland.....

Good evening!

Read my post properly - I didn't say the CTA wouldn't include Ireland. I said that the UK would continue the CTA outside the EU and EEA. This is currently in advanced discussion in phase 1 of the Brexit negotiation.

The CTA includes Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands as crown dependencies with their own legislatures and the UK. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not in the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thargor

No matter what happens or how much hot air Boris and the rest blow or what lies their media tell the UK will end up towing the line when it comes to EU regulations if they want to have any kind of export economy left after Brexit, the "Brussels Effect" rules internationally in any sector that matters and gets stronger every year:

Why the whole world feels the ‘Brussels effect’ - Some international businesses adhere to EU regulation even in their operations outside Europe

Even more galling for US policymakers is that because companies find it much cheaper to run one compliance system than two, some multinationals adhere to EU regulation even when their operations are outside Europe and the US.

Except now the UK will just have to do what its told and have zero say in anything.

More interesting observations in the Reddit thread.

Capt'n Midnight

How could the Hong Kong system of One Country Two Systems apply to NI ?

embraer170

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I said it participates in the customs union. Solo says that only 2% of goods need to be checked.

But Switzerland does not participate in the customs union.

breatheme

It basically does with its many bilateral agreements. Is that what the UK wants? The Swiss model? With freedom of movement?

MPFGLB

One of the best arguments from not leaving EU from a top British civil servant

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/19/wishful-brexit-thinking-will-not-create-jobs-or-fund-public-services

The Telegraph may be writing about D Davies demise as Brexit Minister but I know first hand that civil servants have little faith in him...I worked for years in GB central government and every civil servant I know is a remainer

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Read my post properly - I didn't say the CTA wouldn't include Ireland. I said that the UK would continue the CTA outside the EU and EEA. This is currently in advanced discussion in phase 1 of the Brexit negotiation.

The CTA includes Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands as crown dependencies with their own legislatures and the UK. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not in the EU.

But they are in the single market and the customs union. That's going to change, of course, with Brexit, since their participation in these structures is effectively piggy-backed on the UK's.

It remains to be seen how a Common Travel area including an EU member state is compatible with the UK's red line of "no free movement". I take the claim that discussions about this are at "an advanced stage" with a pinch of salt. Nothing in the public statements offered by either the UK or Ireland suggests they are anywhere close to a credible agreement which can square this particular circle. I don't get the impression that the discussion on the CTA are very far advanced at all.

It should be noted that the issue identified as a phase 1 issue in the Brexit talks is not the CTA; it's just the Irish border. The two issues are obviously linked, but neverhtheless they are not the same issue.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they are in the single market and the customs union. That's going to change, of course, with Brexit, since their participation in these structures is effectively piggy-backed on the UK's.

It remains to be seen how a Common Travel area including an EU member state is compatible with the UK's red line of "no free movement". I take the claim that discussions about this are at "an advanced stage" with a pinch of salt. Nothing in the public statements offered by either the UK or Ireland suggests they are anywhere close to a credible agreement which can square this particular circle. I don't get the impression that the discussion on the CTA are very far advanced at all.

It should be noted that the issue identified as a phase 1 issue in the Brexit talks is not the CTA; it's just the Irish border. The two issues are obviously linked, but neverhtheless they are not the same issue.

Good morning!

If the Government hadn't been pretty clear about their intentions here but they have been.

Firstly - it's important to note that there is no free movement on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands today.

Secondly - the Government have been clear that there will be free travel to the UK for EU citizens after Brexit. Rights to employment will end however. This can be enforced by different means as it is today by the UK Border Force.

Thargor wrote: »

No matter what happens or how much hot air Boris and the rest blow or what lies their media tell the UK will end up towing the line when it comes to EU regulations if they want to have any kind of export economy left after Brexit, the "Brussels Effect" rules internationally in any sector that matters and gets stronger every year:

Why the whole world feels the ‘Brussels effect’ - Some international businesses adhere to EU regulation even in their operations outside Europe


Except now the UK will just have to do what its told and have zero say in anything.

More interesting observations in the Reddit thread.

Of course the UK will have to comply to EU regulations when exporting to the EU. The UK have to comply to US regulations when exporting to America or the regulations of other countries when they export to them. The EU and America have every right to hold foreign firms who participate in their markets to the full weight of their domestic laws if they don't comply.

Brexit isn't about what laws apply in other countries. Brexit is about what laws apply in the United Kingdom. Exiting the EU will give the UK the authority to decide what happens in the UK. There will be no supremacy of EU law in the UK after Brexit.

To be fair - I think it's only confused remainers who think this is a good argument. This isn't even what Johnson and Gove amongst others argued in the referendum.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the Government hadn't been pretty clear about their intentions here but they have been.

Firstly - it's important to note that there is no free movement on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands today.

Secondly - the Government have been clear that there will be free travel to the UK for EU citizens after Brexit. Rights to employment will end however. This can be enforced by different means as it is today by the UK Border Force.

They have been clear that they want to leave the single market and the customs union. They have also said they want the CTA to continue and they don't want a physical border in Ireland. More and more people are saying this cannot be done properly and it is up to the UK to propose their solution that is practical and workable. The UK has asked that the EU must be more creative and solve their problems for them. I think that is where we are at the moment...that and the blame of the Irish have started.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Of course the UK will have to comply to EU regulations when exporting to the EU. The UK have to comply to US regulations when exporting to America or the regulations of other countries when they export to them. The EU and America have every right to hold foreign firms who participate in their markets to the full weight of their domestic laws if they don't comply.

Brexit isn't about what laws apply in other countries. Brexit is about what laws apply in the United Kingdom. Exiting the EU will give the UK the authority to decide what happens in the UK. There will be no supremacy of EU law in the UK after Brexit.

To be fair - I think it's only confused remainers who think this is a good argument. This isn't even what Johnson and Gove amongst others argued in the referendum.

Those EU laws that no-one can name that openly contradicts UK law, right? I know it has been asked of you before and will be everytime you mention the UK taking back control of their laws. Which laws limits the UK in what they want/need to do to prosper even further?

Also, the UK is part of the EU so they had a say in the laws and regulations through their representatives in the EU. The way the argument is being shaped is that the UK was forced into the EU without a say in any choices or the way the EU was being run.

Reading the link posted that you quoted the choice facing UK businesses that export to the world will be what rules they will follow. If they decide to forgo EU exports they can follow the US regulations. The question is will those exports be bought in the US and will it make up for the lost trade to the countries only a few hours away?

Vronsky

Enzokk wrote: »

They have been clear that they want to leave the single market and the customs union. They have also said they want the CTA to continue and they don't want a physical border in Ireland. More and more people are saying this cannot be done properly and it is up to the UK to propose their solution that is practical and workable. The UK has asked that the EU must be more creative and solve their problems for them. I think that is where we are at the moment...that and the blame of the Irish have started.






Those EU laws that no-one can name that openly contradicts UK law, right? I know it has been asked of you before and will be everytime you mention the UK taking back control of their laws. Which laws limits the UK in what they want/need to do to prosper even further?

Also, the UK is part of the EU so they had a say in the laws and regulations through their representatives in the EU. The way the argument is being shaped is that the UK was forced into the EU without a say in any choices or the way the EU was being run.

Reading the link posted that you quoted the choice facing UK businesses that export to the world will be what rules they will follow. If they decide to forgo EU exports they can follow the US regulations. The question is will those exports be bought in the US and will it make up for the lost trade to the countries only a few hours away?

It was the working-time directive that the UK has the most problem with.

I mean, not being able to force employees to work in excess of 48 hrs a week was truly awful. I did think they won a concession on it eventually, where individuals could opt out, but then what you had happening was people were essentially forced to volunteer to opt out, exactly what the directive was meant to prevent.

Samaris

Vronsky wrote: »

It was the working-time directive that the UK has the most problem with.

I mean, not being able to force employees to work in excess of 48 hrs a week was truly awful. I did think they won a concession on it eventually, where individuals could opt out, but then what you had happening was people were essentially forced to volunteer to opt out, exactly what the directive was meant to prevent.

I'm a bit confused by that. I know of the working time directive, but why is the idea of not being allowed to -force- people to work more than 48hrs so bad? I get that employers of dubious regard for their people got around it and were able to force people to exempt themselves, but ...

Wait, was that sarcasm? Sorry, it's early and I'm very literal first thing in the morning!

Well as one of the 7 laws they plan to repeal straightaway I saw The Sun's take on it which was something about hardworking Brits being allowed to work more hours.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

They have been clear that they want to leave the single market and the customs union. They have also said they want the CTA to continue and they don't want a physical border in Ireland. More and more people are saying this cannot be done properly and it is up to the UK to propose their solution that is practical and workable. The UK has asked that the EU must be more creative and solve their problems for them. I think that is where we are at the moment...that and the blame of the Irish have started.

Those EU laws that no-one can name that openly contradicts UK law, right? I know it has been asked of you before and will be everytime you mention the UK taking back control of their laws. Which laws limits the UK in what they want/need to do to prosper even further?

Also, the UK is part of the EU so they had a say in the laws and regulations through their representatives in the EU. The way the argument is being shaped is that the UK was forced into the EU without a say in any choices or the way the EU was being run.

Reading the link posted that you quoted the choice facing UK businesses that export to the world will be what rules they will follow. If they decide to forgo EU exports they can follow the US regulations. The question is will those exports be bought in the US and will it make up for the lost trade to the countries only a few hours away?

Good morning!

The more and more this thread goes on people invent things I never said.

For example - I never said anything from the EU contradicted UK law. What I did say is that the UK would regain the ability to legislate for itself. British courts would be the ultimate authority in Britain.

I didn't say that the UK want the EU to solve any issue for them. What I did say is that the negotiations need to deal with customs and trade to fully deal with the shape of the border. Now of course the EU want the UK to commit to it being open to shoehorn them into the customs union but this won't work because the UK will see through this.

As for forgoing standards - those aren't about exports. Even today the UK can produce goods and services for the American market according to American standards and the EU according to EU standards. The problems could be in terms of imports into the UK and the domestic standards in the UK. The sensible approach is tie up whatever agreement can be reached with the EU and see the direction of travel from there. The Brexit process needs to be taken step by step and be done properly.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

It's not just the Working Time Directive, Vronsky. The Drinking Water Directives have for years allowed faceless unaccountable German bureaucrats to decree that ordinary Britons no longer enjoy their God-given right to experience dysentery. For years now the Business Transfer Directive has cruelly laughed in the face of British employers who wish to escape their accrued obligations as respects pensions, leave, seniority etc by selling their business to a purchaser who will hire all the staff as new employees with no accrued rights. And the Data Protection Directive prevents honest British businesses from selling their customers' personal data to the highest bidder, no questions asked, just leave the cash in a brown envelope under the bootscraper, thanks. Is there no end to the British liberties that are trampled upon by the EU?

Joking aside, in any FTA discussions with the US, the UK is going to come under significant pressure to weaken its data protection standards. This is not something that I think has attracted as much concern as it should.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Well as one of the 7 laws they plan to repeal straightaway I saw The Sun's take on it which was something about hardworking Brits being allowed to work more hours.

They intend to offset the huge reduction in the number of NHS staff that Brexit will occasion by requiring the remaining staff to work much longer hours, presumably.

Vronsky

Peregrinus wrote: »

They intend to offset the huge reduction in the number of NHS staff that Brexit will occasion by requiring the remaining staff to work much longer hours, presumably.

While it was business interests that no doubt drove opposition to the working time directive the line pushed in the media was that it was adversely affecting the NHS.

It was awful that they couldn't make junior doctors work double or triple shifts apparently. If I recall correctly the opt out was then won, making the directive worthless.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

Joking aside, in any FTA discussions with the US, the UK is going to come under significant pressure to weaken its data protection standards. This is not something that I think has attracted as much concern as it should.

Seeing how UK's government want more spying power domestically than US after 9/11 that's not really going to be a big thing for a FTA. The only thing holding them back today is EU and they just "happened" to leave those protections out in their great repel bill going into UK law; pure coincidence I'm sure...