Brexit discussion thread II

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

Concern about being re-elected is what has gotten May & company into this mess. If their priority had been doing their job properly, Barnier and Verhofstadt would be doing something else.

According to one German MEP, Guy Verhofstadt is to blame as well

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/832771/Brexit-news-Germany-MEP-slams-Guy-Verhofstadt-Brexit-role-European-Union

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

According to one German MEP, Guy Verhofstadt is to blame as well

Herr Henkel's party has a lot in common with UKIP so his views are hardly surprising.

They got 4.7% of the votes in the last German Federal election so you can decide how well they reflect the wishes of the people.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Theresa May is not a Brexiteer.

Technically true.

She'd need to soften her views on the ECJ and dial it down to be just a hard Brexteer. Hard Brexit is a necessary step to leave the ECJ.

Anything else is just aspirational guff of the "having your cake and eating it".


I'm sure if someone where to go back through the records they'd find that many of the powers she wants to deport people are already on the books, in the sense that the people involved may have been deported for other reasons. Or ask their country of origin to request extradition.

steddyeddy

It's complete stupidity to say May is anything but a Brexiter.

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

Herr Henkel's party has a lot in common with UKIP so his views are hardly surprising.

They got 4.7% of the votes in the last German Federal election so you can decide how well they reflect the wishes of the people.

What do you mean by "A lot in common"? they are in two seperate european parties.

Herr Henkel's party is a european sceptic/reformist party. UKIP are simply anti eu.

I know criticism of the eu is not allowed on here, but wanting to reform the eu is very very different to wanting to exit the eu.

Sand

There seems to be a wild idea about the UK seeking observer status on the EU foreign policy committees. I'm amused by the idea to be honest.

I can see exactly what the UK hopes to gain from such an arrangement but its less clear what the EU gains, given the UK traditionally does its best to sabotage any sort of EU foreign policy or defence arrangements. Any assets the UK can offer in a positive fashion, be it diplomatic, intelligence or military can be accessed simply by picking up the phone and appealing to common interests or just simple leaning on the UK. As far as common defence goes, NATO exists separate to the EU. The EU has no need to otherwise indulge the UK's post imperial funk.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'll say one thing about the eu team, they love to use the media to put pressure on the UK government.

Welcome to being outside the tent. This is what negotiations with a greater power look like.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

At first they were criticised for taking time, now they get criticised for not taking time.

The thing is they took their time, more than an entire year. And they spent it mocking Remoaners, endlessly repeating tiresome banal slogans like "Brexit means Brexit", insulting silly Europeans whose kindness they will ultimately depend on and losing a needless general election. They certainly didn't spend it actually preparing to go up against the EU negotiating team in the most critical fight for the UK's interests over the next 30 years. The last 12 months is a microcosm of the entire failure of UK politics and leadership over the last 30-40 years to which Brexit is the exclamation point.

BoJo is the Foreign Secretary Fred. Boris Johnson. That's UK politics summed up right there.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's complete stupidity to say May is anything but a Brexiter.

really? So anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

Nice.

She campaigned for the remain side and openly spoke of the down falls of leaving the eu.

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

There seems to be a wild idea about the UK seeking observer status on the EU foreign policy committees. I'm amused by the idea to be honest.

I can see exactly what the UK hopes to gain from such an arrangement but its less clear what the EU gains, given the UK traditionally does its best to sabotage any sort of EU foreign policy or defence arrangements. Any assets the UK can offer in a positive fashion, be it diplomatic, intelligence or military can be accessed simply by picking up the phone and appealing to common interests or just simple leaning on the UK. As far as common defence goes, NATO exists separate to the EU. The EU has no need to otherwise indulge the UK's post imperial funk.

oh dear god. Post imperial funk blah blah blah.

When has the UK sabotaged any eu foreign of defence policy?

Sand wrote: »

Welcome to being outside the tent. This is what negotiations with a greater power look like.

really?

Sand wrote: »

The thing is they took their time, more than an entire year. And they spent it mocking Remoaners, endlessly repeating tiresome banal slogans like "Brexit means Brexit", insulting silly Europeans whose kindness they will ultimately depend on and losing a needless general election.

hang on, did the Conservatives lose the general election?

no, they didn't, which means you don't know what your talking about.

Thought so

Sand wrote: »

They certainly didn't spend it actually preparing to go up against the EU negotiating team in the most critical fight for the UK's interests over the next 30 years. The last 12 months is a microcosm of the entire failure of UK politics and leadership over the last 30-40 years to which Brexit is the exclamation point.

and you know that how, exactly?

Sand wrote: »

BoJo is the Foreign Secretary Fred. Boris Johnson. That's UK politics summed up right there.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.....

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

She campaigned for the remain side and openly spoke of the down falls of leaving the eu.

That just means she is less principled than David Cameron.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

really? So anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

Nice.

She campaigned for the remain side and openly spoke of the down falls of leaving the eu.

Yes that's exactly what I said.

She's a flag in that she points where ever the wind blows. Now she's a fully paid up Brexiter once she realised what the people voted for. Her alliance with the DUP gives a full account of her integrity.

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh dear god. Post imperial funk blah blah blah.

When has the UK sabotaged any eu foreign of defence policy?



really?



hang on, did the Conservatives lose the general election?

no, they didn't, which means you don't know what your talking about.

Thought so




and you know that how, exactly?



Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.....

Look Fred, it's OK. The UK has seriously harmed itself. But its not going to collapse. You don't need to take criticism of Brexit as a personal attack.

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

Look Fred, it's OK. The UK has seriously harmed itself. But its not going to collapse. You don't need to take criticism of Brexit as a personal attack.

so can you respond to any of these questions?

When has the UK sabotaged any EU foreign or Defence policy?

Who won the last election in the UK?

Do you know what you're talking about?

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

That just means she is less principled than David Cameron.

Good job too, as the alternative was either Boris, Davis or Fox.

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good job too, as the alternative was either Boris, Davis or Fox.

I refer you to my point on Brexit being the exclamation point to 30-40 years of British political failure.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good job too, as the alternative was either Boris, Davis or Fox.

Who she let negotiate the future of the UK....

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so can you respond to any of these questions?

When has the UK sabotaged any EU foreign or Defence policy?

Who won the last election in the UK?

Do you know what you're talking about?

Ah Fred. If you think May is on a victory lap having won the last election, and that the UK isn't so hostile to EU foreign/defence policy that it confirmed as recently as September its intent to veto any joint EU defence capability to its last breath, then...okay. Its okay.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

What do you mean by "A lot in common"? they are in two seperate european parties.

Well yes, they are in two different countries. That doesn't stop them having similar nationalistic views and a shared dislike of immigrants and foreigners in general.

Every country has a political outlet to cater for its worst tendencies.

An Ciarraioch

The most surprising stat from the CSO's tourism report is that this is the first-ever quarter we've had more European than UK visitors - even allowing for family connections with Britain, the four most populous markets in the Rest of Europe are all within two to three hours by plane.

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

Ah Fred. If you think May is on a victory lap having won the last election, and that the UK isn't so hostile to EU foreign/defence policy that it confirmed as recently as September its intent to veto any joint EU defence capability to its last breath, then...okay. Its okay.

seriously, you need to step away from the keyboard.

That is a defence union, not defence policy. There is already a defence union in europe, its called NATO.

defence policy is based on the European Security and Defence Policy, which the UK contributes to significantly. It is also the second largest contributor to the European Defence Agency.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

seriously, you need to step away from the keyboard.

That is a defence union, not defence policy. There is already a defence union in europe, its called NATO.

defence policy is based on the European Security and Defence Policy, which the UK contributes to significantly. It is also the second largest contributor to the European Defence Agency.

So why exactly did the UK block a European defence policy? NATO isn't sufficient for European interests.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

So why exactly did the UK block a European defence policy? NATO isn't sufficient for European interests.

They haven't blocked a european defence policy, they are blocking a european army.

The UK already supports the defence policy and as such offered France any support it needed when it became the first country to invoke the mutual defence clause.

IIRC, Ireland was the only country to potentially block the common defence policy after it rejected the first Lisbon referendum. Remember the debates about abortion, euthanasia and forced conscription to an eu army?

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They haven't blocked a european defence policy, they are blocking a european army.

The UK already supports the defence policy and as such offered France any support it needed when it became the first country to invoke the mutual defence clause.

In other words the UK wants to control defence. It's the only theory that makes sense. Why exactly would they want to block an EU army? What harm would a shared defence do? It would certainly relieve the load on the UK.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

Yes, of course you did.

Correct.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They haven't blocked a european defence policy, they are blocking a european army.

The UK already supports the defence policy and as such offered France any support it needed when it became the first country to invoke the mutual defence clause.

IIRC, Ireland was the only country to potentially block the common defence policy after it rejected the first Lisbon referendum. Remember the debates about abortion, euthanasia and forced conscription to an eu army?

Yep and that was stupid. Just like the UK blocking a EU army.

Sand

Fratton Fred wrote: »

seriously, you need to step away from the keyboard.

Fred, you take any criticism of Brexit as if its a personal attack on you. You tend to then return fire. You need to take your own advice and establish some emotional distance from the topic.

That is a defence union, not defence policy. There is already a defence union in europe, its called NATO.

defence policy is based on the European Security and Defence Policy, which the UK contributes to significantly. It is also the second largest contributor to the European Defence Agency.

If the UK's view on EU defence policy was even close to being realistic, then it wouldn't have to threaten to veto the planned intentions of the other members. Rightly or wrongly, the UK opinion on the necessity of joint EU defence measures are not going to matter after Brexit. It's removed itself from the discussion, much to the relief of everyone else. Which goes back to the original point of why the EU would want the UK involved in any measure to EU joint foreign or defence policy when the UK is so hostile to the topic.

Fratton Fred

Sand, you and eddy misunderstand the difference between a common security and defence policy, where member states pool knowledge and experience and assist each other, with a common army.

The UK is a very active member of the common security and defence policy, but it doesn't want is a common defence force. It hasn't blocked any eu policy on this, because none has been proposed.

So, again, when has the UK blocked eu foreign or defence policy?

Jaggo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When has the UK sabotaged any EU foreign or Defence policy?

Well, probably not sabotage but the UK actively campaigned to have the EU expand into Eastern European to weaken the "ever closer union" and limit the power of France and Germany. And this was a time when the EU was thinking of slowing the acceptence of new member countries.

I think having observer status is quite a good idea. Always gives the chance of cooperation on different projects, esp. stuff in developing countries etc.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sand, you and eddy misunderstand the difference between a common security and defence policy, where member states pool knowledge and experience and assist each other, with a common army.

The UK is a very active member of the common security and defence policy, but it doesn't want is a common defence force. It hasn't blocked any eu policy on this, because none has been proposed.

So, again, when has the UK blocked eu foreign or defence policy?

Why would they block a common army? Does it have to replace a nation's army?

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why would they block a common army? Does it have to replace a nation's army?

Because it would be a direct competitor to NATO.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because it would be a direct competitor to NATO.

That's ridiculous.

Fratton Fred

Jaggo wrote: »

Well, probably not sabotage but the UK actively campaigned to have the EU expand into Eastern European to weaken the "ever closer union" and limit the power of France and Germany. And this was a time when the EU was thinking of slowing the acceptence of new member countries.

What on earth has that got to do with foreign policy?

Surely the objective of any free trade area should be to constantly grow?

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

Less of the nonsense please.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

Great post, thanks for that educated and insightful post.

A common eu defence union would mean each contributor would have two allegiances and would potentially have two chains of command.

If someone invaded Poland, who conducts the defence, the eu or NATO? You can't have soldiers going in to battle with two generals giving the orders.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's complete stupidity to say May is anything but a Brexiter.

She is anti ECJ

This not only means hard Brexit.

It also means no Euratom

And leaving the European Aviation Safety Agency

Leaving the ECJ means in many cases replicating the functions of the agencies that the ECJ is the arbitrator for. The new UK agencies would have to be done to an EU standard , otherwise they'd need to pay the EU to recertify stuff they want interaction with.

It also means they'd loose the automatic certification status with any countries the EU has reciprocal arrangements with. It's a lot of replication and negotiation.

And a lot of hostages to fortune it the third parties need bargaining chips.


No ECJ means no ..

European Central Bank
European Investment Bank (UK has assets here to offset the divorce bill)
European Investment Fund (poorer areas of the UK)


Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)
Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA)
European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX)
European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA)

European Asylum Support Office (EASO)
European Banking Authority (EBA)
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
European Environment Agency (EEA)
European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA)
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)
European GNSS Agency (GSA)
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
European Medicines Agency (EMA)
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)
European Police Office (Europol) But UK still in in Interpol
European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)
European Training Foundation (ETF)
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL)
European Union Agency for Railways (ERA)
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Single Resolution Board (SRB)
The European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit (EUROJUST)


European Defence Agency (EDA)
European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)
European Satellite Centre (Satcen)
EURATOM agencies and bodies
EURATOM Supply Agency (ESA)
European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Fusion for Energy)
Executive agencies
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea)
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
European Research Council Executive Agency (ERC Executive Agency)
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized enterprises (EASME)
Innovation & Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
Research Executive Agency (REA)


European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT)
European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB)

Brexit also means a diminished role in ESA as 20% of funds come from the EU, up to 70% for some projects.


And May supports things like the Snoopers Charter so another area the EU would prefer to be under the ECJ

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Great post, thanks for that educated and insightful post.

A common eu defence union would mean each contributor would have two allegiances and would potentially have two chains of command.

If someone invaded Poland, who conducts the defence, the eu or NATO? You can't have soldiers going in to battle with two generals giving the orders.

But it's ridiculous to say NATO will be competing. Any more than a nation's army competes with NATO's. NATO is extremely hesitant to call on troops in certain situations. Sanctions are preferred. An EU army would be a direct counter to any Russian aggression for example. NATO wouldn't be as effective as it relies on the Americans.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it's ridiculous to say NATO will be competing. Any more than a nation's army competes with NATO's. NATO is extremely hesitant to call on troops in certain situations. Sanctions are preferred. An EU army would be a direct counter to any Russian aggression for example. NATO wouldn't be as effective as it relies on the Americans.

It competes if countries are members of both and military wise, all the major European countries are.

The first rule of NATO is an attack on one us an attack on all. There is nothing an eu defence union can offer that NATO can't.

If Russia decided to invade Europe, then we'd all be ****ed without the US.

Junkyard Tom

Tweet by Ian Paisley Jnr:



How delusional is this guy and the DUP?

1. He's salivating at the thought of a 'very hard border' which will harm business in the north, particularly agribusiness, and threatens to unravel peace process.

2. He's calling for almost 90% of the Irish people who support being in the EU to 'wise up'.

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it's ridiculous to say NATO will be competing. Any more than a nation's army competes with NATO's. NATO is extremely hesitant to call on troops in certain situations. Sanctions are preferred. An EU army would be a direct counter to any Russian aggression for example. NATO wouldn't be as effective as it relies on the Americans.

It competes if countries are members of both and military wise, all the major European countries are.

The first rule of NATO is an attack on one us an attack on all. There is nothing an eu defence union can offer that NATO can't.

If Russia decided to invade Europe, then we'd all be ****ed without the US.

One of the key problems there, Fred, is that the EU recognises this and in light if Trump witterings about not complying with Article 5 of NATO a few NATO members are rather concerned about what happens if in fact, Russia does invade one of the Baltics. Admittedly Trump has rowed back on that but frankly I would take the view that the current US administration may not be totally reliable in terms of coherent and consistent policy.

Russia has also made some rather aggressive noises about what action they might take if Sweden joins NATO and there are some internal concerns in Finland too which is also not a member of NATO.

In that context, the EU is perfectly within its rights to widen its defence policy to include wider and better defined military cooperation and to find ways of reducing dependency on the US whose leader has a demonstrated lack of understanding how NATO financing operates, who is constantly making resentful noises about the cost to the US of defending Europe despite the US wasting massive amounts on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan driven by his own party at the outset. You tell us we are screwed without the US. The UK wrote an Article 50 letter which IIRC seemed to imply they would stop cooperating on security if the EU didnt do what the UK wanted. All this damages my view of how much NATO can be relied on and creates the need to look at options which the EU has some more modicum of control over.

This is not a question of competition - it isn't like the EU is desperate to invade anywhere. But they want to be able to defend themselves and the primary partner in NATO is currently unstable.

In all honesty what would you do? Hope for the best or start taking additional measures?

Enzokk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Tweet by Ian Paisley Jnr:



How delusional is this guy and the DUP?

1. He's salivating at the thought of a 'very hard border' which will harm business in the north, particularly agribusiness, and threatens to unravel peace process.

2. He's calling for almost 90% of the Irish people who support being in the EU to 'wise up'.

Not just that, he is still in support of a policy that the majority of the voters in NI voted against. He is on the wrong side of just about everything the majority in Ireland and NI wants, yet everyone but him must wise up.

murphaph

Agree entirely. It's actually high time we Europeans acted together in our own common defence. I would be more critical of Ireland in this respect than the UK however.

The United States has become an unreliable partner in NATO and I would actually much prefer if Europe could defend itself against military aggression by a third party.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

By way of warning, the tone in this post is quite forthright in places.

With that said, let's have today's Brexit roundup

listermint wrote: »

I've one question, are you not Irish? Or are you not English living in Ireland. So I'm perplexed why you are happy to wait seven years for complete brexit surely being English living in the EU you are getting a raw deal here. I don't really get your pro brexit stance from a personal basis.

Because regardless of what way you voted you are ultra pro brexit right now with no real reason given your situation.

Intrigued?..

I think you're confusing me with Fratton Fred. I'm Irish, and I'm Eurosceptic. Being Irish doesn't mean I have to have an undying love of Euro-federalism. Obviously that isn't true. I live and work in London, I've got a lot of close friends here and truth be told my loyalties lie far more with the UK as our closest neighbour and as my home for the foreseeable future than the "European project" in Brussels. Of course I'm supporting the British in getting the very best deal. Why wouldn't I?

I voted remain in the referendum but I'm fairly sure I made a mistake. I would vote to leave the EU if it was done again today. I'm supporting a good Brexit free trade arrangement because I believe it is the best outcome for the UK and it deals with the concerns that were raised in the referendum.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Immigration minister Brandon Lewis said this morning that freedom of movement will end on March 2019. Great, I should be gone then! The racists who voted Brexit should be delighted with this. Not all Brexit voters are racist mind, but it's certainly likely that all racists are Brexit voters.

Freedom of movement of workers between Britain and the European Union will end when Britain withdraws from the bloc, UK immigration minister Brandon Lewis said this morning. From RTE and the BBC.

There's nothing racist about having border controls. Most countries have them. Heck, the European Union even has them on their external borders. If the UK can get a new immigration system in place by 2019 that would be great but I doubt that they can if they want a transition period. I'm an advocate of a fairly light touch arrangement with controls only for lower wage labour which seems to have been the area of concern in the referendum. The Bank of England showed there was a small impact from this. I reckon something like a tier 3 visa for low wage labour and a liberal version of a tier 2 for skilled workers should suffice. Britain should remain open and free to those who wish to contribute and make their lives here provided there isn't excessive strain on the labour market or on public services. It's good to see the concerns from the referendum will be addressed.

Amber Rudd seems clear that registration will happen after March 2019 for new EU arrivals as the UK transitions to a final state. This is the right call and should have happened from day one even with free movement. This shouldn't be difficult to combine with the National Insurance interview that one has to do when arriving in UK.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wrong. You are comparing two very different economies.

"A British departure from the EU and its single market would be the largest programme of re-regulation and re-protection of trade in advanced economies since the Smooth-Hawley tariffs in 1930. Substituting single-market access with a CETA-style trade agreement would not change that. CETA works for Canada – an economy that is distant from Europe and with an export profile based on commodities. For the UK, whose trade with the EU are in sectors highly exposed to regulatory protection (finance, nuclear power equipment, pharmaceuticals, et cetera) it would lead to a serious loss of market access and commercial integration."

When I say that CETA is a good model for Brexit it's important to point out that I don't mean that the UK should copy CETA word for word. What I mean is that a third country free trade agreement with joint arbitration is a good option. Obviously this will need to be tailored to consider the specific needs of the UK's economy as any free trade agreement is.

In respect to financial services you should read what I've said so far about the need of EU member states to have access to the City and the provisions in MiFID II for third countries. I agree with Fratton Fred about movements to EU countries. They will be small subsidiaries. From what I've heard on the ground from a banking IT perspective in London is that some banks are even moving IT teams back into London. One of the biggest European investment banks in particular is moving IT teams back from Poland. It's a mixed picture.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wrong. The UK has no credible and experienced trade experts. Also, they haven't been told the conditions under which they will be leaving the EU so they can't discuss trade in any meaningful way. They might as well be talking about the weather. Bluff and bluster for the Torygraph.

This isn't exactly an argument for staying in the EU. It's an argument for using Brexit as an opportunity to build up the UK's trade negotiating competence.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wrong. Aside from the impact on animal welfare, chlorinated chicken does increase risk to human health. A race to the bottom with the USA on workers' rights and health standards? Enjoy that.

Where have we introduced workers rights from?

On chlorinated chicken, it is safe for consumption. This is from Full Fact.

Full Fact wrote:

We spoke to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)—an EU agency—and the British Poultry Council (BPC). Neither said it was unsafe to eat chicken rinsed with chlorine, but both raised different concerns about the process.

The BPC said it was concerned about the impact on British farmers and standards if chlorine-washed chicken from the US started to be imported.

The EFSA says it stands by its findings from 2005 research that concluded:

“On the basis of available data and taking into account that processing of poultry carcasses (washing, cooking) would take place before consumption, the Panel considers that treatment with trisodium phosphate, acidified sodium chlorite, chlorine dioxide, or peroxyacid solutions, under the described conditions of use, would be of no safety concern.”

Similarly, a panel in 2012 said the use of chemical substances in poultry is “unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers”.

This just shows how irrational some of this fearmongering is. Consumers can make up their own mind if it is imported to the UK.

Also - if you watched Wednesday's Newsnight on BBC2, it was explained that the US often exports chickens to other countries without chlorination to suit trading standards in other countries, and indeed it was also explained that free trade agreements do not necessarily require uniformity in standards.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wrong. The four freedoms are indivisible. Out of one means out of all.

This is clearly false. I'm surprised so many people liked this post.

The four freedoms only apply in the case of single market membership. The UK isn't interested in single market membership but a third country free trade agreement. The point of Brexit is to take the UK out of Euro-federalism, not bring it further into it. EU-lite isn't good enough.

Single market membership is not the same as a free trade agreement providing single market access.

You'll have noticed that Canada doesn't subscribe to the four freedoms.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So a new trade with the US which entails exhaustive negotiations (Britain has no experienced negotiators), different tariffs, different regulations and 2000 miles travel is better than an existing FTA with harmonised tariffs, harmonised regulations and 30 miles travel to your biggest customer.

Brexit is really dumb isn't it?

The UK is very clear that it is looking to establish a better free trade agreement with the EU with the freedom to have new trade deals with other countries. (A free trade agreement that requires less control to be handed to Brussels and allows for progressive free trade agreements to be signed with other countries is a better free trade agreement).

Expanding trade with a growing world while maintaining good links with the EU is really clever. The UK has every chance of being a progressive free trading nation on the doorstep of continental Europe and benefiting for it.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How is American healthcare for Joe Soap doing these days? You're going to need all those American corporations 'taking care of you' after the chlorinated chicken

More baseless irrational fearmongering.

The NHS already has private contracts. Companies already compete for these. The only difference with an American free trade agreement is that American firms would be able to compete for these. I'm all for it as long as healthcare is free at the point of delivery to the end user.

You know - if only you could apply that kind of cynicism to the EU, you'd see how good an opportunity Brexit is. After all America is asking for far less than the EU require of member states.

Countries can prosper outside of the EU and there's a good chance that Britain can and will without the constraints of EU membership on trade policy.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'll say one thing about the eu team, they love to use the media to put pressure on the UK government.

Indeed - which leads to the oft-repeated and vacuous remark that the UK doesn't have a plan.

Of course it has! A high level plan in the Lancaster House speech that Theresa May gave in January, the Brexit Whitepaper and in the Article 50 letter and in the position papers that the Brexit department have published.

This aside - there is of course a strategy for the negotiations even if it isn't published. The presumption that you only have a strategy if the public knows every detail is utterly vacuous. You don't send 90+ negotiators without a strategy.

On the financial settlement I would argue that it isn't incumbent on the UK to present figures. If the EU claim they owe them a substantial bill they should present it and the British should work through it line by line.

A calm and collected British position on Brexit is what's required. Panicking at the first sign of pushback is exactly what they want. Honestly, if some of the posters on this thread were negotiating they would have already sent the crown jewels to Jean Claude Juncker and Buckingham Palace to boot!

Mezcita wrote: »

In fairness though, it is interesting to get the views of someone who thinks that Brexit will go well for the UK even if the majority of us don't agree with him.

Thanks for this. For some reason some people are threatened by an opposing point of view. The thing is, it's pretty easy to find clear advantages to a good Brexit.

My view isn't that Brexit is guaranteed to go well. My view is that if Brexit is handled rightly (this is key) that it could go very well. A Britain with a good free trade agreement to the EU and several other free trade agreements with good conditions including one to the United States and another to China would be better off than it is today. This really is too big an opportunity to miss. A huge expansion of trade, a huge amount of funding returned and a huge amount of control regained.

That isn't just an "interesting" position, it's the sensible and right option for Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

The UK does not have a plan. It has a bunch of high level aspirations and a dearth of ability to get many of them. It has demonstrably been on the back foot to date.

Additionally Brexit so far has been handled appallingly. A significant number of people seem to be unclear on the impact of no single market/customs union on highly integrated supply chains on some of the UK's key remaining manufacturing industry and the high risk that services does not come into a trade agreement. Britain is likewise the weaker party with little to sell to the US and China in that context. This puts it at a severe disadvantage to both in trade negotiations.

There is no calm and collected position on Brexit. The cabinet is divided. The chickens are one thing, and representative of a wider malaise. A transition position and its duration are two more facets where the Cabinet has internal and public sniping.

Fratton Fred

"solodeogloria wrote:

On the financial settlement I would argue that it isn't incumbent on the UK to present figures. If the EU claim they owe them a substantial bill they should present it and the British should work through it line by line.

This, definitely.

The UK has stated several times it will honour it's commitments, tell us what these are and we can discuss the figure.

The eu seems to be putting the onus on the UK to state what this is, which indicates to me that they haven't got a clue.

Capt'n Midnight

This is how unprepared the UK is. The only way this could be called a "new" setback is if they ignored all the comments and history here about how important the existing status of the border is. We've looked into the other proposal and looks like they won't work. Has the UK done any real work on the border other than handwaving ?

And if they are that complacent about a major Brexit issue how are they dealing with the rest ?

BTW a hard border would impose hardship on the north and make a border poll more likely and sooner rather than later.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq

Theresa May is facing a new setback in Brexit negotiations after the government in Dublin said that her proposal for the Irish border was unworkable.

Leo Varadkar, the Republic of Ireland’s prime minister, is pushing for the Irish Sea to become the post-Brexit border with the UK after warning Mrs May that her plan was doomed and would jeopardise the peace process.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

One of the key problems there, Fred, is that the EU recognises this and in light if Trump witterings about not complying with Article 5 of NATO a few NATO members are rather concerned about what happens if in fact, Russia does invade one of the Baltics. Admittedly Trump has rowed back on that but frankly I would take the view that the current US administration may not be totally reliable in terms of coherent and consistent policy.

Russia has also made some rather aggressive noises about what action they might take if Sweden joins NATO and there are some internal concerns in Finland too which is also not a member of NATO.

In that context, the EU is perfectly within its rights to widen its defence policy to include wider and better defined military cooperation and to find ways of reducing dependency on the US whose leader has a demonstrated lack of understanding how NATO financing operates, who is constantly making resentful noises about the cost to the US of defending Europe despite the US wasting massive amounts on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan driven by his own party at the outset. You tell us we are screwed without the US. The UK wrote an Article 50 letter which IIRC seemed to imply they would stop cooperating on security if the EU didnt do what the UK wanted. All this damages my view of how much NATO can be relied on and creates the need to look at options which the EU has some more modicum of control over.

This is not a question of competition - it isn't like the EU is desperate to invade anywhere. But they want to be able to defend themselves and the primary partner in NATO is currently unstable.

In all honesty what would you do? Hope for the best or start taking additional measures?

It has nothing to do with Trump, that's a relatively recent development, although the recent deployment of 4000 US troops to Poland would indicate the US is still pretty involved. Oh and security goes waaay further than planes and submarines by the way, intelligence sharing is a huge part of security in Europe.

So maybe you can tell me, what can an eu defence union offer that NATO can't?

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This, definitely.

The UK has stated several times it will honour it's commitments, tell us what these are and we can discuss the figure.

The eu seems to be putting the onus on the UK to state what this is, which indicates to me that they haven't got a clue.

It's not quite as straightforward as that. Because this situation has never arisen before, there are no established rules for apportioning the assets and liablities of the Union when a member state leaves. Rules and principles have to be established, and I find it surprising that Fred thinks the right way forward is for the Union to decide what the rules are and then notify the UK of what it's obligations under those rules will be. The rules themselves are a matter for negotiation between the Union and the UK.

Brussels did put a position paper on this to the UK some weeks about, but hasn't made it public. The UK hasn't made a formal response yet, and the divergent comments from the likes of Johnson, Hammond and Davis may suggest that the Cabinet has yet to agree a position. (Or they could be a deliberate strategy to explain a tactical delay in responding; see below.)

The EU position paper proposes a methodology for computing the U.K.’s financial entitlements and obligations, but there's a tacit agreement on both sides that they won't - at least publicly - mention any figure yet. Only when the principles to apply have been agreed will they work out what figure will be yielded by the application of those principles. (Which is not to say that each side isn't calculating for themselves what figure would be yielded by various possible approaches, of course. But at least publicly the approach is to decide what is the right, fair, just, etc way to approach this and then see what figure results, rather than to pick a figure and then work out some rules that will produce that figure.)

As noted, the UK has yet to respond formally to the EU's position paper, either by commenting on the methodology proposed in that paper or by suggesting an alternative methodology themselves (which is something Barnier has invited them to do). In Brussels they think that the UK's reticence on this point is a deliberate negotiating tactic - one that they are countering by pointing out that this is one of the points on which there must be "substantial progress" before the Brexit talks can turn to other issues so, really, it's past time that the UK responded to the position paper that we sent, oh, five or six weeks ago now.

The figures being bandied about in the press - 65 billion, 80 billion, 100 billion - seem eye-wateringly large, but in terms of the UK's long-term interests this is a second-order issue. Whether the UK does well, badly or terribly out of Brexit does not depend on the amount of the exit settlement, but on the future trading arrangements between the UK and the EU, the UK and the EEA, and the UK and the rest of the world. In so far as there's a trade-off for the UK between a lower exit bill and freer trade with the EU, they should go for the freer trade, every time, hands down. And the EU knows this.

Water John

I know the Mods object to one liners. But lads, I'm not going to wade through peoples essays. Its a discussion forum.

steddyeddy

Dublin proposes a sea border between the UK and Ireland. The DUP start to panic and say they'll block that. Fair enough then a trade agreement will be blocked. The Irish border has to be sorted prior to a trade agreement. A land border isn't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40750819/dup-irish-sea-border-absurd

Sam Russell

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dublin proposes a sea border between the UK and Ireland. The DUP start to panic and say they'll block that. Fair enough then a trade agreement will be blocked. The Irish border has to be sorted prior to a trade agreement. A land border isn't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40750819/dup-irish-sea-border-absurd

It is either a and border or a sea border - one or the other (or both).

The solution for people is to provide everyone in the UK with ID cards, linked back to their NI number, and to their passport or residency status document. This would feed into their employment status, with employers to verify entitlements. After all they still want visa free tourists.

With goods it gets tricky. No-one (outside the DUP) wants a hard border on the island of Ireland.

A special status would be needed for NI just to cater for the agriculture in NI. Perhaps the UK could pay into the EU Agri fund to compensate for the cost of NI agri exports into Ireland, which would be cheaper than the cost of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

wes

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dublin proposes a sea border between the UK and Ireland. The DUP start to panic and say they'll block that. Fair enough then a trade agreement will be blocked. The Irish border has to be sorted prior to a trade agreement. A land border isn't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40750819/dup-irish-sea-border-absurd

Its the only feasible option really. The DUP shot themselves in the face (was going to say foot, but face is more appropriate with Brexit) by supporting Brexit. The common sense thing to do, would be to fight tooth and nail against it, and act within there own interests, as opposed to siding with people who barely know they exist.