Brexit discussion thread II

First Up

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Even worse is that much of the remaining trade is conducted under rules and agreements between the EU and it's international partners.

All of it is.

solodeogloria

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Solo, there has not been any country in history that has managed to increase trade by putting up barriers to trade. Ever.


The EU only accounts for 44% of the UKs trade, as if that was a trifling amount. It's just under half ffs.

Even worse is that much of the remaining trade is conducted under rules and agreements between the EU and it's international partners.

Good afternoon!

The only thing this reply shows is that you've obviously not been reading my posts.

There is only so much value in restating my position again and again after each straw man.

1) I support an FTA with the EU and continuation agreements for existing external FTA's to preserve as much trade as possible.

2) I support new trade deals with other countries.

How you can misconstrue my position to say I support closing the UK to trade is beyond me when I've been crystal clear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK can perform these tasks itself, like most other countries on the earth.

And it does. Regularly.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure I'd refer to the European Union as an "open market". It is only open to a degree. It is highly protectionist in respect to external trade also. It's open within the member states that are a part of it. The "protection of external frontiers" argument is also very weak. The UK already deals with its frontiers itself through the UK Border Force, it isn't a member of Schengen. It also handles its own customs.

So are individual countries. How do you think British farmers will feel if the Tories start importing cheap Brazilian beef en masse.

solodeogloria wrote: »

No, it isn't the ECJ by another name. Having equal representation on the tribunal and including third country observers is much less prone to bias than allowing it direct jurisdiction over British affairs presumably without any British representation.

The UK is a member of the ECJ and is therefore represented. Can you prove any bias out of curiosity?

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't understand why nobody wants to correct this "democratic deficit". I might be convinced that the European Union might be a "necessity" in some form. But I don't consider Britain's membership a necessity.

Because, relatively speaking there isn't one.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK already deals with its frontiers itself through the UK Border Force, it isn't a member of Schengen. It also handles its own customs.

And it makes a dam bad job of it! They are facing fines in the region of €2b for customs breaches, they sent out invalid letters requiring people to leave the country, their immigration stats are based on surveys that are no believed to be 10,000s out on figures of about 250k and they failed completely to implement the FMOP rules....

Schengen by comparison scans the passport of every none Schengen country tourist in and out. And more importantly it places the burden of proof of the person not the authority when it comes to over stays. None of this catch them and let them go because we can't prove it as in the U.K.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So are individual countries. How do you think British farmers will feel if the Tories start importing cheap Brazilian beef en masse.

Importation of Brazilian beef would obviously depend on what the Brazilians would give the UK in return. If Brazilian beef were imported on those terms, there would have to be a significant advantage to the UK in return.

I'm not afraid of free trade.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK is a member of the ECJ and is therefore represented. Can you prove any bias out of curiosity?

Two points.

Firstly - the UK is only represented on the ECJ for as long as it is a member. Why do you think the UK will be allowed to sit on the ECJ after it leaves the European Union?

Secondly - the bias is numerical. If you have 27 members on the ECJ who are all representing one side in the deal, they are going to favour the EU in disputes. The obvious solution to this is a separate arbitration mechanism with the UK representing half, and the EU representing half with a third party to arbitrate in the case of deadlocks.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because, relatively speaking there isn't one.

So you couldn't think the article was fantastic in that case?

Jim2007 wrote: »

And it makes a dam bad job of it! They are facing fines in the region of €2b for customs breaches, they sent out invalid letters requiring people to leave the country, their immigration stats are based on surveys that are no believed to be 10,000s out on figures of about 250k and they failed completely to implement the FMOP rules....

Schengen by comparison scans the passport of every none Schengen country tourist in and out. And more importantly it places the burden of proof of the person not the authority when it comes to over stays. None of this catch them and let them go because we can't prove it as in the U.K.

It's up to the UK to enforce it's own borders on it's own terms. Irrespective of the rules concerning free movement of people. The concern isn't that the rules weren't implemented but at the very principle of free movement itself. It isn't my strongest reason for Brexit, but I think there needs to be a different visa arrangement for low wage labour to ensure that it doesn't put undue pressure on the British labour market. Provided that you can prove that you are skilled and are earning above a threshold I think free movement should broadly stay.

If the UK's border system is lacking - that's the UK's business.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The only thing this reply shows is that you've obviously not been reading my posts.

There is only so much value in restating my position again and again after each straw man.

1) I support an FTA with the EU and continuation agreements for existing external FTA's to preserve as much trade as possible.

2) I support new trade deals with other countries.

How you can misconstrue my position to say I support closing the UK to trade is beyond me when I've been crystal clear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If talks break down and a FTA is no longer a possibility, will you still support pushing ahead with the "cliff edge" (WTO rules for manufactured goods but nothing for services, flight cancellations due to open skies terminating for the UK, customs inspections and the expected delays) option or asking the EU for an extension beyond March 2019? (assuming A50 is not revocable)

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

The concern isn't that the rules weren't implemented but at the very principle of free movement itself. It isn't my strongest reason for Brexit, but I think there needs to be a different visa arrangement for low wage labour to ensure that it doesn't put undue pressure on the British labour market.

solodeogloria

The irony that you're someone who took advantage of that free movement/ the free movement provided by the CTA appears lost on you.

Can you provide any evidence for the current undue pressure caused by free movement?

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

If talks break down and a FTA is no longer a possibility, will you still support pushing ahead with the "cliff edge" (WTO rules for manufactured goods but nothing for services, flight cancellations due to open skies terminating for the UK, customs inspections and the expected delays) option or asking the EU for an extension beyond March 2019? (assuming A50 is not revocable)

Good afternoon!

I think transitional terms are better than an extension. The UK needs to come out of the European Union.

As mentioned already. I seem to be more liberal than both the British public and the British negotiators on this.

At a stretch I'd be pretty happy to stay a member of the customs union for 2 years until new customs terms are agreed. I'd drop out of that after 2 years. I would be building up customs frontiers and securing existing trade and pushing for one or two new free trade deals. After 4 years I would leave the single market using the additional time to finalise trade terms with the EU.

The final destination of leaving the single market and customs union is the right one because it is the only effective means of regaining control.

I definitely don't support revoking Article 50. That would be a rejection of the people's vote.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The irony that you're someone who took advantage of that free movement/ the free movement provided by the CTA appears lost on you.

Can you provide any evidence for the current undue pressure caused by free movement?

If the UK required me to comply and seek a visa I would seek one or even seek citizenship. Since I'm not required to do this. I won't. The CTA of course existed before Brexit and is a recognition of historical ties between the UK and Ireland.

In certain sectors of low wage employment there is pressure on wages, and it is hard for British workers to compete for jobs. This was highlighted in the referendum, and the Bank of England published a report to say that there are pressures on wages by immigration in the lower wage part of the economy.

This was clearly one of the big issues in the referendum and it should be acted upon.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The only thing this reply shows is that you've obviously not been reading my posts.

There is only so much value in restating my position again and again after each straw man.

1) I support an FTA with the EU and continuation agreements for existing external FTA's to preserve as much trade as possible.

2) I support new trade deals with other countries.

How you can misconstrue my position to say I support closing the UK to trade is beyond me when I've been crystal clear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I never said that you support closing the UK to trade, but when you say you want to "preserve as much trade as possible" you're acknowledging that Brexit means barriers to trade.

Fair enough you say that you say that you want FTA with the rest of the world - but how long will it take to get those agreements? How much damage will be done in the interim and when the desperate situation becomes apparent, how punitive will those agreements be?

There are no friends or allies in global politics. Only national interests.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Importation of Brazilian beef would obviously depend on what the Brazilians would give the UK in return. If Brazilian beef were imported on those terms, there would have to be a significant advantage to the UK in return.

I'm not afraid of free trade.

Neither am I. It's a key reason why I voted Remain. If there were EU parliament elections tomorrow (had Remain won), whichever party seemed most likely to reduce EU protectionism and push for more deals would likely win my vote.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Two points.

Firstly - the UK is only represented on the ECJ for as long as it is a member. Why do you think the UK will be allowed to sit on the ECJ after it leaves the European Union?

Secondly - the bias is numerical. If you have 27 members on the ECJ who are all representing one side in the deal, they are going to favour the EU in disputes. The obvious solution to this is a separate arbitration mechanism with the UK representing half, and the EU representing half with a third party to arbitrate in the case of deadlocks.

It looks more like people were thinking the UK would be required to sit rather than being allowed to.

The ECJ will have nothing to do with the final deal, that is a matter for at least 27 Parliaments.

solodeogloria wrote: »

So you couldn't think the article was fantastic in that case?

I didn't say perfectly written.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the UK required me to comply and seek a visa I would seek one or even seek citizenship. Since I'm not required to do this. I won't. The CTA of course existed before Brexit and is a recognition of historical ties between the UK and Ireland.

Your dodging the issue why is the CTA acceptable but the common travel area isn't? Why is it acceptable for Irish people to come and go as they like but not French or Romanian

solodeogloria wrote: »

In certain sectors of low wage employment there is pressure on wages, and it is hard for British workers to compete for jobs. This was highlighted in the referendum, and the Bank of England published a report to say that there are pressures on wages by immigration in the lower wage part of the economy.

Link please!

Here's the FT saying the opposite

What is the effect of migration on unemployment and wages?

One theory has it that migrants compete with the local population for jobs, driving down wages and pushing up unemployment for British people. But this ignores the fact that migrants also buy goods and services — providing a boost to the economy and creating new jobs. Migrants might also bring useful skills that complement those of the indigenous workforce.

There is little evidence that more migrants push wages down or unemployment up.

https://www.ft.com/content/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d

UK studies find that immigration has small impact on average wages but more significant impacts along the wage distribution

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

EU migrants have no negative effect on UK wages, says LSE

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lse


So no impact ranging to a tiny impact on low skilled jobs. What effect do you think brexit will have on these jobs?

Jim2007

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The EU only accounts for 44% of the UKs trade, as if that was a trifling amount. It's just under half ffs.

As of Feb 2017 it had grown to 48%, but Solo prefers to ignore this:

The EU countries are hugely important trade partners for the UK. In 2016, the EU accounted for 48% of goods exports from the UK, while goods imports from the EU were worth more than imports from the rest of the world combined.

Source


And the stats for June 2017 show a further dependency, as exports to the US fell by 19%!!!!

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Neither am I. It's a key reason why I voted Remain. If there were EU parliament elections tomorrow (had Remain won), whichever party seemed most likely to reduce EU protectionism and push for more deals would likely win my vote.

Right, so you disagree with some aspects of how the EU operates in respect to trade? I used to think that there could be significant reform in the EU, but the result of David Cameron's discussions in Brussels in 2016 and the response to Brexit from the European Union have told me otherwise. I don't think it's possible.

It'll be much quicker to agree trade deals as one country rather than a bloc of 27.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It looks more like people were thinking the UK would be required to sit rather than being allowed to.

The ECJ will have nothing to do with the final deal, that is a matter for at least 27 Parliaments.

Why would the UK be "required" to sit? Or even permitted to sit?

There is no other non-EU country sitting on the ECJ.

Even if it was permitted, why would the UK agree to that? Why would that be in their interests?

It's a bilateral deal with two parties. Both parties should have equal representation with an impartial third party. I thought it'd be quite obvious as to how Britain being under the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ would be unacceptable.

Edit: UK trade to the EU in 2016 was 44% inclusive of services. From Full Fact.


Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!



Right, so you disagree with some aspects of how the EU operates in respect to trade? I used to think that there could be significant reform in the EU, but the result of David Cameron's discussions in Brussels in 2016 and the response to Brexit from the European Union have told me otherwise. I don't think it's possible.

It'll be much quicker to agree trade deals as one country rather than a bloc of 27.



Why would the UK be "required" to sit? Or even permitted to sit?

There is no other non-EU country sitting on the ECJ.

Even if it was permitted, why would the UK agree to that? Why would that be in their interests?

It's a bilateral deal with two parties. Both parties should have equal representation with an impartial third party. I thought it'd be quite obvious as to how Britain being under the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ would be unacceptable.

Edit: UK trade to the EU in 2016 was 44% inclusive of services. From Full Fact.


Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Britian wants a deal that looks like the single market in everything but name (and obligations of course). If the UK wants limited (Canada like) access to the single market then a new FTA court can be set up. Anyway thats a debate for another day, they need to agree on the three primary points of the separation talks first, as they have agreed to.

Not necessarily true. The USA-Australia trade deal is hardly a model of expediency, incidentally both of which Brexiteers have earmarked for quick and easy trade deals.

I don't know why you're arguing whether its 48% or 44%, its still a huge number. In fact if its anything above 10-15% even limited damage to that trade would prove problematic for any country.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

I used to think that there could be significant reform in the EU, but the result of David Cameron's discussions in Brussels in 2016 and the response to Brexit from the European Union have told me otherwise. I don't think it's possible.

You only have to look back over the last 40 years to see just how well the EU is able to reform and adjust. But that is not the problem. The problem is that the UK wants to go a different direction to the other 27.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It'll be much quicker to agree trade deals as one country rather than a bloc of 27.

Really and yet the 27 decided their strategy PDQ in relation to BREXIT, while we are still waiting for the UK cabinet to go beyond the sound bytes.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Even if it was permitted, why would the UK agree to that? Why would that be in their interests?

Because they expect to get more than your average trade deal, or have you not been keeping up.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: UK trade to the EU in 2016 was 44% inclusive of services. From Full Fact.

Except that services are not covered, so that is a dead duck. But ignore it if it makes you feel more comfy in your world.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Last post for today.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Britian wants a deal that looks like the single market in everything but name (and obligations of course). If the UK wants limited (Canada like) access to the single market then a new FTA court can be set up. Anyway thats a debate for another day, they need to agree on the three primary points of the separation talks first, as they have agreed to.

I don't think it is a discussion for another day. Arbitration discussions are happening now as part of the initial discussions. The ECJ having direct oversight on anything to do with this agreement is manifestly unacceptable. You don't let one side have unilateral judgement in a deal. It is unprecedented for any deal with a third country.

Jim2007 wrote: »

You only have to look back over the last 40 years to see just how well the EU is able to reform and adjust. But that is not the problem. The problem is that the UK wants to go a different direction to the other 27.

I think that's clear. That's why I support the UK leaving.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Really and yet the 27 decided their strategy PDQ in relation to BREXIT, while we are still waiting for the UK cabinet to go beyond the sound bytes.

I'm sorry, this doesn't cut it any more. The UK have been very clear about their priorities. The thing is that the UK won't just bend to what the EU are asking for.

This seems to be your yardstick of a good negotiation. Just accept everything the EU ask for and then give them the crown jewels and the keys to Buckingham Palace to boot. That's obviously ridiculous.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Because they expect to get more than your average trade deal, or have you not been keeping up.

This isn't an answer. Citizens rights can also be handled by an arbitration panel.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Except that services are not covered, so that is a dead duck. But ignore it if it makes you feel more comfy in your world.

Not covered by what?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Last post for today.



I don't think it is a discussion for another day. Arbitration discussions are happening now as part of the initial discussions. The ECJ having direct oversight on anything to do with this agreement is manifestly unacceptable. You don't let one side have unilateral judgement in a deal. It is unprecedented for any deal with a third country.

Well, unfortunately for the UK it is a discussion for another day as they have agreed to the sequencing of the talks.

But you'd hardly be suggesting that the UK would agree to something then set about trying to undermine what they have agreed to. Surely the UK wouldn't ever negotiate in bad faith.

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm sorry, this doesn't cut it any more. The UK have been very clear about their priorities.

That's absolute fantasy solo and you know it. The cabinet have been about as clear as mud on anything except that "Brexit means Brexit". And I say that as someone living in the UK who pays attention to several newspapers daily.

Nody

Summary from this week:

Britain wants an “impossible” Brexit deal where it retains the benefits of EU membership despite leaving the bloc, the EU’s chief negotiator has said.

Michel Barnier said the consequences of leaving the EU did not appear to have been considered in “sufficient depth” in the UK and that there appeared to be a certain “nostalgia” in the British negotiating positions for its benefits.

Mr Barnier told reporters in Brussels that “we did not get any decisive progress on any principal subjects”

Two sessions to go before the October decision on FTA can be started or not; anyone want to put money on them succeeding sufficiently by then?

Oh and those papers statements summarized in two sentences:

At a press conference to mark the end of the latest round of talks, Mr Barnier said: “The UK wants to take back control, it wants to set its own standards and regulations, but it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU, that is what the UK position papers say. This is simply impossible: you cannot be outside the single market and shape its legal order.”

But Brexit means Brexit damn it...

Full article here.

Water John

Barnier today says UK demands are impossible. Basically UK expect, that if something is certified in the UK it should be alright for the EU.

Barnier said the UK demands relating to access to the single market were “impossible”. The UK wanted to leave the single market and customs union, he said. But it also wanted its standards automatically recognised by the EU. That was unrealistic, he said. He said the single market “must not and will not be undermined
The Guardian.

Lets try that with China. You set whatever standard you like and we'll accept it.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Right, so you disagree with some aspects of how the EU operates in respect to trade? I used to think that there could be significant reform in the EU, but the result of David Cameron's discussions in Brussels in 2016 and the response to Brexit from the European Union have told me otherwise. I don't think it's possible.

Of course I do. However, change in EU attitudes is going to take a lot more than a terribly weak party leader looking for concessions merely to placate the fanatics in his own party.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It'll be much quicker to agree trade deals as one country rather than a bloc of 27.

The EU has trade deals with over 50 countries. I highly doubt that this will be quicker.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Even if it was permitted, why would the UK agree to that? Why would that be in their interests?

You were just talking about representation. This would solve that. Not sure what your point with the 44% is. I've never disputed that.

blanch152

http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/border-deal-must-avoid-dumping-of-cheap-goods-36085690.html


Interesting article on the views of some British businesses.

"It also warned that British shoppers could face higher prices and less choice unless Britain and the EU can agree how to handle thorny issues like haulage and food safety after Brexit"

Some pie-in-the-sky aspirations as well:

"In a report, the BRC said the UK and EU must also reach agreement on health and veterinary checks on the goods that need them, security, Vat, haulage, transit and drivers to ensure goods can move between markets as efficiently as possible. It said there needs to be a customs union relationship between the UK and EU that would help with the implications for trade and the Irish Border."

demfad

In Trumps election we had hacking, fake news and the coordination and propagation of fake news by professional trolls and by delivering the correct fake news to the correct Facebook users.
Cambridge Analytica is part of the Trump-Russia investigation for coordinating with Kremlin propaganda to put the disinformation/fake news into personalised ads on peoples facebook profiles. Steve Bannon was VP of Cambridge as well as CEO of Breitbart.

At last, British media is starting to realise that the Russians may not have taken the Brexit campaign off.
All 5 Leave campaigns paid monies to AggregateIQ which is the backend and sister company to Cambridge Analytica. Official Leave paid thsi obscure Canadian tech company £3.5 million HALF their total expenditure. 2 former Cambridge bosses were on the official leave's campaign lead.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
Farage's Leave.eu got 7 figure benefit in kind from Robert Mercer's Cambridge

Two days ago the below article appeared in the Times. Just one Russian troll caused this much influence. Imagine what his 5000 friends got up to.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/thousands-of-twitter-users-deceived-by-russian-agent-david-jones-bv0c2ssj5



Hopefully the questions will now be asked around if and how Russia campaigned for Brexit and whom did they coordinate with?
Brexit and hard Brexit is Russian foreign policy after all.

Nody

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/border-deal-must-avoid-dumping-of-cheap-goods-36085690.html


Interesting article on the views of some British businesses.

"It also warned that British shoppers could face higher prices and less choice unless Britain and the EU can agree how to handle thorny issues like haulage and food safety after Brexit"

Some pie-in-the-sky aspirations as well:

"In a report, the BRC said the UK and EU must also reach agreement on health and veterinary checks on the goods that need them, security, Vat, haulage, transit and drivers to ensure goods can move between markets as efficiently as possible. It said there needs to be a customs union relationship between the UK and EU that would help with the implications for trade and the Irish Border."

Well the whole thing can be summed up with "we want no change to now" which is not going to happen and if they still hope for it they are beyond foolish.

An Ciarraioch

At least the one area where they appear to be inching towards consensus is the Border/CTA, so once we wait for the inevitable fudge on the Single Market/Customs Union, we'll be as close to the status quo as is politically possible.

Zubeneschamali

It's possible that this is not a smokescreen for Hard Brexit with a side of Blame the EU, it may just be a consequence of the fact that the UK has been in the EU for 44 years, and has no professional negotiators.

Their team seem to think that if they demand the utterly impossible, the EU will have to "compromise" with a favourable deal.

Instead of just saying "Get real".

Amateur hour.

demfad

Personally I can't even see the UK being able to negotiate a transition agreement. The choice will be between a disastrous hard Brexit and an extension of the status quo. With Labour softening it's position on the SM/CU a hard Brexit is less likely.

Chips Lovell

At the moment, Davis seems to be using the words "flexible" as a code for either:
a.) fix this mess for us,
b.) agree to something completely unrealistic,
c.) both of the above

Nody

demfad wrote: »

Personally I can't even see the UK being able to negotiate a transition agreement. The choice will be between a disastrous hard Brexit and an extension of the status quo. With Labour softening it's position on the SM/CU a hard Brexit is less likely.

I don't see any interest from EU to extend the status quo; with the attitude of the British team and the disruption already caused.

On a separate note Tory is making themselves out gloriously in the last two days in regards to Brexit.

First we have William Hague stating that:

I don't think calling the election was a mistake. I think the result was a mistake. Collectively, by the people of this country.

So Britain will get a worse deal as a result of the election. I think there is no question about that.

Shame on you voters for not voting for the Tories; all is your fault for voting wrong!

Then another Tory peer Lord Harris worth about 100 million or so concluded that Brexit is good because:

Brexit is good because young people will be able to work longer hours

So congratulations everyone; you will now be able to work longer hours to pay for your stuff due to weak pound and inflation because who needs work/life balance, goooooo Brexit!

jm08

Wall Street Journal (behind a paywall) has an interesting article where the UK seems to be using the Greek negotiation playbook without realising that it didn't work.

Meanwhile one U.K. proposal has been greeted with incredulity by experts in the U.K. and EU: the idea that Britain can somehow leave the EU’s customs union but retain its benefits by attaching tracking devices to all imports to establish whether they are entering the domestic or EU supply chain so that they can be taxed accordingly. Senior government ministers say that serious work has gone into this proposal but the paper provides no evidence to back this up, instead it acknowledges that the idea is “unprecedented,” “untested” and requires further research “to understand the practical complexities in making it work.” The risk for the U.K. government is that this proposal becomes its equivalent of Mr. Varoufakis’s suggestion that the solution to endemic tax evasion was to arm tourists with cameras to catch value added tax cheats, which damaged his credibility with Greece’s creditors.

The article goes on to say that the UK should learn from the Greek crisis and start preparing the ground for the concessions the UK are going to have to make (i.e., ECJ)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-britains-brexit-negotiations-can-learn-from-greece-1504128972

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's up to the UK to enforce it's own borders on it's own terms.

Not when they are asking us to rely on them no. In terms of both immigration and customs they have a long way to go before they can be trusted.

demfad

demfad wrote: »

In Trumps election we had hacking, fake news and the coordination and propagation of fake news by professional trolls and by delivering the correct fake news to the correct Facebook users.
Cambridge Analytica is part of the Trump-Russia investigation for coordinating with Kremlin propaganda to put the disinformation/fake news into personalised ads on peoples facebook profiles. Steve Bannon was VP of Cambridge as well as CEO of Breitbart.

At last, British media is starting to realise that the Russians may not have taken the Brexit campaign off.
.....
Two days ago the below article appeared in the Times. Just one Russian troll caused this much influence. Imagine what his 5000 friends got up to.



Hopefully the questions will now be asked around if and how Russia campaigned for Brexit and whom did they coordinate with?
Brexit and hard Brexit is Russian foreign policy after all.

Just to understand the significance of this troll and others: Here is a pretty definitive twitter thread highlighting its pervasive use and others like it (during Moscow work hours.) Again the troll responsible for teh large node of activity below (and others) was retweeted extensively by Farage and other pro Brexit actors.

https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/900159380984934401

ThisRegard

Can't remember where, might have been The Washington Post or The Irish Times weekend, but I read pretty thorough article about that Twitter account and others. They really did a good job digging right to the core of its involvement.

listermint

ThisRegard wrote: »

Can't remember where, might have been The Washington Post or The Irish Times weekend, but I read pretty thorough article about that Twitter account and others. They really did a good job digging right to the core of its involvement.

Said it all along this was a Russian conspiracy in the years in its making. To break up the EU.

These folks even create accounts across platforms that lie dormant for years only to use them in times of need to make it appear as a long term user.

Military grade planning.

Pay off. Brexit.

demfad

ThisRegard wrote: »

Can't remember where, might have been The Washington Post or The Irish Times weekend, but I read pretty thorough article about that Twitter account and others. They really did a good job digging right to the core of its involvement.

It was in the London Times. It should lead journalists to look at the stories that this account was peddling and seeing how these stories were later deciminated on twitter and Facebook. A little more research will lead to the massive propaganda network outlined below and how it amplifies fake and hyper biased news.

https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b

As social media was reported to be forming an increasingly important part of the Trump-Russia FBI probe I am sure the FBI are all over it.

There is no British Intel investigation despite the fact that Mercer/Cambridge Analytica/Bannon/Breitbart/The propaganda network/Russian troll factory were all over Brexit as with the US election. There has been minimal media investigation although this may be changing.

Big US revelations spreading to Brexit might be a potential stimulus to a British investiagtion which would be a definitive nail in Brexits coffin.

All the elements are present, ALL leave campaigns effectively paid mercer money, official leave paid him HALF THEIR TOTAL.
The coordination just needs to be identified. It's digital, its there.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is only so much value in restating my position again and again after each straw man.

1) I support an FTA with the EU and continuation agreements for existing external FTA's to preserve as much trade as possible.

2) I support new trade deals with other countries.

A FTA is not the FTA the UK already has.

Outside of a customs union FTA's are usually limited and both sides have exceptions. There may also be quotas. So at best the UK is looking at free trade on some things but not all.

I keep saying that apart from Food and Jet Turbines and Computers the UK's imports are very similar to the exports.


An optimist might say Quid Pro Quo , sharing of equals , free trade \o/

But a pessimist or an EU politician might think that "if we tighten the screws just a little we won't be risking competing jobs back home"


In the future I'd expect more EU rules on workers rights for imported goods, like they have had for years on abattoirs for imported meat. This may affect any competitive advantage the UK may gain from rolling back EU working time or health and safety rules.

kevthegaff

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute, is there a possibility of another vote if evidence comes to light of Russian involvement? Either way the tories will look very bad indeed...

Sam Russell

kevthegaff wrote: »

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute, is there a possibility of another vote if evidence comes to light of Russian involvement? Either way the tories will look very bad indeed...

The Russians are suspected of favouring Le Pen in the French Presidential Election (and interfering to boost her chances). That would have been a serious blow to the EU should she have been elected.

I think they operate on many levels - see what they are doing in the Baltic countries.

murphaph

Personally I think there's enough there to warrant a public inquiry. I mean the DUP thing alone is extremely suspicious.

Nody

kevthegaff wrote: »

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute, is there a possibility of another vote if evidence comes to light of Russian involvement? Either way the tories will look very bad indeed...

Remember at the time there were talks of Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France, Denmark etc. were going to follow as well. As it turned out it instead cemented the support for EU and will strengthen the support for years to come but at the time there were concerns.

Lemming

kevthegaff wrote: »

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute

Militarily, it has driven a wedge between Britain & the rest of Europe; in at least as far as politicians might view the application of military force. We now have a situation where we have a US president who is hostile to NATO, and now we have a UK government that is hostile towards Europe. That's a pretty decent payday for not an awful lot of visible effort for Putin.

steddyeddy

kevthegaff wrote: »

If the Russians wanted to break up the EU, I think brexit will do the opposite and strengthen it further seeing the mess at the minute, is there a possibility of another vote if evidence comes to light of Russian involvement? Either way the tories will look very bad indeed...

In fairness they look bad already. A de-facto nationalist party that's coming out with fairy tale economics about Britain's place in the world.

Sam Russell

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness they look bad already. A de-facto nationalist party that's coming out with fairy tale economics about Britain's place in the world.

I would say Regional - they are primarily an English Party with Little Englander views. They also favour the rich or very rich, while laughing at those of the poor working class who are mugs for voting for them.

Water John

Journalists from Times and Politics.uk absolutely savaging the Brexit and Japan negotiations, on Sky News. As did reporter on ITV News earlier.
Now they were obvious remainers, but they really are having a go at Davis.

steddyeddy

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would say Regional - they are primarily an English Party with Little Englander views. They also favour the rich or very rich, while laughing at those of the poor working class who are mugs for voting for them.

How people think Etonians like Boris or Jacob have the slightest clue about real life consequence is beyond me. This is a game to them. They can afford to have a Brexit mindset as it won't be them that suffers as a result of this nationalistic folly.

Water John

Boris isn't haunted by the buffoonery but by Andrew Marr's 'you're a nasty, piece of work, aren't you'?

Junkyard Tom

steddyeddy wrote: »

How people think Etonians like Boris or Jacob have the slightest clue about real life consequence is beyond me.

They're kinda sold as loveable buffoons and eccentrics. Unfortunately for the British this isn't a dull sitcom featuring the 'hilarious' travails of the upper-middle class.

Jim2007

Lemming wrote: »

Militarily, it has driven a wedge between Britain & the rest of Europe; in at least as far as politicians might view the application of military force. We now have a situation where we have a US president who is hostile to NATO, and now we have a UK government that is hostile towards Europe. That's a pretty decent payday for not an awful lot of visible effort for Putin.

On the other hand you have the EU in the process of build up an army capable of fighting two battle groups sized wars simultaneously. A military force that will not be obliged to come to the aid of the US or the UK should they go off war mongering in the middle east or where ever.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think it is a discussion for another day. Arbitration discussions are happening now as part of the initial discussions. The ECJ having direct oversight on anything to do with this agreement is manifestly unacceptable. You don't let one side have unilateral judgement in a deal. It is unprecedented for any deal with a third country.

Well, fine. If what the UK wants is a trade deal with the EU that looks like, say, the EU's deals with Canada or South Korea, that doesn't involve ECJ jurisdiction.

The thing is, though, I don't think that's the kind of trade deal the UK wants or needs. That would be signficantly more disadvantageous to the UK than the trade deal they now have, and it's not remotely realistic to think that the UK could make up for the disadvantages of this trade deal by doing whizz-bang-super trade deals with third countries. The UK negotiators know this. In teh UK's interests they really have no choice but to target a very good trade deal with the EU; not so much like the SK or Canada deals but, in selected areas and sectors at least, more like the kind of deal they now have.

And the kind of deal they now have, of course, involves ECJ jurisdiction.

I get why, for political and face-saving reasons, the May government has to be seen to have a problem with ECJ jurisdiction. But they also need to understand that the the EU has a problem with no ECJ jurisdiction. If the UK seeks a trade deal with involves the kind of access that to the single market that comes with ECJ jurisdiction, well, that comes with ECJ jurisdiction. There is absolutely no reason why the EU would be inclined to move on this; neither abstract principle nor naked self-interest suggest that they should.

The most the British can hope for here is a face-saving compromise; jurisdiction of the EFTA court, or jurisdiction of a parallel court set up exclusively to deal with the UK I(though, again, there is nothing in this for the EU and they will not agree to it easily, or without some significant concession in some other area to induce them). And that may be where we end up.

Thomas__

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would say Regional - they are primarily an English Party with Little Englander views.  They also favour the rich or very rich, while laughing at those of the poor working class who are mugs for voting for them.

How people think Etonians like Boris or Jacob have the slightest clue about real life consequence is beyond me. This is a game to them. They can afford to have a Brexit mindset as it won't be them that suffers as a result of this nationalistic folly.

Well straight to the point and one might forget to wonder about the motives of those who vote for the likes of Johnson & Co. After three rounds of negotiations, the Brits are still clinging on to their wishful thinking and still try to get started with trade deals before the essential matters are even negotiated. No progress so far and I expect that this will continue that way, up to the point when time is running out for them. Well, gives more waters on the mills of the SNP to champion for IndyRef2 in Scotland. The UK crashing out of the EU with no deal or even a bad deal won´t be acceptable for the many in Scotland and this will be good enough to strenghten the position of the SNP and thus gain a majority for an Independent Scotland. Best choice left for them to take, cos the alternative given the way the Brexiteers are "negotiating" will be a complete disaster.