Brexit discussion thread II

swampgas

Water John wrote: »

Watching the ceremony at Ypres, this evening, I just don't understand where Brexiteers come from.

A big part came from Boris Johnson and the British press using the EU as a punchbag for a few decades. And from Boris Johnson throwing his weight behind the Brexit campaign and lying his head off.

The fact that the same Boris Johnson is foreign secretary makes me very pessimistic above the prospects of Brexit being anything other than a disaster.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Here's another round up. Glad to see Fratton Fred is back

murphaph wrote: »

The status of the border is absolutely not something the British can wash their hands of.

It is they who are leaving.

They signed the GFA with Ireland.

They need to come up with the solutions now because they are changing the terms under which the GFA was signed (common membership of the EU).

My point remains the same. The issue cannot be concluded until the European Commission outlines proposed trade terms. It's obvious that unless you deal with customs and trade relationships that isn't possible to conclude a discussion on the nature of the border. Open trade terms mean that the border can be open, if the trading terms are closed then there cannot be anything but a closed border, and indeed all the shades in between these two positions.

murphaph wrote: »

The very clear position of the EU with respect to external borders, especially with respect to controls on food imports was known by the UK before opting to leave.

Remember, the UK benefits from this strict food safety regime right now. If an importer brings something into Bulgaria it will be inspected according to EU safety standards and should it end up in London on your dinner plate you can assume it's safe to eat.

We have no idea what UK food safety rules will look like post Brexit. We do not want hormones in our food supply but this may be the price for the UK consumer of a UK USA trade deal. We are indeed going to be forced to somehow control food imports across the border as standards in the UK diverge.

Firstly - There is no reason why I can't trust the British government to take handle food regulations. On day one after Brexit, all of the standards that exist will be in UK law as a part of the Great Repeal Bill. Most of the meat I eat comes from the UK or Ireland in any case.

Secondly - I don't have major concerns with either chlorinated chicken or beef with hormones. Both will be clearly labelled and I will have the choice as to whether or not to eat it. As I've outlined in the thread already, there's no reason to believe that chlorinated chicken is unsafe at all. This will be a matter for discussion in a free trade agreement with the US. It isn't set in stone.

murphaph wrote: »

But the UK knew this. NI and the GFA will just be more collateral damage. Gibraltar is fooked and you know it Solo. It was thrown under the bus early on as no deal the UK agrees will apply to Gibraltar.

If Gibraltar is offered as a sacrificial lamb in the talks, the deal won't be agreed to. If it isn't rejected by the government first, it will be rejected by the House of Commons. The UK will not pay that price, end of story.

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder though, at what point will you admit that Brexit was a bad idea and that actually the bulk of EU regulations are quite sensible and help rather than hinder the daily lives of millions of people. I would still like to hear of some regulations you actually have a problem with, rather than the whole "sovereignty" thing.

The UK can and will be a successful country outside of the European Union. There's a strong case to support that. Provided the UK can arrange a good trade deal with the European Union and provided it can capitalise on the new freedom and control it will have it will do well.

I've been through a number of areas I think are limitations to the UK. EU member states hand over significant amounts of control to Brussels. It's up to each one to decide if it is worth it or not. The British people voted to leave. Therefore they decided that it isn't worth it any more.

Democracy is the only secular thing that can nearly be described as sacred in my mind. To undermine it is utter sacrilege which shouldn't be tolerated.

Irrespective of how people may quibble over the matter, the vote has been cast and it must be acted on. The people were promised this when the referendum bill went through Parliament in 2013. The decision has been made.

listermint wrote: »

Perplexing as it is an Irish man would have any aspirations of UK sovereignty in some lust for imperial times

It isn't acceptable for you to imply that I can't see the positives of Brexit because I'm Irish, and to imply that I'm an imperialist. I explained why my sympathies lie more with the UK than Brussels. I expect you to stick to the arguments.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK sending the money saved from EU to the regions ?
I've already posted that about €80Bn is earmarked for London and HS2 to London, while regional transport has been pushed back. No more EU means no more EU funding for roads. AFAIK the only EU funding replacement commitment is for farming of £3Bn , but this has already come with strings.

"EU funding" just means money that the UK gets back from what it sends to the European Union. That £13.1bn when it is returned from Brussels can be used on the same priorities. That's the £4.5bn they get back from Brussels today (this covers farming and other priorities), and the £8.6bn that they give to the rest of the EU for other things. The UK will have more money when it leaves to spend on these things than before. "EU funding" in the case of the UK is just money that the UK gets back after it spends £13.1bn every year. That's without a "money tree". The UK doesn't need the EU to tell it how to spend its own money. Talk of losing "EU funding" is therefore a fallacy. So is the idea that the UK will have "EU money' for it's roads after leaving. Perhaps what you mean is that it won't be "EU money" but British money when it's controlled by Westminster?

HS2 and other infrastructure projects have nothing to do with the EU. HS2 is a project that is going to hugely benefit the Midlands and the North. HS3 is under consulation which will connect Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Hull. That belt across the North of England is hugely significant. If anything the Government needs to go further with high speed rail and bring the benefits at least as far as Glasgow and Edinburgh if not even further in Scotland. If you've seen the impact of HS1 in connecting Kent and the Channel to London you'll see why HS2 and HS3 are worth every penny. On Crossrail 2, Chris Grayling and Sadiq Khan agreed that London will contribute half the cost. The impact of Crossrail on Essex and Berkshire in addition to London by 2019 will be huge.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IMF must be getting nervous.:D Because Britain went to hell in a handcart 'spending it's own money' before it sought the haven of the EEC.

Any guesses for who was in Government at the time? Also, are you sure the UK went to the IMF before joining the EEC?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Democracy is sacred, so another referendum on the terms of the deal would be fine, right? (assuming the EU left an alternative on the table).

I again note that you can't seem to name a few EU regulations (preferably ones not initiated by London!) that you have an actual problem with.

The wishy washy sovereignty argument is a joke as any FTA means sacrificing sovereignty in this area to a supranational court of arbitration. If Canada and the EU disagree about something in CETA, the Canadians must submit themselves to the (non-Canadian) court of arbitration. This is no different than submitting to the ECJ except in scope. The principle of "giving up some sovereignty" is the same.

That's the reality in 2017. Very few nations, except perhaps pariah states are truly sovereign. There's give and take through trade agreements and their courts of arbitration, through agreements like NATO (the UK is obliged to intervene if another NATO member is attacked, even if it doesn't like it).

swampgas

murphaph wrote: »

The wishy washy sovereignty argument is a joke as any FTA means sacrificing sovereignty in this area to a supranational court of arbitration. If Canada and the EU disagree about something in CETA, the Canadians must submit themselves to the (non-Canadian) court of arbitration. This is no different than submitting to the ECJ except in scope. The principle of "giving up some sovereignty" is the same.

There's an interesting interview on the German website dw.com, the English language version of Deutsche Welle, with a British ex-ECJ judge on how the ECJ is misunderstood in the UK.

http://www.dw.com/en/talk-in-the-uk-is-misleading-ex-ecj-judge/a-39768691

It's a long article, and the final question moves from discussing the ECJ to discussing the likely outcome of the Brexit negotations.

Finally, Sir David, can I get your prediction on the likely outcome of the Brexit talks?

I think that depends very much on British politics. The prediction is that this prime minister will not last. Then the question is: Who's next; and depending on who it is the outcome could be very nasty. I mean a lot of people I have spoken to, particularly in Brussels, say 'I am now sure that Britain is going to crash out of the EU in March 2019 without any deal at all.' And that is perfectly possible if there isn't a greater understanding of what all this involves. Another part of what I hear is that there is now a serious possibility that because the problems have begin to appear more and more horrendous, and this great repeal bill throws up more and more ghastly questions of law, people are beginning seriously to say is all this worth it? And you have to remember that people have to consider the state of the British economy, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said some weeks ago, people didn't vote to become poorer. You know, [former prime minister ] Harold Wilson once said a week is a long time in politics. I think between here and March 29, 2019 is a geological era in politics.

.

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

a British ex-ECJ judge on how the ECJ is misunderstood in the UK.

I mean a lot of people I have spoken to, particularly in Brussels, say 'I am now sure that Britain is going to crash out of the EU in March 2019 without any deal at all.'

The greater the number of people who start to believe this, the more the EU, member countries, companies and even individuals will start preparing for it. The more people outside the UK who are ready for it, the less anyone outside the UK will be afraid of it.

And if people outside the UK are not afraid of it, it is much more likely to happen. If this is really a negotiating tactic by the UK side ("no deal is better than a bad deal!"), it will get increasingly less effective the closer to the deadline we slide.

Cooler heads on the EU side may favour a "transitional period", (i.e. give the UK a few years on the naughty step to think about what they have done), but many people are going to say "We're ready now... bye!".

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Any guesses for who was in Government at the time? Also, are you sure the UK went to the IMF before joining the EEC?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

One government term caused the 60's 70's problem in Britain? Don't think so.
Britain was in a mess of it's own making before it joined the EEC.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The greater the number of people who start to believe this, the more the EU, member countries, companies and even individuals will start preparing for it. The more people outside the UK who are ready for it, the less anyone outside the UK will be afraid of it.

And if people outside the UK are not afraid of it, it is much more likely to happen. If this is really a negotiating tactic by the UK side ("no deal is better than a bad deal!"), it will get increasingly less effective the closer to the deadline we slide.

Cooler heads on the EU side may favour a "transitional period", (i.e. give the UK a few years on the naughty step to think about what they have done), but many people are going to say "We're ready now... bye!".

I think you will start to hear the idea 'we are better off without a member who was only half in anyway' louder and louder as time goes on.

Frankly I would be a lot happier in the EU if it were a much tighter more cohesive grouping, with everyone fully on board.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One government term caused the 60's 70's problem in Britain? Don't think so.
Britain was in a mess of it's own making before it joined the EEC.

and the fact it fixed itself has **** all to do with the eec and everything to do with a certain Mrs Thatcher.

Being in the eu does not protect countries from self inflicted financial suicide, it does protect them from total self destruction though. As we all know.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and the fact it fixed itself has **** all to do with the eec and everything to do with a certain Mrs Thatcher.

Being in the eu does not protect countries from self inflicted financial suicide, it does protect them from total self destruction though. As we all know.

Thatcher fixed it for some. And sewed the seeds of where we have ended up today.

There is no reason other that sheer bloody mindedness and nostalgic arrogance(all fostered and made manifest in MrsT) that Britain could not have used it's position to be the most powerful member in the Union.

Britain made huge gains from being in the EU, and grew it's economy based on it's membership.
If it were not for the EU and the protection of workers, the fathers and mothers of a lot of Brexiteers would have been completely tramped into the dirt (instead of partly) by Thatcher and those who championed her.

wes

Water John wrote: »

Watching the ceremony at Ypres, this evening, I just don't understand where Brexiteers come from.

Ultra nationalists aren't any different than Religious extremist imo. There is no reasoning with them.

joeysoap

wes wrote: »

Ultra nationalists aren't any different than Religious extremist imo. There is no reasoning with them.

Nationalism is tribalism, just doesn't sound so 'naked'

Podge_irl

solodeogloria wrote: »

What's far more interesting is that you're living in a non-EU country which is about to submit to the European Court of Justice after refusing to implement a referendum dealing with freedom of movement in 2014. If you want to find a perfect example of how the European Union is anti-democratic, just look to it's recent dealings with Switzerland. This is why the UK needs to be very firm and say no.

How does this demonstrate the EU being undemocratic? How Switzerland chooses to implement (or not) the results of their own referendum is immaterial to the EU. What the showdown eventually came down to was essentially the EU simply standing firm - Switzerland signed an international agreement predicated on freedom of movement. They were perfectly entitled to implement a restriction on freedom of movement but that would invalidate the bilateral agreement. They were not "forced" into anything - the EU simply looked out for their own members and their interests and made clear that an international agreement must be respected in full.

This is simply the power that a large trading bloc wields when dealing with a much smaller one. I imagine you will find that the EU will respect the Brexit referendum vote as much as they respected the Swiss immigration one.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point remains the same. The issue cannot be concluded until the European Commission outlines proposed trade terms.

The UK looses by default if time runs out.


Given that the UK has said that Free Movement will stop in 2019 and how it's kinda important to EU side I can't see the EU spending a lot of extra time and effort jumping through hoops on this one.

If Gibraltar is offered as a sacrificial lamb in the talks, the deal won't be agreed to. If it isn't rejected by the government first, it will be rejected by the House of Commons. The UK will not pay that price, end of story.

Back in the day Henry VIII went through Ireland with a policy of Surrender and Regrant.

Brexit will be like this. On leaving the EU all existing membership rights are gone. New ones will come with any new deal , if any.
Spain have made it very clear about putting it on the table.

"EU funding" just means money that the UK gets back from what it sends to the European Union. ... Perhaps what you mean is that it won't be "EU money" but British money when it's controlled by Westminster?

HS2 and other infrastructure projects have nothing to do with the EU. ... On Crossrail 2, Chris Grayling and Sadiq Khan agreed that London will contribute half the cost. The impact of Crossrail on Essex and Berkshire in addition to London by 2019 will be huge.

Exactly London is spending on London, which makes sense for London.

But central spending on the regions is slowing down and personal borrowing is up. The UK appears to be splitting into a have/have not society both for individuals and regions.

Capt'n Midnight

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And to fund its pension pot http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/12/brexit-migration-cuts-could-push-state-pension-age/

slight aside , not directly related to Brexit but it's another problem in the pipeline, which will affect competitiveness in the future. And news like this won't make the UK more attractive for startups.

Universities face a new blow to their finances after the main pension fund deficit soared to £17.5bn.

The Universities Superannuation Scheme now has the largest pensions deficit of any UK pension fund after it increased by £9bn last year.

One expert said student fees may have to rise or be diverted from teaching.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and the fact it fixed itself has **** all to do with the eec and everything to do with a certain Mrs Thatcher.

Being in the eu does not protect countries from self inflicted financial suicide, it does protect them from total self destruction though. As we all know.

Which Thatcher helped create. There would be no where near the same economic development in the UK without the EEC. The same goes for Ireland.

sondagefaux

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and the fact it fixed itself has **** all to do with the eec and everything to do with a certain Mrs Thatcher.

Being in the eu does not protect countries from self inflicted financial suicide, it does protect them from total self destruction though. As we all know.

Y'all should head up to the north-east of England and sing the praises of Mrs Thatcher.

Dozens of villages and small towns still haven't recovered from her arrogant decision to destroy coal mining and replace it with almost SFA...

Sam Russell

sondagefaux wrote: »

Y'all should head up to the north-east of England and sing the praises of Mrs Thatcher.

Dozens of villages and small towns still haven't recovered from her arrogant decision to destroy coal mining and replace it with almost SFA...

Under MT, the UK moved away from making things to making money by selling each other 'investments'. By reducing income tax at the top end from 60% to 40% overnight, and reducing financial regulation to 'light touch' she created the red braces louts who gambled unfettered in the financial markets of the City of London. This ended in 2008 with the collapse of the banks and the economy. Mrs T was long gone by then her ghost still clanks around Westminster - the Howerd fool called up her memory suggesting the UK could go to war with Spain over Gibraltar as she did over Las Malvinas (or the Falklands).

The economy of the North of England was destroyed by Mrs T. And the UK car industry. And the UK steel industry.

Jim2007

Sam Russell wrote: »

Under MT, the UK moved away from making things to making money by selling each other 'investments'.y.

So true. A very concentrated way to see it is to look at some of the old articles in
meccano magazines from the sixties. It gives you a good idea of just how strong and well placed manufacturing used to be.

Other thing to keep in mind about the City, is that we are just entering the outsource of services - back office, analysis, research etc... there is no reason why this cannot be done cheaper in 'the colonies'....

Sam Russell

Jim2007 wrote: »

So true. A very concentrated way to see it is to look at some of the old articles in
meccano magazines from the sixties. It gives you a good idea of just how strong and well placed manufacturing used to be.

Other thing to keep in mind about the City, is that we are just entering the outsource of services - back office, analysis, research etc... there is no reason why this cannot be done cheaper in 'the colonies'....

Do you mean New York?

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do you mean New York?

Well, what with chlorinated chicken and outsourcing the NHS to American corporations, the UK will quickly become a vassal state of the US after Brexit. Which means that 'The Colonies' will then refer to the UK. Ironically.

LeinsterDub

Anyone know what affect a hard Brexit would have on sport such as the Pro12 or champion's league or even GAA. I assume visas would be required?

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Which Thatcher helped create. There would be no where near the same economic development in the UK without the EEC. The same goes for Ireland.

which is the same as every other country in europe. If the UK had carried on being held to ransom by militant trade unions and effectively paying people to mine coal at a loss, then it would not have prospered anywhere near as much as it did.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Y'all should head up to the north-east of England and sing the praises of Mrs Thatcher.

Dozens of villages and small towns still haven't recovered from her arrogant decision to destroy coal mining and replace it with almost SFA...

SFA like like Nissan, Toyota.........

Sam Russell wrote: »

Under MT, the UK moved away from making things to making money by selling each other 'investments'. By reducing income tax at the top end from 60% to 40% overnight, and reducing financial regulation to 'light touch' she created the red braces louts who gambled unfettered in the financial markets of the City of London. This ended in 2008 with the collapse of the banks and the economy. Mrs T was long gone by then her ghost still clanks around Westminster - the Howerd fool called up her memory suggesting the UK could go to war with Spain over Gibraltar as she did over Las Malvinas (or the Falklands).

The economy of the North of England was destroyed by Mrs T. And the UK car industry. And the UK steel industry.

Have you ever managed to say anything about the UK that isn't derogatory?

Believe it or not, the party that did more than any to reduce regulation on the city was Labour under Tony Blair.

Thatcher was exactly what the UK needed at the time, without her, it would still be burning coal in outdated inefficient power stations because any attempt to move from coal would be met with strikes.

In fact, I believe if Thatcher was around today, the UK would not be leaving the eu.

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Anyone know what affect a hard Brexit would have on sport such as the Pro12 or champion's league or even GAA. I assume visas would be required?

no one has mentioned Visas and it is very very unlikely that they would ever be needed even in the event of the hardest most catastrophic Brexit

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no one has mentioned Visas and it is very very unlikely that they would ever be needed even in the event of the hardest most catastrophic Brexit

If you don't have visas when how do you control access to the employment market?

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If you don't have visas when how do you control access to the employment market?

By not issuing work permits, just like when you visit the US.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By not issuing work permits, just like when you visit the US.

So work permits would be required. How difficult would these be to obtain? I assume bilateral agreements would need to be arranged?

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So work permits would be required. How difficult would these be to obtain? I assume bilateral agreements would need to be arranged?

Work permits would, I expect, be issued in a similar way to Australia where certain trades or professions are given preference.

The government has already said it wants to keep existing CTA arrangements though, so Irish citizens should not see any difference post Brexit.

ArmaniJeanss

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Anyone know what affect a hard Brexit would have on sport such as the Pro12 or champion's league or even GAA. I assume visas would be required?

Horse racing and the breeding industry is possibly the most vulnerable sport, as its animal centric rather than people.
How feasible will it be for a blacktype English mare to visit a super expensive Coolmore/Kildangan stallion, and at the other end of the spectrum how feasible will it be for a lowlevel mare to visit a cheaply priced jumping stallion?

Football may only be affected in minor ways, e.g., signing 16/17 year olds from another country is currently banned by FIFA (Real and Barca got transfer bans for it) but interEU/EEA transfers are an exception. Post Brexit this loophole would no longer apply to English clubs so something like the original Pogba to MUFC transfer, or the 16 year-old Cesc to Arsenal couldn't happen.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do you mean New York?

Refrain from posting one-liners please.

demfad

Looks like Arron Banks may have to testify to the US senate committee on Russian connections to Brexit and Trump. Contagion of Trump-Russia to Brexit-Russia was always likely with the same actors. Lets see if this will start a trickle....
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leave-campaign-funder-arron-banks-to-testify-on-russia-ties-to-brexit-and-donald-trump-9dmsbqp3v

steddyeddy

I seen David Trimble on Sky News attacking the "Dublin government" for Leo's recent comments. Apparantly we should all row behind the UK and maybe even follow them out.....

The UK seem to be forgetting that the Irish border situation has to be solved before any trade talks occur.

Enzokk

I have a novel idea to sort the border issue that the DUP may find acceptable. Why don't we give up our soveirignity to the UK and become like Scotland. Then there will be a United Ireland as part of the UK. We will have the queen as our monarch and all that. But after a year we hold elections as a united Ireland province on leaving the UK and the whole island decides what is good for the entire island. Lets see what the vote would be then.

These Ulster politicians really need to wind their necks in. They are a minority party in NI where the majority backed to remain, yet they think they can tell another country what to do regarding the EU membership. What are they smoking up there, and what was promised by Theresa May that we are seeing such bold statements coming from the North?

Peregrinus

You seem to be talking yourself around to opposing your own position, Fred.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no one has mentioned Visas and it is very very unlikely that they would ever be needed even in the event of the hardest most catastrophic Brexit

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If you don't have visas when how do you control access to the employment market?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By not issuing work permits, just like when you visit the US.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So work permits would be required. How difficult would these be to obtain? I assume bilateral agreements would need to be arranged?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Work permits would, I expect, be issued in a similar way to Australia where certain trades or professions are given preference.

Neither the US nor Australia issue work permits. They issue visas.

Work permits - then called "employment vouchers" - were an idea that the UK experimented with in the 1960s in an attempt to control migration from the not-so-white parts of the Commonwealth. The idea was that British Subjects would in principle retain their right of entry to the UK, but couldn't take up a job if they were in a category of British Subject that was required to hold an employment voucher (and you can probably guess which categories were subjected to that requirement). And they could be turned away at the point of entry if they didn't seen able to support themselves.

It didn't work, and eventually the system was replaced in 1971 with a migration regime based on "patriality", under which a British Subject's right of abode in the UK depended on whether he could produce a UK-born father or grandfather.

I don't think any developed economy is using work permits/employment vouchers any more. In these free-market days it implies a degree of detailed intervention in the labour market those to the right of centre find intrusive and objectionable. It relies on the co-operation of employers to police and enforce it, whereas their economic incentives are generally not to enforce it. And it just doesn't work as well as controls imposed at the border.

Reviving the idea now in the context of Brexit looks a bit like yesterdays's solution for tomorrow's problem. But, then, you could say pretty much the same about the whole Brexit project, couldn't you?

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

You seem to be talking yourself around to opposing your own position, Fred.







Neither the US nor Australia issue work permits. They issue visas.

Work permits - then called "employment vouchers" - were an idea that the UK experimented with in the 1960s in an attempt to control migration from the not-so-white parts of the Commonwealth. The idea was that British Subjects would in principle retain their right of entry to the UK, but couldn't take up a job if they were in a category of British Subject that was required to hold an employment voucher (and you can probably guess which categories were subjected to that requirement). And they could be turned away at the point of entry if they didn't seen able to support themselves.

It didn't work, and eventually the system was replaced in 1971 with a migration regime based on "patriality", under which a British Subject's right of abode in the UK depended on whether he could produce a UK-born father or grandfather.

I don't think any developed economy is using work permits/employment vouchers any more. In these free-market days it implies a degree of detailed intervention in the labour market those to the right of centre find intrusive and objectionable. It relies on the co-operation of employers to police and enforce it, whereas their economic incentives are generally not to enforce it. And it just doesn't work as well as controls imposed at the border.

Reviving the idea now in the context of Brexit looks a bit like yesterdays's solution for tomorrow's problem. But, then, you could say pretty much the same about the whole Brexit project, couldn't you?

Semantics.

Working visas, work permits, green cards, call them what you like.

Leinster players won't need visas to play Ulster.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Another day and another Brexit roundup

murphaph wrote: »

Democracy is sacred, so another referendum on the terms of the deal would be fine, right? (assuming the EU left an alternative on the table).

If the justification was reasonable I'd be amenable to it.

At present I can't see a reasonable justification.

The people are suffering electoral fatigue. We've already had a referendum on leaving or remaining in the EU. That question is settled.

We've had an election on approaches to Brexit. The two major parties campaigned to leave the single market.

Part of regarding democracy as nearly sacred means respecting what they have said without goading them to change their mind.

This article on the BBC tickled me a bit:

Business leaders and politicians asked former Foreign Secretary William Hague how the UK would "get round" the EU referendum result, he has revealed.

In the Daily Telegraph, Lord Hague said he was asked the question "for months... everywhere I went abroad".

He said he explained to them that "this really is a democracy".

Too right it is! A lot of people don't seem to understand that.

murphaph wrote: »

I again note that you can't seem to name a few EU regulations (preferably ones not initiated by London!) that you have an actual problem with.

You don't get to tell me how to phrase my support for Britain leaving the EU. I've told you why I support it at a high level.

The UK is required to cede far too much control to be in the European Union. From who can fish in your waters to who you can conduct free trade deals with. There is a broad level of control handed over and Britain would like more back.

I can agree with many EU directives and still object to the loss of control that is a part and parcel of membership.

murphaph wrote: »

The wishy washy sovereignty argument is a joke as any FTA means sacrificing sovereignty in this area to a supranational court of arbitration. If Canada and the EU disagree about something in CETA, the Canadians must submit themselves to the (non-Canadian) court of arbitration. This is no different than submitting to the ECJ except in scope. The principle of "giving up some sovereignty" is the same.

It isn't wishy washy. No free trade arrangement in the world that I know of requires handing over as much control as membership of the European Union.

No free trade deal I know of requires a carte blanche acceptance of migration. No free trade deal I know of requires an absolute acceptance of European Union law.
No free trade deal I know of prohibits forging other free trade agreements.

The idea that CETA is equivalent is absurd. The CETA court has 5 Canadian judges, 5 European judges, and 5 third country judges. Yes it requires being subject to trade arbitration but it doesn't require anywhere near the same loss of control. It gives equal representation.

murphaph wrote: »

That's the reality in 2017. Very few nations, except perhaps pariah states are truly sovereign. There's give and take through trade agreements and their courts of arbitration, through agreements like NATO (the UK is obliged to intervene if another NATO member is attacked, even if it doesn't like it).

This is a caricature of my position. My issue isn't with collaboration of any kind. My issue is with the amount of control that Brussels takes from member states.

I don't erect straw men in respect to your posts and I ask you not to do it with mine.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Cooler heads on the EU side may favour a "transitional period", (i.e. give the UK a few years on the naughty step to think about what they have done), but many people are going to say "We're ready now... bye!".

The UK won't be coming back in. This is why the discussion is about working out a more appropriate relationship.

wes wrote: »

Ultra nationalists aren't any different than Religious extremist imo. There is no reasoning with them.

joeysoap wrote: »

Nationalism is tribalism, just doesn't sound so 'naked'

More sneering at people who voted for genuine reasons to leave the EU.

This condescension of populism isn't helpful. Instead of condescension, what is required is engagement.

Instead of seeing that people are concerned about migration - you see nationalist bigots.

Instead of seeing that people want to open up trade with a growing world around them you see little Englanders.

Instead of seeing working class people concerned about being undercut in certain sectors of work by low wage migration you see xenophobic bigotry.

The reason why populism or in short mass participation in democracy by those who feel left behind has come about is precisely because people have spent decades ignoring the concerns of normal people. I suspect people like you.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK looses by default if time runs out.

Given that the UK has said that Free Movement will stop in 2019 and how it's kinda important to EU side I can't see the EU spending a lot of extra time and effort jumping through hoops on this one.

You know when I said that some people would offer Jean Claude Juncker the crown jewels and the keys to Buckingham Palace? This is exactly why.

The UK needs to be calm and collected during the opening set of negotiations. They've got every reason to be confident.

If the EU don't want to spend the effort on the "creative solutions" that it proposes itself then I would say that tells us all we need to know about the EU. It would be willing to kick one of it's own member states in the gonads for the sake of punishing the UK.

That wouldn't be exactly an advertisement for the European Union would it?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in the day Henry VIII went through Ireland with a policy of Surrender and Regrant.

Brexit will be like this. On leaving the EU all existing membership rights are gone. New ones will come with any new deal , if any.
Spain have made it very clear about putting it on the table.

lol, srsly? You're comparing the EU to a tyrant. You know that right? That's such an extreme comparison!

The people of Gibraltar have clearly offered their support to continued British rule. The UK won't be selling Gibraltar off to Spain. Most people, and I suspect many of the other countries in the European Council knew that suggestion was ridiculous from the word go. When I saw it I just rolled my eyes and thought typical Spain again!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Exactly London is spending on London, which makes sense for London.

But central spending on the regions is slowing down and personal borrowing is up. The UK appears to be splitting into a have/have not society both for individuals and regions.

You've cut both the bit in the post where I mentioned the benefits to the North and the Midlands with HS2 and the proposals for HS3 from my post. Being well connected is good for Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham. And indeed with HS3 Liverpool, Hull, and Sheffield. In any case infrastructure spending which benefits the whole country has nothing to do with "EU funding".

steddyeddy wrote: »

Which Thatcher helped create. There would be no where near the same economic development in the UK without the EEC. The same goes for Ireland.

A more accurate assessment is that Thatcher had mixed views about the European project. It's true that she was a supporter of the EEC but she was clear that she was opposed to the Maastricht Treaty. She supported a referendum on the matter which John Major opposed.

Podge_irl wrote: »

How does this demonstrate the EU being undemocratic? How Switzerland chooses to implement (or not) the results of their own referendum is immaterial to the EU. What the showdown eventually came down to was essentially the EU simply standing firm - Switzerland signed an international agreement predicated on freedom of movement. They were perfectly entitled to implement a restriction on freedom of movement but that would invalidate the bilateral agreement. They were not "forced" into anything - the EU simply looked out for their own members and their interests and made clear that an international agreement must be respected in full.

This is simply the power that a large trading bloc wields when dealing with a much smaller one. I imagine you will find that the EU will respect the Brexit referendum vote as much as they respected the Swiss immigration one.

Did you read the article?

At present the single market regulations in Switzerland are maintained by bilateral treaties mirroring regulations into Swiss law. It is handled and interpreted domestically at present. The ECJ has no oversight over Switzerland under the current bilateral agreement.

In 2014 there was a referendum to ensure that there would be quotas on migration and legislation to ensure that Swiss nationals would be preferred in employment. It passed narrowly. The Swiss government ignored the people's verdict.

That isn't where we see the EU being anti-democratic. That's where we see the Swiss government let the people's vote down. Where the EU is anti-democratic is instead of respecting the result of the referendum they tell Switzerland that they must change their arrangement with them to be directly subject to the ECJ (without any Swiss representation) lest pesky Swiss democracy get in the way again.

The EU insist that the Swiss relationship tighten when the people want the opposite. It's further than the status quo. If that isn't anti-democratic I don't know what is. What would you call a relationship where one party insists on control without the other party's consent? I would call it an abusive relationship. Instead of forging a positive relationship based on consent the EU insist on forging an abusive one based on threats.

We're seeing the same thing unfold in the Brexit talks. Britain wants a positive but an appropriate relationship based on the consent of both parties. The EU side offer threats and fearmongering. The British government need to push back on any oversight of the ECJ for this reason.

You seem to think it's a virtue that the EU won't respect the result of the referendum. That speaks volumes about your view of democracy and if it's an accurate depiction of the EU it's not good advertising!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Semantics.

Working visas, work permits, green cards, call them what you like.

Leinster players won't need visas to play Ulster.

If the visa/work permit distinction is a semantic point, Fred, it's one that you introduced.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

Leinster players won't need visas to play Ulster.

I think the question is more about who they can play for rather than against.

murphaph

@Solo, so you agree that any FTA the UK signs will also require the UK to submit itself to an external court of arbitration. Sovereignty is therefore ceded in these matters.

It's "high level" and doesn't bother the average person one bit....just like the ECJ really.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Semantics.

Working visas, work permits, green cards, call them what you like.

Leinster players won't need visas to play Ulster.

You mean the Irish players i assume?

Peregrinus

I think there's two possible issues (neither of which will be an issue in real life).

1. Will UK teams need work permits/visas/whatever to employ German/French/Italian etc players? (And vice versa with respect to EU teams employing British players.)

Answer: Possibly, if there's a general requirement in the UK to get these to employ non-UK citizens. But this question already arises with respect to non-EU players, of whom there have been many in the UK. If work visas or whatever are needed, they can and will be got.

2. Will visiting sports teams need visas to enter the UK to play in matches against UK teams? (And vice versa with respect to UK teams playing away in the EU.)

Answer: Very unlikely, though of course it depends on what border policies the UK decides to put in place. If visas are needed, they'll be got.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The government has already said it wants to keep existing CTA arrangements though, so Irish citizens should not see any difference post Brexit.

They have also said the "want" no return to a hard border, but since they are leaving in March 2019 and still have no idea how to achieve that while simultaneously controlling immigration (which is the only point to Brexit), I don't think they are going to get what they "want".

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

I think the question is more about who they can play for rather than against.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there's two possible issues (neither of which will be an issue in real life).

1. Will UK teams need work permits/visas/whatever to employ German/French/Italian etc players? (And vice versa with respect to EU teams employing British players.)

Answer: Possibly, if there's a general requirement in the UK to get these to employ non-UK citizens. But this question already arises with respect to non-EU players, of whom there have been many in the UK. If work visas or whatever are needed, they can and will be got.

2. Will visiting sports teams need visas to enter the UK to play in matches against UK teams? (And vice versa with respect to UK teams playing away in the EU.)

Answer: Very unlikely, though of course it depends on what border policies the UK decides to put in place. If visas are needed, they'll be got.

seeing as Rugby and football teams currently recruit players from Fiji, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Japan .....

I can't see this being a significant issue, can you?

I know this is a major shock for a lot of people on this forum, but there is actually a world outside of the eu and it seems to function pretty well without Jean Claude Junckers looking after it.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK won't be coming back in.

I think the most likely short term scenarios are:

1) The UK crashes out with no deal in 2019
2) The EU offers a transitional period to avoid chaos and the UK accepts.

In case 2, there may be time for folks in the UK to see the awful vista before them and change their minds in the medium term, but obviously it would require an earthquake in Westminster.

In the very long term, 50 years from now, of course the UK will have rejoined, for the very same reasons they joined in 1973, the same reasons Thatcher backed the Single Market.

Peregrinus

What could change, though, is the freedom for UK based-teams to employ foreign players.

UK teams used to have quotas for this (as did teams in some other EU countries). These were imposed by the controlling bodies of the sports concerned, and effectively required clubs in the national league to field teams substantially made up of local players. There was either a quota for the number of foreign players you could have, or a salary cap for the total remuneration you could pay to foreign players, which forced you to choose between having one or two very prominent (and therefore very expensive) foreigners in the squad, or a larger number of second-string players.

Anyway, tghe legality of all this was challenged by a professional soccer player under EU non-discrimination law, and he won, which radically changed the professional sports scene throughout Europe.

With Brexit, the UK will be free, if it wishes, to allow sports leagues to reintroduce rules of this kind, clearing a way for a return to largely local teams. The humorously-titled Great Repeal Bill will transpose EU non-discrimination rules into UK law, but will give the relevant government minister a power to change them without reference to parliament, and presumably if an interested party sends him a large enough bung to persuade him to change them in this particular regard, he will do so.

I have no idea whether anyone has an economic interest in doing this, though.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

Answer: Very unlikely, though of course it depends on what border policies the UK decides to put in place. If visas are needed, they'll be got.

I assume visa are a quid pro quo . So needs to be negotiated.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

seeing as Rugby and football teams currently recruit players from Fiji, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Japan .....

I can't see this being a significant issue, can you?

I assume the EU has negotiated bi-lateral visa programmes with these countries. Correct me if I'm wrong and the EU just decided to let them work here

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I assume visa are a quid pro quo . So needs to be negotiated.

I wouldn't assume that at all.

The US, for example, has a "highly talented" visa class under which foreign performers, sportspersons, computer whizzes, etc - experts in pretty well any field - can get visas to work in the US. This is good for the US because it allows them to tap into the world's best talent in any field, and it's good for US business, institutions, etc for the same reason. It's not mutual or reciprocal, because it's good for the US regardless of whether US experts are also free to go and work in Umbrellastan, or wherever. So this is a unilateral stance by the US, and it applies to the whole world.

I'd expect the UK to introduce something similar, if needed.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I assume the EU has negotiated bi-lateral visa programmes with these countries. Correct me if I'm wrong and the EU just decided to let them work here

Work visa programmes are mostly not bilateral (though there are some exceptions). Australia, for example, has an umlimited bilateral programme with New Zealand (amounting to the equivalent of free movement of labour) but I think all its other work visa classes are unilateral.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

What could change, though, is the freedom for UK based-teams to employ foreign players.

UK teams used to have quotas for this (as did teams in some other EU countries). These were imposed by the controlling bodies of the sports concerned, and effectively required clubs in the national league to field teams substantially made up of local players. There was either a quota for the number of foreign players you could have, or a salary cap for the total remuneration you could pay to foreign players, which forced you to choose between having one or two very prominent (and therefore very expensive) foreigners in the squad, or a larger number of second-string players.

Anyway, tghe legality of all this was challenged by a professional soccer player under EU non-discrimination law, and he won, which radically changed the professional sports scene throughout Europe.

With Brexit, the UK will be free, if it wishes, to allow sports leagues to reintroduce rules of this kind, clearing a way for a return to largely local teams. The humorously-titled Great Repeal Bill will transpose EU non-discrimination rules into UK law, but will give the relevant government minister a power to change them without reference to parliament, and presumably if an interested party sends him a large enough bung to persuade him to change them in this particular regard, he will do so.

I have no idea whether anyone has an economic interest in doing this, though.

yes, that is very true.

It is equally true that someone could bung the respective minister enough money to reword it so that one legged lesbians from Peru are allowed free access to the UK football and rugby leagues and no one else.

You can say what you like about the UK parliamentary system, but it is very good at weeding out those that accept bungs.

Chips Lovell

solodeogloria wrote: »

At present the single market regulations in Switzerland are maintained by bilateral treaties mirroring regulations into Swiss law. It is handled and interpreted domestically at present. The ECJ has no oversight over Switzerland under the current bilateral agreement.

In 2014 there was a referendum to ensure that there would be quotas on migration and legislation to ensure that Swiss nationals would be preferred in employment. It passed narrowly. The Swiss government ignored the people's verdict.

That isn't where we see the EU being anti-democratic. That's where we see the Swiss government let the people's vote down. Where the EU is anti-democratic is instead of respecting the result of the referendum they tell Switzerland that they must change their arrangement with them to be directly subject to the ECJ (without any Swiss representation) lest pesky Swiss democracy get in the way again.

The EU insist that the Swiss relationship tighten when the people want the opposite. It's further than the status quo. If that isn't anti-democratic I don't know what is. What would you call a relationship where one party insists on control without the other party's consent? I would call it an abusive relationship. Instead of forging a positive relationship based on consent the EU insist on forging an abusive one based on threats.

I think Spiked has spun what's going on a bit and misled you. First of all, the negotiations for a new framework treaty between the EU and Switzerland [URL="file:///C:/Users/dick_obrien/Downloads/142503.pdf"]have been underway since 2014 and were being mooted since at least 2010[/URL], long before the referendum. Members of the Swiss government are getting cold feet about the ECJ bit but I don't think the new treaty is dead in the water yet.

Secondly, nobody's forcing the Swiss to negotiate or, if they choose to, to accept any new agreement. Every Swiss treaty with the EU has been put to a referendum. I've no doubt this one will be too.

On a broader note, I know the current Swiss model has been held out as one of the alternatives for Britain post-Brexit. However, by all accounts the EU isn't keen on repeating the endevour and regards the mesh of bilateral treaties as too cumbersome.

But Britain would struggle to get a deal like that of Switzerland. The EU dislikes the complexity of the arrangement and would be unlikely to replicate it for the far bigger British economy.