Brexit discussion thread II

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Then the US can start to demand things like chlorinated chicken, GM crops etc etc, and UK will have little option but to agree.

Take your point on the sovereignty / control thing. The detailed analysis of it up the thread was thoughtful and thought provoking.

At a slight tangent I do wonder whether anybody - in the UK, the US, or anywhere else is ever going to be able to sell a chlorine washed chicken again after the press it has been getting. Nobody hates industrial food production more than I do, and if I had my way everybody would eat local chicken - but washing a carcass in dilute chlorine seems an odd choice to demonize as a food safety standard. The reality is, of course, that it is not washing itself (there is plenty of chlorine around Irish food premises) but what it might cover up which people are worried about.

And as for GM - we haven't yet found an economic way to produce GM free milk in Ireland, despite the demand for it, because we already rely on cheap GM protein crop imports to feed our cows.

Panrich

murphaph wrote: »

Good comparison with Ireland. We were sovereign but still in the UK's shadow for decades with little power/control. We now have the apparent upper hand but we actually surrendered some sovereignty to the EU to gain that power.

Interesting dynamic for sure.

I'd liken taking back control in the case of Brexit to a decision to give up your job.

You might decide to quit your current job and venture forward into the marketplace with high expectations of getting a better job in the near future as the job you just quit was increasingly becoming a bit of a bore although the pay and conditions were by no means bad. Just that there were a few people who you didn't get on with and some things that you felt could be better.

Now that you've quit, you are free to manage your time and take control of where you want to work. That's a great relief of relief and you start to send your cv around to the agencies. However it soon turns out that you've been employed so long in the one job and have failed to keep your qualifications up to date and have done no real analysis of the jobs market in your area prior to quittng.

Now you thought at the worst that your old company would be glad to give you agency work to tide you over as you felt that you had unique qualifications and experience that would be impossible to replace. However, they too seem to be a bit put out by the circumstances of your leaving, and are putting a lot of unreasonable demands on conditions of how you might get work there in future.

So as you sit in total control of your destiny, there is a plethora of bills to be paid and no new job on the horizon.

Professor Moriarty

Panrich wrote: »

I'd liken taking back control in the case of Brexit to a decision to give up your job.

You might decide to quit your current job and venture forward into the marketplace with high expectations of getting a better job in the near future as the job you just quit was increasingly becoming a bit of a bore although the pay and conditions were by no means bad. Just that there were a few people who you didn't get on with and some things that you felt could be better.

Now that you've quit, you are free to manage your time and take control of where you want to work. That's a great relief of relief and you start to send your cv around to the agencies. However it soon turns out that you've been employed so long in the one job and have failed to keep your qualifications up to date and have done no real analysis of the jobs market in your area prior to quittng.

Now you thought at the worst that your old company would be glad to give you agency work to tide you over as you felt that you had unique qualifications and experience that would be impossible to replace. However, they too seem to be a bit put out by the circumstances of your leaving, and are putting a lot of unreasonable demands on conditions of how you might get work there in future.

So as you sit in total control of your destiny, there is a plethora of bills to be paid and no new job on the horizon.

Very clever.

Lemming

kowtow wrote: »

At a slight tangent I do wonder whether anybody - in the UK, the US, or anywhere else is ever going to be able to sell a chlorine washed chicken again after the press it has been getting.

Quite easily unless regulatory bodies put a halt to it I should imagine. If you are in dire financial/social straits and hungry, necessity makes a cruel bed-fellow. Besides, if the media has shown nothing else is that the public as an entity has an incredibly short memory.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

And Trump, as much as Putin, knows this. A fractured Europe is in their interests. Then the US can start to demand things like chlorinated chicken, GM crops etc etc, and UK will have little option but to agree. There are the little things. Privatisation of the NHS etc is the bigger thing.

Good afternoon!

I'll never understand the fear that some people have of the nasty American boogeyman. I've got no more reasons to be suspicious of America than I do of the European Union.

Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe. I'd eat chicken without hesitation in America.

GM crops are also perfectly safe.

Having public private partnership is a rather different thing to privatisation. I have no issue at all with American firms being able to bid for public private partnership contracts on the basis of merit like any European company can do today.

I think it could be in Britain's interests to reach further across the Atlantic post-Brexit. I hope for a good partnership. I know that whatever the terms of this agreement are, they are not going to demand anywhere near the same type of terms as the EU demand of Britain today in terms of free movement, payments for access and restricting trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

swampgas

kowtow wrote: »

At a slight tangent I do wonder whether anybody - in the UK, the US, or anywhere else is ever going to be able to sell a chlorine washed chicken again after the press it has been getting.

My guess - a UK free of onerous EU interference would have no problem at all gutting food labelling regulations. The consumer simply won't be given the information to tell whether it's chlorine washed or not.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat. Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it? Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them. By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground. Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2. It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

Also ironic to say its the relationship that matters, forget the details.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'll never understand the fear that some people have of the nasty American boogeyman. I've got no more reasons to be suspicious of America than I do of the European Union.

Once again, you always go for the most extreme to try to make a point. Just like nobody ever claimed the City of London would be totally lost, nobody ever claimed that the US, Russia or China were bogeymen. They are trading countries with one aim, to do the best for them. They will do whatever they can to achieve that aim. if that involves being unfair to other countries then so be it.

It was one of the good things of the EU, countries couldn't just selfishly to whatever it wanted they wanted without due regard to the effect on other countries

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think it could be in Britain's interests to reach further across the Atlantic post-Brexit. I hope for a good partnership. I know that whatever the terms of this agreement are, they are not going to demand anywhere near the same type of terms as the EU demand of Britain today in terms of free movement, payments for access and restricting trade policy.

The UK couldn't get these things you hope for when an equal partner within 28, as you seem to think that the EU was talking complete advantage of the UK. I would even argue that the UK was more than just an equal partner. As one of the big countries it carried more weight than just a single vote.

How are the UK going to stop the US from doing that when they are not even close to be equal partners?

I really can't understand you logic in thinking that UK can punch so above its weight against bigger countries when, according to you, they failed to when in the EU.

Samaris

swampgas wrote: »

My guess - a UK free of onerous EU interference would have no problem at all gutting food labelling regulations. The consumer simply won't be given the information to tell whether it's chlorine washed or not.

Fortunately, they cannot do that (admittedly, I do not know the exact rule on notifying about chlorine rinsing). May proclaimed about taking back control of labelling. She was wrong; EU and UK are both rule-takers on labelling and will remain so under WTO trade agreements.

Side thingie, but I'm grand with no chlorinated chicken. I react badly to the stuff and even the low level chlorine in tap water doesn't do me much good (and it's not like youcan boil it out either). So I'm just fine with it staying out of Ireland, thanks, even if it is cheaper as less has to be spent keeping the chooks in healthy condition. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK couldn't get these things you hope for when an equal partner within 28, as you seem to think that the EU was talking complete advantage of the UK. I would even argue that the UK was more than just an equal partner. As one of the big countries it carried more weight than just a single vote.

How are the UK going to stop the US from doing that when they are not even close to be equal partners?

I really can't understand you logic in thinking that UK can punch so above its weight against bigger countries when, according to you, they failed to when in the EU.

Good afternoon!

TTIP was shelved because it was controversial amongst some EU member states. CETA was nearly shelved for that reason.

Being outside of the European Union means that that Britain can progress with trade terms with the US.

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America. So there's no point comparing what Britain could get with what the EU has decided it won't try to get.

swampgas wrote: »

My guess - a UK free of onerous EU interference would have no problem at all gutting food labelling regulations. The consumer simply won't be given the information to tell whether it's chlorine washed or not.

Why do you think this?

I personally don't think that British politicians are all of a sudden going to stop representing their constituents in this regard. I also doubt that British food regulators are going to ease back just because Brexit has been passed.

I don't know why you assume that the UK all of a sudden can't be trusted to label things properly by its own people. From day 1 the law will be exactly the same. On day X when or if they decide to change the law that will be subject to parliamentary debate. I trust my MP to represent interests in my area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

swampgas

swampgas wrote: »

My guess - a UK free of onerous EU interference would have no problem at all gutting food labelling regulations. The consumer simply won't be given the information to tell whether it's chlorine washed or not.

In my view I dont think they will gut that many regulations either when it comes down to it.

Plenty of larger food companies will still want to be exporting into the EU and will still have to follow those regulations.

"Gutting" the regulations will only create a second set of "local regulations" just for the UK.
i.e. Even more "red tape" for the companies to follow

J Mysterio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'll never understand the fear that some people have of the nasty American boogeyman. I've got no more reasons to be suspicious of America than I do of the European Union.

Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe. I'd eat chicken without hesitation in America.

GM crops are also perfectly safe.

Having public private partnership is a rather different thing to privatisation. I have no issue at all with American firms being able to bid for public private partnership contracts on the basis of merit like any European company can do today.

I think it could be in Britain's interests to reach further across the Atlantic post-Brexit. I hope for a good partnership. I know that whatever the terms of this agreement are, they are not going to demand anywhere near the same type of terms as the EU demand of Britain today in terms of free movement, payments for access and restricting trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Haha, just wait and see how the negotiations with a Trump administration go. They already ficked over the Airplane manafacturers in NI. Trump has no conscience when it comes to trade negotiations, he's demonstrated it a number of times. Your naivety is galling.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

Haha, just wait and see how the negotiations with a Trump administration go. They already ficked over the Airplane manafacturers in NI. Trump has no conscience when it comes to trade negotiations, he's demonstrated it a number of times. Your naivety is galling.

I would not personally blame it on Trump here either.

America is a large capitalist superpower and the US system is fairly ruthless when it wants to get its way, be it Trump/Obama/Bush etc.


UK is a close ally with the US and with Ireland (we are supposed to be friends these days you know).

But USA will treat UK as ruthlessly as the UK is going to treat Ireland.

They are big and you are small, and you NEED the deal, they dont.

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

TTIP was shelved because it was controversial amongst some EU member states. CETA was nearly shelved for that reason.

Being outside of the European Union means that that Britain can progress with trade terms with the US.

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America. So there's no point comparing what Britain could get with what the EU has decided it won't try to get.

You are aware that the EU and US have the biggest bilateral trade deal in the world in terms of scale, right? This isn't hidden or anything. EU countries negotiating as a block just had enough punch to not take on aspects of American goods production we dislike.

I personally don't think that British politicians are all of a sudden going to stop representing their constituents in this regard. I also doubt that British food regulators are going to ease back just because Brexit has been passed.

Where do you think all this bonfire of regs thing is coming from? Why do you think there is even a debate regarding chlorine in food preservation? The EU is big enough and powerful enough to be picky. The UK will be a rule-taker in bilateral talks with the US because yhe US isn't dependent on such a deal.

I don't know why you assume that the UK all of a sudden can't be trusted to label things properly by its own people. From day 1 the law will be exactly the same.

Because the UK PM doesn't actually know where thise rules are from for a start. Not confidence-inspiring.

On day X when or if they decide to change the law that will be subject to parliamentary debate. I trust my MP to represent interests in my area.

God help the UK's collective stomachs then.

Edit; No, it won't be subject to parlimentary debate. That is one of the points of the Great Repeal Bill. There's been an effort to assure oversight, but the madder Brexiteers are taking the "Why won't you just trust us, this is so unfair" approach to it that they've taken on the Irish border. And frankly, one would be barking to trust them.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

TTIP was shelved because it was controversial amongst some EU member states. CETA was nearly shelved for that reason.

Being outside of the European Union means that that Britain can progress with trade terms with the US.

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America. So there's no point comparing what Britain could get with what the EU has decided it won't try to get.



Why do you think this?

I personally don't think that British politicians are all of a sudden going to stop representing their constituents in this regard. I also doubt that British food regulators are going to ease back just because Brexit has been passed.

I don't know why you assume that the UK all of a sudden can't be trusted to label things properly by its own people. From day 1 the law will be exactly the same. On day X when or if they decide to change the law that will be subject to parliamentary debate. I trust my MP to represent interests in my area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo, do you deliberately miss the point or it it on purpose.

The point is that you seem to think the UK will be able to get wonderful trade deals with a range of other countries including the US, while at the same time complaining that the UK were totally railroaded by the EU.

An EU which they were an early member of, and a senior member of. What give you the confidence that were they have failed for the last 40 years they will suddenly not only start to perform, but actually overperform as they are now operating without the equal status.

VinLieger

solodeogloria wrote: »

Being outside of the European Union means that that Britain can progress with trade terms with the US.

Yeah and the US being the larger market will walk all over them and likely push the more unsavory aspects of TTIP onto the UK like the ability for corporations to sue countries for any laws they enact that could negatively affect said company. So basically they would be losing aspects of their sovereignty.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America. So there's no point comparing what Britain could get with what the EU has decided it won't try to get.

Incorrect the EU do want a deal with the US, TTIP was just a very bad deal. There is also every point in comparing both as the EU is a far larger and therefore more desirable market than the UK so the US would be far more likely to make concessions for agreement than it would be with the UK.

You really dont seem to understand how international trade deals work, maybe you should watch this to get a better understanding

Newsnight has another video there where Pascal Lamy says "Trade negotiations are not about love, they are about hard numbers, clout, bargaining capacity.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America.

This is a flat lie.

Panrich

Looking at the point we're at today, there must be frantic negotiations to get a deal over the line for Mondays deadline. The UK seems to have moved very quickly and far, on the money issue over the past week. They have also moved but not decisively on the border. This shows that they are finally throwing a lot of energy into breaking out of phase 1.
Now the question that remains is whether they see this as the last throw of the dice to avoid a hard Brexit or whether they are prepared to get a deal done no matter what.
From EU/Irelands part we can't go to phase 2 without certainty on what form of border if any we need to prepare for. Absent a cast in stone guarantee from London that they will take any necessary steps in phase 2 to avoid border controls, we need to start preparing for that eventuality immediately. This time critical element has not been discussed much in the media recently that I've seen, and is a prime reason why we can't let the question drag on any closer to March 2019.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Samaris wrote: »

You are aware that the EU and US have the biggest bilateral trade deal in the world in terms of scale, right? This isn't hidden or anything. EU countries negotiating as a block just had enough punch to not take on aspects of American goods production we dislike.

The US doesn't have a free trade deal with the EU. The discussions on TTIP collapsed. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Samaris wrote: »

Where do you think all this bonfire of regs thing is coming from? Why do you think there is even a debate regarding chlorine in food preservation? The EU is big enough and powerful enough to be picky. The UK will be a rule-taker in bilateral talks with the US because yhe US isn't dependent on such a deal.

A bonfire of regulations or not is a matter for parliament when sovereignty has been regained. The same is true of every policy area that the UK wants to regain control of.

I personally think that the objections to chlorinated chicken and GM crops are nonsense. But of course this is also a matter for parliament and the trade discussions with the US.

Samaris wrote: »

God help the UK's collective stomachs then.

If these products come into the UK they will be labelled. Consumers will make their choice and the market will determine how much get bought and sold. There's absolutely nothing unsafe about chlorination.

Samaris wrote: »

Edit; No, it won't be subject to parlimentary debate. That is one of the points of the Great Repeal Bill. There's been an effort to assure oversight, but the madder Brexiteers are taking the "Why won't you just trust us, this is so unfair" approach to it that they've taken on the Irish border. And frankly, one would be barking to trust them.

Every piece of legislation that has to do with changing the standards that are in place will be subject to parliament. The proposals for Henry VIII powers were intended for dealing with technical matters such as the names of bodies. They aren't intended for substantial changes.

The legislation hasn't passed through parliament. MPs on the government and opposition benches are proposing amendments to tighten scrutiny and that's before it reaches the Lords.

I trust parliament and parliamentary process. I trust my MP to represent our areas interests.

Democracy didn't and doesn't end at Brexit. The mass participation in democracy in the UK needs to continue.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Solo, do you deliberately miss the point or it it on purpose.

Not intentionally. I respond to what I read.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The point is that you seem to think the UK will be able to get wonderful trade deals with a range of other countries including the US, while at the same time complaining that the UK were totally railroaded by the EU.

The EU are overly protectionist. The failure of TTIP to pass is just an example. The UK will be able to move more nimbly in this regard. There's a difference in economic philosophy in Britain and mainland Europe. Britain has always been more free market minded.

Leroy42 wrote: »

An EU which they were an early member of, and a senior member of. What give you the confidence that were they have failed for the last 40 years they will suddenly not only start to perform, but actually overperform as they are now operating without the equal status.

I don't think the EU has "failed" to do this. I think it doesn't want to proceed with quite a few agreements that would be beneficial for the UK.

This is where you misunderstood my reply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are overly protectionist. The failure of TTIP to pass is just an example. The UK will be able to move more nimbly in this regard. There's a difference in economic philosophy in Britain and mainland Europe. Britain has always been more free market minded.

You and UK are about to find out that the rest of the world is even more protectionist but are more than happy to have UK open up their market only to them in return for not doing so themselves. Watch the BBC interview above on what Switzerland got as offer for example from China; that's what UK can expect to get from pretty much any nation of note esp. as we're moving into a world becoming even more protectionistic thanks to Trump and his ilk.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think the EU has "failed" to do this. I think it doesn't want to proceed with quite a few agreements that would be beneficial for the UK.

This is where you misunderstood my reply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I get that the UK wants to do all these new agreements, and I do hope they can do them.

But has it taken into account the cost of wrecking all its current agreements?

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

If these products come into the UK they will be labelled. Consumers will make their choice and the market will determine how much get bought and sold. There's absolutely nothing unsafe about chlorination.

Well if you pay attention to the American requirement of the UK, you'd know they require a relaxation of labelling, so have fun with that.

Second it is not just about the chlorination, it is about what that does to lower production standards, in these factories.

But if you need to lower your standards to that level in order to justify your BREXIT stance that is your business, but don't expect the result of us to accept such nonsense.

Nody

Jim2007 wrote: »

But if you need to lower your standards to that level in order to justify your BREXIT stance that is your business, but don't expect the result of us to accept such nonsense.

Solo has already stated that nothing can change his stand on Brexit; would not matter if US asked to use NI as test site for nuclear experiments because Brexit is the best thing ever!

solodeogloria

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I get that the UK wants to do all these new agreements, and I do hope they can do them.

But has it taken into account the cost of wrecking all its current agreements?

Good afternoon!

I'm not the one speculating about what the outcome of a deal with the US may or may not be. It seems to be the continuity remainers that are worried about this.

I'm perfectly happy to work step by step in a calculated manner. Of course the UK wants to retain its current agreements as much as possible. That's part of Liam Fox's responsibility in the International Trade Department. He's in discussions to get these terms established after Brexit. He's also in discussions to scope out new opportunities. He's in discussion with 21 other countries.

And of course the UK wants a beneficial deal with the European Union. Nobody is denying this.

Brexit is a process. It needs to be done carefully. There's no interest in wrecking agreements here.

Nody: I'm willing to respect and engage with your position, but there's really no need for that kind of comment.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not the one speculating about what the outcome of a deal with the US may or may not be. It seems to be the continuity remainers that are worried about this.

You are not worried about a deal which is possibly the only way that UK can avoid suffering from the exit of the EU in the short term? You are not worried about it because you seem to think that it will be free trade with no costs. Labels will be yours to decide, US will agree to whatever regulations UK want. etc

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm perfectly happy to work step by step in a calculated manner. Of course the UK wants to retain its current agreements as much as possible. That's part of Liam Fox's responsibility in the International Trade Department. He's in discussions to get these terms established after Brexit. He's also in discussions to scope out new opportunities. He's in discussion with 21 other countries.

Perfectly reasonable position to take, but only if you exclude all history to this point. Has he said anything about how he will provide equal or better access to trade than UK currently has? Has he given any indication of how he will deal with the issue of now being a small player against bigger boys when the UK couldn't perform when it was equal? It is also a bit late to take a step by step manner when the vote has already happened. This should all have been paid out before hand.

solodeogloria wrote: »

And of course the UK wants a beneficial deal with the European Union. Nobody is denying this.

Once your red lines are met, which everyone knows are contrary to what the EU wants.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit is a process. It needs to be done carefully. There's no interest in wrecking agreements here.

This I totally agree with. It is therefore a pity that the likes of Boris and May have decided to take the approach they have in rushing to trigger Art 50, demanding red lines are met and trying to keep even their own parliament in the dark about what it all means.

I fail to see how you continue to have any faith in the UK government sticking to any principles when at almost every turn they have have failed to do so.

Brexit could work out in the end, but not with the approach that is currently being taken that the EU is totally failed and offers nothing to the UK and that it is much better off dumping its closest allies (geographically) in favour of unknown deals at some unknown future point in time

You still haven't answered how taking back control can work when you are moving from a position of equals to a position of weakness. You seem to be of the opinion that the US will gladly give the UK everything it wants because you are friends!

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'm not the one speculating about what the outcome of a deal with the US may or may not be. It seems to be the continuity remainers that are worried about this.

I'm perfectly happy to work step by step in a calculated manner. Of course the UK wants to retain its current agreements as much as possible. That's part of Liam Fox's responsibility in the International Trade Department. He's in discussions to get these terms established after Brexit. He's also in discussions to scope out new opportunities. He's in discussion with 21 other countries.

And of course the UK wants a beneficial deal with the European Union. Nobody is denying this.

Brexit is a process. It needs to be done carefully. There's no interest in wrecking agreements here.

Nody: I'm willing to respect and engage with your position, but there's really no need for that kind of comment.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

"Continuity Remainers"?

Okay, first off, this is an IRISH forum, not a British one. This is where a third of the issue lies, that whole border issue. RoI posters are not Remainers or Leavers; we did not get a vote on this car-crash. By the way, are there also Provo Remainers and Original Remainers?

Jeez. Your true colours are murky as hell.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are not worried about a deal which is possibly the only way that UK can avoid suffering from the exit of the EU in the short term? You are not worried about it because you seem to think that it will be free trade with no costs. Labels will be yours to decide, US will agree to whatever regulations UK want. etc

Perfectly reasonable position to take, but only if you exclude all history to this point. Has he said anything about how he will provide equal or better access to trade than UK currently has? Has he given any indication of how he will deal with the issue of now being a small player against bigger boys when the UK couldn't perform when it was equal? It is also a bit late to take a step by step manner when the vote has already happened. This should all have been paid out before hand.

Once your red lines are met, which everyone knows are contrary to what the EU wants.

This I totally agree with. It is therefore a pity that the likes of Boris and May have decided to take the approach they have in rushing to trigger Art 50, demanding red lines are met and trying to keep even their own parliament in the dark about what it all means.

I fail to see how you continue to have any faith in the UK government sticking to any principles when at almost every turn they have have failed to do so.

Brexit could work out in the end, but not with the approach that is currently being taken that the EU is totally failed and offers nothing to the UK and that it is much better off dumping its closest allies (geographically) in favour of unknown deals at some unknown future point in time

You still haven't answered how taking back control can work when you are moving from a position of equals to a position of weakness. You seem to be of the opinion that the US will gladly give the UK everything it wants because you are friends!

Good afternoon!

You need to consider what I have said, rather than what I haven't said.

I've repeatedly disagreed with your claim that I think the EU has "failed". It isn't that the EU has failed. The EU decided not to pursue a free trade agreement and declared that TTIP discussions had failed in 2016. Britain happens to want to pursue this possibility and other possibilities post-Brexit.

On Liam Fox and international trade. Obviously he's still at work securing this. In respect to Canada and Japan the UK have received assurances that they will trade on the same basis as the EU will when their respective FTA's come into force. I'm confident that there will be more progress in this regard. You're right to say that it will take time for new trade agreements to be signed with new partners. I don't see why that it is an concern. Brexit is a process that will take time to complete.

I don't share your low view of the UK's standing in the world. The UK is a global leader in financial services, legal services, insurance, science, technology amongst other things. I don't believe that the UK has no bargaining position or that the UK doesn't have anything to offer. That's your conclusion and not mine. The reason why I didn't respond to that claim is because I don't believe it's true.

That's why I don't say Brexit could work out in the end. I'm certain Brexit will work out in the end.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm certain Brexit will work out in the end.

Even as a Continuity Remainer, I also am certain that Brexit will work out in the end.

It will leave the UK poorer, more inward looking, more racist and xenophobic, more in the grip of the insiders at Westminster, more London centred, with a greater divide between rich and poor, London and the rest.

It may also be smaller, with the Scots finally packing their bags to head back into the EU.

But it will work out: the UK will not actually catch fire and sink into the sea playing Rule Britannia.

Mr.Nice Guy

Interesting panel discussion set for BBC Radio Four tonight from Newry:

Shaun Ley presents political debate and discussion from the Sean Hollywood Arts Centre in Newry, Northern Ireland, with a panel including the Chairman of the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee Damian Collins, the Deputy Leader of the DUP Nigel Dodds MP, the Labour MP Kate Hoey, the MLA for South Belfast Mairtin O Muilleoir and the Irish Times columnist Fintan O'Toole.

It's at 8pm and the programme should be available after it airs here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09gkm58

Looking forward to hearing how Fintan fares with Dodds. Hoey you may recall is the one who earlier this week channelled Trump by suggesting Ireland should pay for a physical border if talks break down.

Leroy42

If the EU hasn't failed then why are the UK so desperate to get out?

Take back control, yet it has been argued that whatever illusion of control may be taken back, control was never actually lost and no control will be given by the other countries.

As you say yourself, Canada and Japan have said that they will give FTA once Brexit is done. But you have no idea what the cost of that FTA will actually be. What if they want to impose certain regulations?

I don't have a low view of the UK. The UK are the 6th biggest economy, COL is huge in global terms, it is a large military power. The issue I have is that all that was secured and built on in different times and as we can see from the EU UK failed to be the big buy in that club and I don't see how you can have such faith in the UK being any better in a larger less controlled club.

Do you knot think that being a member of the EU played any role in helping the Uk over the past 40 years? You think that it was simply down to the COL itself that it remains such a large centre. You think that EU science grants had nothing to do with maintaining science in the UK.

There is no doubt that UK is changing the current relationships. That may well turn out to be right in the end but I have seen nothing at all to show that that will happen. There has been plenty or reports showing the drop off in growth in the UK. You seem to ignore everything on the basis that the claimed armagedon hasn't materialised whilst ignoring that everything the leave side claiming has already been proven false.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit is a process. It needs to be done carefully. There's no interest in wrecking agreements here.

My home is about 5 minutes drive from the border in the south.
I remember all the checkpoints and closed roads, army patrols etc etc 20 years ago. In my home town of the 80's everybody knew everybodys religion and everybody knew who was on what side.

The open border without these things and without customs problems has allowed the area to cool down and society to try and normalise somewhat.

I go forwards and backwards to the north on a regular basis, millions of euros of business are done across the border every day. Lots of businesses are currently set up on a cross border basis, products thrown on to a truck with little or no paperwork/clearance needed.

The border counties are one of the poorest areas of both the Ireland and the UK but things have slowly improved for the past 20 years.

They do not need the uncertainty, disruption and interference of high falutin ideas of free trade in London or mega deals with the USA/China, they need to be left alone and let people get on with their lives.

We had thought that this was all settled years ago, but now it seems all up in the air again.

kowtow

I think phase two is where the hard talking lies, and I think Merkel is absolutely right that it will make phase one look easy.

I remain convinced that a suitable agreement will be reached, for phase one, about the border. I would be very surprised indeed if the British accepted any permanent imposition of a customs status on Northern Ireland which appeared to compromise the integrity of the United Kingdom, and as I said above I don't think for moment that is a DUP imposed red line - although it may suit everyone to paint it as such. Contrary to what others have suggested above there are certainly, in my opinion, mainstream Conservative MP's who would vote against the Government rather than accept such a turn of events.

But I don't think it will need to come to that. At present, there is absolute regulatory equivalence NI to ROI, enhanced by certain all Island measures, many of which we would have a significant economic interest in not only retaining but expanding post Brexit (All Ireland Irish beef anyone?)... there is, as Jacob Rees Mogg has just pointed out, already a customs border between North and South with different VAT rates and duty rates applying, notwithstanding the fact that the physical frontier is open.

The British want an open border, and so do we. Both sides accept that customs controls of some sort will be required. The only real argument is how to achieve this, part of which everyone recognizes can only be fully solved in phase two anyway.

Unless there is a strong political desire on the part of the EU and Ireland to impose CU on the North against the will of the UK, which I doubt, I don't think there is a problem here which cannot be solved by appropriate wording. In my opinion that will involve some agreement on maintaining convergence until an appropriate border solution (which is an open seamless one) can be implemented - it might be that some special bespoke CU is required to do that (and there might be advantages both for Ireland and the UK in that) - but if so it would not, I think, be a straight customs union with the EU and it could not amount to an economic border east / west.

If the UK and Irish teams can put aside the politics of this, and come together, there is space for creative solutions which could really help Ireland in the years after Brexit, regardless of the trade deal eventually reached. I'm thinking of some of the existing all-Island areas on the one hand (could these achieve special status under even quite a hard brexit?) and also of the land bridge to Europe. I think at this point the Irish negotiators will be looking first and foremost for a form of words which gives them the best chance [in phase two] of carving out specific advantages for Ireland, which after all is the country most likely to suffer from disorderly Brexit.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

A bonfire of regulations or not is a matter for parliament when sovereignty has been regained. The same is true of every policy area that the UK wants to regain control of.

I personally think that the objections to chlorinated chicken and GM crops are nonsense. But of course this is also a matter for parliament and the trade discussions with the US.

It seems that you will be happy with bad regulations from the UK as long as it was decided by the UK. Taking back control is not about what is good for the UK or the people but its about making their own decisions, whether they are good or bad.

So will you be happy with bad regulations as long as it wasn't "forced" on the UK by the EU, right?

solodeogloria wrote: »

If these products come into the UK they will be labelled. Consumers will make their choice and the market will determine how much get bought and sold. There's absolutely nothing unsafe about chlorination.

Its not always about the consumer but about the animals as well. The chlorinated chicken is as much about not eating chicken that has been washed in chlorine as about animal welfare and the conditions the animals are housed before they are slaughtered.

On TTIP, I think the people of Europe were concerned that the US were trying to push through conditions that were going to hurt EU companies and farmers.

Opposition to the toxic TTIP deal has reached a tipping point

And we know why: the documents reveal that under US demands, the EU’s small farmers will be obliterated and the critical 'precautionary principle' is being targeted for removal. Under a proposal pushed by the EU our ability to make rules to protect society, health or the environment will be subjected to a unique new power for big business to challenge all rules before they are even in place – and to sue governments in a private justice system if any rules affect their profits.

TTIP is not a deal determined by the wishes of parliamentarians, whether in the UK or Europe. Instead, as freedom of information requests have repeatedly revealed, it is a deal determined solely by the wishes of big business, whether Big Oil, Big Tobacco or the agribusiness lobby.

So we can have an idea of what the US will look for in a deal with the UK. Its not good for the UK and hoping for a deal that will make up trade that will be lost by leaving the EU will be another shot in the foot for the UK. I wonder who they will blame if the trade deal with the US isn't all they were hoping for?

Samaris

Can we also get an idea of what the nebulous future open border will look like after x years of regulatory convergeance? What new solutions will there be, bar that the current Tories in charge aren't in charge of it?

whatstherush

solodeogloria wrote: »

That's why I don't say Brexit could work out in the end. I'm certain Brexit will work out in the end.

So is "work out" less than successful, because there's no way in the world you can be certain of what you said below.

solodeogloria wrote: »

For Brexit to be successful I recognise that the UK needs as good a deal with the EU as possible

Kermit.de.frog

Samaris wrote: »

Can we also get an idea of what the nebulous future open border will look like after x years of regulatory convergeance? What new solutions will there be, bar that the current Tories in charge aren't in charge of it?

It will be like Star Trek. Goods and people will beam across the border on teleporters.

I'd like if this thread could stop focusing on solodeogloria's posts. A quick glance at his post history tells me all I really need to know about his position, and how impossible it is to ever change that.

I've played Devil's Advocate before in AH in the Trump thread pre-election. But I could listen to people and argue. solodeogloria simply does not have that mindset and all our convincing will never amount to anything, ever.


What I'd like to talk about is how bad May's decision was to confront Trump on his tweets. There's a time for the moral highground and with Brexit nearing, pissing off the President of America was a silly thing to do. Neither country bother to confront Saudi Arabia so May's response is baffling. I see it hurting the UK, possibly.

An Ciarraioch

Chatham House have produced a most useful "Tribes of Europe" quiz - eight questions in total, but six different "tribal options" in terms of attitudes to Europe. Personally, I'm a Contented European, but don't let that skew your results!

https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

Edward M

"That's why I don't say Brexit could work out in the end. I'm certain Brexit will work out in the end."

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That's like saying I'm certain I'll die in the end.
Doesent mean I'll have a pleasent death or go to heaven though.

kowtow

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chatham House have produced a most useful "Tribes of Europe" quiz - eight questions in total, but six different "tribal options" in terms of attitudes to Europe. Personally, I'm a Contented European, but don't let that skew your results!

https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

That is a great quiz.

It makes me a hesitant European, apparently the biggest class of all at 36%.

I'm not sure I like the diagnosis "needs persuading on Europe.." because it all sounds a bit like compulsory political education, but I'll let that one go by...

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like if this thread could stop focusing on solodeogloria's posts. A quick glance at his post history tells me all I really need to know about his position, and how impossible it is to ever change that.

I've played Devil's Advocate before in AH in the Trump thread pre-election. But I could listen to people and argue. solodeogloria simply does not have that mindset and all our convincing will never amount to anything, ever.


What I'd like to talk about is how bad May's decision was to confront Trump on his tweets. There's a time for the moral highground and with Brexit nearing, pissing off the President of America was a silly thing to do. Neither country bother to confront Saudi Arabia so May's response is baffling. I see it hurting the UK, possibly.

I don't think it matters with Trump as his views doesn't represent the US Government view. In the end it doesn't matter what she says as her actions will speak louder than her words. She can say as much as she likes but if they continue with the invitation its all just words to Trump.

The TTIP negotiations were done by the previous US Government and as we see there was terms that wasn't to the liking of the people in the EU or in the end the countries in the EU. If this is how the US did their negotiations when they were not insular thinking what more will it be like now?

Edward M

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd like if this thread could stop focusing on solodeogloria's posts. A quick glance at his post history tells me all I really need to know about his position, and how impossible it is to ever change that.

I've played Devil's Advocate before in AH in the Trump thread pre-election. But I could listen to people and argue. solodeogloria simply does not have that mindset and all our convincing will never amount to anything, ever.


What I'd like to talk about is how bad May's decision was to confront Trump on his tweets. There's a time for the moral highground and with Brexit nearing, pissing off the President of America was a silly thing to do. Neither country bother to confront Saudi Arabia so May's response is baffling. I see it hurting the UK, possibly.

Possibly bad to upset Trump at this stage yes, going forward it may mean feck all.
May's biggest problem with regard to her overall strategy at present are the DUP.
The fact they are prepared to accept nothing but a whole UK or no UK decision is her biggest problem, she could easily lose power before any final brexit deal over dealing with them.

ambro25

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chatham House have produced a most useful "Tribes of Europe" quiz - eight questions in total, but six different "tribal options" in terms of attitudes to Europe. Personally, I'm a Contented European, but don't let that skew your results!

https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

Contended European as well, 94% likeness, in quasi-full alignment with the summary data and grainier data/comparisons.

As I sometimes joke, I am Spartacus Europe

French-born from mixed nationality parents (Italian economic migrants on my Dad's side, they were the East European migrants of their day), rolled my stone here-there-everywhere intra-EU (and a bit beyond) myself before settling in UK, married a Brit with eventually a dual nationality kid (with her genetics, our daughter's got to be the living embodiment of the EU: Sicilian, Alsatian, Bolonese, Bretonne, Yorkshire, Brummie...), moved to RoI, then back in UK, and now moving to Lux.

EU or not, still nothing gets handed on a plate in this day and age. But I couldn't have achieved half of it in the timescale, without the EU being what it was, and still is.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems that you will be happy with bad regulations from the UK as long as it was decided by the UK. Taking back control is not about what is good for the UK or the people but its about making their own decisions, whether they are good or bad.

So will you be happy with bad regulations as long as it wasn't "forced" on the UK by the EU, right?

This is a loaded question and it makes me wonder if you're interested in my opinion at all. I'll bite though.

I'm not interested in "bad regulations" at all. Of course bad is relative in respect to what you think. If there is a trade deal with the US that will be negotiated, and it will be ratified by parliament.

Enzokk wrote: »

Its not always about the consumer but about the animals as well. The chlorinated chicken is as much about not eating chicken that has been washed in chlorine as about animal welfare and the conditions the animals are housed before they are slaughtered.

So chlorine washing itself isn't an issue. In respect to animal welfare, Britain banned battery farming before others in the EU, and I'm sure it will be a matter of discussion in terms of how food is imported from other countries. I don't know why people are prematurely getting themselves anxious about a trading arrangement that has yet to be negotiated.

Enzokk wrote: »

On TTIP, I think the people of Europe were concerned that the US were trying to push through conditions that were going to hurt EU companies and farmers.

Opposition to the toxic TTIP deal has reached a tipping point

This article contains precious little detail about what the issues were.

Enzokk wrote: »

So we can have an idea of what the US will look for in a deal with the UK. Its not good for the UK and hoping for a deal that will make up trade that will be lost by leaving the EU will be another shot in the foot for the UK. I wonder who they will blame if the trade deal with the US isn't all they were hoping for?

From what you've cited we don't have much a clue about why the American boogeyman was so scary. If there was a detailed step by step analysis about what was wrong with TTIP apart from hyperbole about chlorine washed chicken I'd be pretty interested to read it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like if this thread could stop focusing on solodeogloria's posts. A quick glance at his post history tells me all I really need to know about his position, and how impossible it is to ever change that.

I've played Devil's Advocate before in AH in the Trump thread pre-election. But I could listen to people and argue. solodeogloria simply does not have that mindset and all our convincing will never amount to anything, ever.


What I'd like to talk about is how bad May's decision was to confront Trump on his tweets. There's a time for the moral highground and with Brexit nearing, pissing off the President of America was a silly thing to do. Neither country bother to confront Saudi Arabia so May's response is baffling. I see it hurting the UK, possibly.

Again - it's a bit of a shame that you choose to make things so incredibly personal simply because I have a different political position to you on this subject. I'm not sorry for providing this thread the balance that it desperately needs in order not to be an echo chamber.

If you don't want to read my posts use the ignore function. It's there for your benefit.

Discussing and debating isn't always about changing peoples minds. It can be about gathering perspective on the positions of others.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't think it matters with Trump as his views doesn't represent the US Government view. In the end it doesn't matter what she says as her actions will speak louder than her words. She can say as much as she likes but if they continue with the invitation its all just words to Trump.

The TTIP negotiations were done by the previous US Government and as we see there was terms that wasn't to the liking of the people in the EU or in the end the countries in the EU. If this is how the US did their negotiations when they were not insular thinking what more will it be like now?

While I agree with the "Trump is only here for a while" thing, I think the UK's deadline is too severe to be upsetting someone as fickle and small-minded as Trump. He can be a spanner in the works for a US-UK trade deal if he wants to.

Edward M wrote: »

Possibly bad to upset Trump at this stage yes, going forward it may mean feck all.
May's biggest problem with regard to her overall strategy at present are the DUP.
The fact they are prepared to accept nothing but a whole UK or no UK decision is her biggest problem, she could easily lose power before any final brexit deal over dealing with them.

Yeah, it must be a nightmare for her in fairness. While I don't like her one bit, she's in between a rock and hard place at the moment. To the detriment of many.

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chatham House have produced a most useful "Tribes of Europe" quiz - eight questions in total, but six different "tribal options" in terms of attitudes to Europe. Personally, I'm a Contented European, but don't let that skew your results!

https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

For me:

88% likeness
Contented Europeans

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again - it's a bit of a shame that you choose to make things so incredibly personal simply because I have a different political position to you on this subject. I'm not sorry for providing this thread the balance that it desperately needs in order not to be an echo chamber.

If you don't want to read my posts use the ignore function. It's there for your benefit.

Discussing and debating isn't always about changing peoples minds. It can be about gathering perspective on the positions of others.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sorry, I didn't want to make it personal. But I see a lot of posters here putting a lot of thought into replies that won't sway you.

All I want is for the conversation to not be a "us vs. solodeogloria" thing. We're missing a lot of conversation about the broader picture by focusing on it. (maybe. perhaps you're right and you are the needed balance.)

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chatham House have produced a most useful "Tribes of Europe" quiz - eight questions in total, but six different "tribal options" in terms of attitudes to Europe. Personally, I'm a Contented European, but don't let that skew your results!

https://tribes.chathamhouse.org

Love this from the Austerity Rebels tribe description:


Most likely to

Be unemployed


Least likely to

Think hard work brings success

Jaggo

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't think it matters with Trump as his views doesn't represent the US Government view. In the end it doesn't matter what she says as her actions will speak louder than her words. She can say as much as she likes but if they continue with the invitation its all just words to Trump.

The TTIP negotiations were done by the previous US Government and as we see there was terms that wasn't to the liking of the people in the EU or in the end the countries in the EU. If this is how the US did their negotiations when they were not insular thinking what more will it be like now?

I think in fairness the TTIP might not have passed in the US either. They got rid of the much less ambitious TPP too.
Here is some advice on trade deals with the US from the confederation of British Industry:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/theresa-may-not-rush-uk-us-trade-deal-president-cbi-paul-drechsler-a7832266.html

Paraphase: do not do an ambitious deal, Britain will get shafted.