Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

The silence on UK trade deals means that they are heading for a cliff. The third quarter economic results from the UK will be interesting.

I think the silence on UK trade deals is at least partly a reflection of the fact that no-one wants to get very far in negotiations with the UK until they know how the UK will stand with respect to Europe. The more integrated the UK is with EU markets, the more attractive the UK is a trading partner (and, of course, as a location for inward investment). So it will be v. difficult for UK to conclude a deal with any third country before it concludes its deals with the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

So it will be v. difficult for UK to conclude a deal with any third country before it concludes its deals with the EU.

I think it is worse than that - it will be very difficult to start negotiating a deal with any other country until the deal with the EU is clear - maybe not signed and approved, but at least visible on the horizon - Single Market? Customs Union? Norway? Switzerland? WTO terms?

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

In a hard Brexit, Ireland will be damaged, but as many others have said, not as much as the UK.

The EU will want to ensure that they don't lose Ireland as well, so considerable assistance both financial (costs of border, new infrastructure for direct trading with the Continent etc.) and non-financial (Medicines Agency, allow our low-cost corporate tax regime to continue).

The key to Ireland surviving a hard Brexit is to be flexible. Some domestic industries and services will be damaged - food exports, UK multiples etc. - but there will be oppportunities in financial services and other areas which we will have to move fast to take advantage of. Hopefully, it will just be a short-term shock but a long-term benefit.

The main immediate issue for Ireland with a no-deal Brexit is the sea ports and particularly land border :

• UK will have to rely on GATT/WTO rules for facilitating trade.
• Upon leaving the EU and becoming a 'third country', the EU is LEGALLY OBLIGED to impose on them the same tariffs it does other WTO members.
• 'other WTO members' refers to those with whom the EU does not have Free Trade Agreements.
• WE have NO facilities to do this at the border neither does UK.
• Tariffs are an issue but the real economic minefield that lies behind the WTO door is the web of non-tariff barriers.
• As an EU member the UK enjoys a harmonised system of regulation. The benefit of this is the removal of technical barriers to trade. Outside the EU the UK must PROVE it conforms to standards
• This is where customs cooperation comes in (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Customs Union).
• Where there exists large amounts of trade between two trading partners (like EU+China), MRAs or equivalents built into FTAs are useful. MRAs are Mutual Recognition Agreements. MRAs promote trade facilitation by helping to assess conformity to standards. By leaving EU negotiations, we will have to rely on WTO mechanisms, such as the TBT and SPS Agreements.
• Unlike the EEA, these provisions aren't effective. No country trades with the EU solely using such terms.
• There will be clashes at external borders, whereby UK/EU will not be able to assess whether standards have been complied with.
• This will cause chaos. We will see delays at shipping ports, lorry queues stretching miles, wasted/devalued cargo.
• NTBs are more important than tariffs because their externalities cause far more profound (and often unseen) economic problems.
• Goods will not reach their destinations. Some may make it but scraping their sell-by or use-by dates. In other words: pandemonium.
• As Ireland's main export to the UK is agri-business this hits us very hard. Decimates that industry and others.
• This assumes that there is adequate infrastructure to begin with. Ports will be overwhelmed. But consider the case of the Irish border where NO INFRASTRUCTURE WHATSOEVER exists.
• All trade outside the black market between north and south would stop

The biggest way the EU can help us is by a huge infrastructure grant and aid to build the border infrastructure necessary before March 2019.
Hammond declared on the BBC that the UK is preparing for a no-deal Brexit.
These preparations should involve customs infrastructure on their side of the border. One to watch.

List stolen/adapted from here:

https://twitter.com/OliverNorgrove/status/907687683128004608

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it is worse than that - it will be very difficult to start negotiating a deal with any other country until the deal with the EU is clear - maybe not signed and approved, but at least visible on the horizon - Single Market? Customs Union? Norway? Switzerland? WTO terms?

Well, certainly very difficult to get very far into the negotiations.

Which, incidentally, I think is part of the reason why the UK are now putting on pressure to accelerate the Brexit discussion. Their crack team of highly experienced trade negotiators are reporting that nobody wants to talk to them until the shape of the post-Brexit EU relationship becomes clear.

LeinsterDub

How many issues have we heard the UK say somethings similar ? Information , Banking and Security i believe so far.

Britain will on Tuesday offer to contribute military assets to European Union operations, co-operate on sanctions and agree joint positions on foreign policy as part of a new security partnership after Brexit.
In its latest Brexit position paper, Theresa May’s government will call for a pooling of British and EU assets and capabilities in a security partnership “deeper than any other third country and that reflects our shared intere

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/britain-seeks-stronger-security-partnership-with-eu-after-brexit-1.3217337

Honestly what is the point in leaving if you're just going to tow the EU line?

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, certainly very difficult to get very far into the negotiations.

Which, incidentally, I think is part of the reason why the UK are now putting on pressure to accelerate the Brexit discussion. Their crack team of highly experienced trade negotiators are reporting that nobody wants to talk to them until the shape of the post-Brexit EU relationship becomes clear.

Is that what they are on?

I thought that they had no trade negotiators yet.

murphaph

I'm sure they have hired some people and are sounding countries out. Doubt it's going too well however.

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

How many issues have we heard the UK say somethings similar ? Information , Banking and Security i believe so far.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/britain-seeks-stronger-security-partnership-with-eu-after-brexit-1.3217337

Honestly what is the point in leaving if you're just going to tow the EU line?

Because, in case it missed your notice, Europe has a bit of a problem with terrorism at the moment, plus a few issues with migrants trying to cross the Med.

Security is a mutually beneficial thing and the UK and the majority of eu countries will already cooperate on this through NATO anyway.

flatty

Well fwiw, I'm a well educated man who.is fortunate enough to have fairly sought after experience. My wife is similar. I have a share in a successful and expanding business, and pay a lot of tax in the UK.
It is now odds on that we are selling up and emigrating.
I don't want my kids brought up in a country with this "leadership"
I may or may not be typical, but we are most likely getting out.

oppenheimer1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because, in case it missed your notice, Europe has a bit of a problem with terrorism at the moment, plus a few issues with migrants trying to cross the Med.

Security is a mutually beneficial thing and the UK and the majority of eu countries will already cooperate on this through NATO anyway.

So is trade, but that's not stopping the UK from pulling out of the single market and customs union.

Jaggo

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sure they have hired some people and are sounding countries out. Doubt it's going too well however.

They have too, a New Zealander called Crawford Falconer!!

Falconer, was a member of a leave campaign think tank, the Legatum Institute. The Legatum Institute is linked with numerous politicians on the tory right, it is also linked with Legatum an investment firm ran by a New Zealand billionaire. From their own website they are a disaster/vulture fund. "In a crisis, risk is often mispriced. Patient capital enables us to look for high-quality companies that are trading at distressed levels, often for reasons outside of their control. We are also willing to invest in distressed situations where our engagement can help the company address the issues holding it back, thereby unlocking its full potential and value for its shareholders."

Legatum, according to their own publications, believe that no unique solutions to the Northern Ireland border should be proposed unless the UK gains the same benefits (using NI as a bargaining chip). And that other EU and world countries will come begging for trade deals.

You would hope Falconer does not hold these views too. Presumably you would say Falconer is very, very optimistic rather than still working for the disaster capital fund.

http://eureferendum.com/
http://www.legatum.com/investment/investment-strategy/
Don't read the Legatum institutes policy documents, they are absolute rubbish.

oppenheimer1

flatty wrote: »

Well fwiw, I'm a well educated man who.is fortunate enough to have fairly sought after experience. My wife is similar. I have a share in a successful and expanding business, and pay a lot of tax in the UK.
It is now odds on that we are selling up and emigrating.
I don't want my kids brought up in a country with this "leadership"
I may or may not be typical, but we are most likely getting out.

While I don't doubt you, when I hear things like this one has to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Much like people said they'd move to Canada if Trump was elected, how many have followed through? It's an empty threat.

People will only leave the UK if the economy tanks.

Billy86

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

While I don't doubt you, when I hear things like this one has to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Much like people said they'd move to Canada if Trump was elected, how many have followed through? It's an empty threat.

People will only leave the UK if the economy tanks.

I would fathom a guess that immigration rates tend to be dictated by economics more than anything which we as a country are very well aware of even in recent times. If the UK economy suffers we are likely to see a rise in emigration from there both from foreign nationals and citzens - likewise with the US. Of course neither of these would happen overnight though the plummeting values of each country's currencies do hint that we're likely to see increases there. Though I would assume if both the UK and US economies suffered very similar declines we would see more leaving the former than the latter.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because, in case it missed your notice, Europe has a bit of a problem with terrorism at the moment, plus a few issues with migrants trying to cross the Med.

Security is a mutually beneficial thing and the UK and the majority of eu countries will already cooperate on this through NATO anyway.

Yes I agree it's mutually beneficial but yet again it's an other area were the UK will have gone from having a say in the policy to towing the line or do you expect the EU to agree a position with the UK?

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Yes I agree it's mutually beneficial but yet again it's an other area were the UK will have gone from having a say in the policy to towing the line or do you expect the EU to agree a position with the UK?

It won't be towing the line though, will it. It will cooperate with the agencies involved, not be controlled by them.

demfad

Jaggo wrote: »

They have too, a New Zealander called Crawford Falconer!!

Falconer, was a member of a leave campaign think tank, the Legatum Institute. The Legatum Institute is linked with numerous politicians on the tory right, it is also linked with Legatum an investment firm ran by a New Zealand billionaire. From their own website they are a disaster/vulture fund. "In a crisis, risk is often mispriced. Patient capital enables us to look for high-quality companies that are trading at distressed levels, often for reasons outside of their control. We are also willing to invest in distressed situations where our engagement can help the company address the issues holding it back, thereby unlocking its full potential and value for its shareholders."

Legatum, according to their own publications, believe that no unique solutions to the Northern Ireland border should be proposed unless the UK gains the same benefits (using NI as a bargaining chip). And that other EU and world countries will come begging for trade deals.

You would hope Falconer does not hold these views too. Presumably you would say Falconer is very, very optimistic rather than still working for the disaster capital fund.

http://eureferendum.com/
http://www.legatum.com/investment/investment-strategy/
Don't read the Legatum institutes policy documents, they are absolute rubbish.

They have influence. Steve Baker who was relatively recently promoted to second to Davis in Brexit dept lead them in the commons before the move.

ambro25

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

While I don't doubt you, when I hear things like this one has to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Much like people said they'd move to Canada if Trump was elected, how many have followed through? It's an empty threat.

People will only leave the UK if the economy tanks.

He's not alone and it's far from an empty threat: many, both EU immigrants and Brits, have been voting with their feet since June last year [see recent ONS stats for 2016-2017 YTD periods, and witness the plummeting EU immigration rates and proportionally-rocketing EU/Brit nationals' emigration rates].

At least from what I'm seeing at the coalface "oop north", the UK economy is already tanking, after winding down steadfastly for a few months now. This week's news about the core inflation rate won't help plummeting consumer confidence one bit, and simply confirms what I posted last November or December (quoting Dame Frances Cairncross, whose lecture I attended at the time, and whose take-away point was: "inflation is going to skyrocket and kill SMEs by end 2017"). Can't be bothered searching and linking my old post, but I know it's there alright.

I've been in talks with a couple of headhunters since June last year, but putting a move on the long-finger in a watch-and-see mode (and already turned down a move to Amsterdam), because like flatty, I'm fairly invested in my current business and personal situation. Enough not to bail out so far. But the longer the UK government and the Brit MSM maintains the anti-EU, anti-immigrant rethoric and negotiating status quo with Barnier, the shorter the odds of staying get. The likes of the leaked immigration papers, whether never-never propaganda/political tools or not, just ratchet those odds shorter still.

I'm in talks with a handful of headhunters again, to the stage of passing salary etc. packages and asks at the request of prospect employers. For the right offer and opportunity, we're gone within 3 months, less if I manage to arrange a prompt garden leave.

The way I see it, at term the UK is getting itself lined up for a brain drain of epic proportions, like the US, Oz and the Kiwis. Few high-skilled migrants are beating a door to Oz these days, after Turnbull took an axe to the AU visa scheme earlier this year. Likewise to the US, after Trump took office. The EU, Singapore and the Gulf States will just hoover more up.

Zubeneschamali

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

People will only leave the UK if the economy tanks.

Look at the UK migration figures.

In the year to March 2017 (compared to the year to March 2016) total emigration (not just EU) was up 30,000 and immigration down 50,000. That is 9 months of post-referendum data.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It won't be towing the line though, will it. It will cooperate with the agencies involved, not be controlled by them.

So the UK expects to control or influence EU agencies from outside the EU? I don't see that happening.

flutered

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So the UK expects to control or influence EU agencies from outside the EU? I don't see that happening.

how do they expect to achive that, junkers outburst today really hammers that in the head

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So the UK expects to control or influence EU agencies from outside the EU? I don't see that happening.

Just remind me ...

How many UK Navy vessels are in the med assisting with rescuing the migrants from their rubber dinghies?

How many refugees has the UK agreed to take from the above cohort?

How much influence does the UK expect from their above contribution to the above project?

Thought so.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

How many issues have we heard the UK say somethings similar ? Information , Banking and Security i believe so far.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/britain-seeks-stronger-security-partnership-with-eu-after-brexit-1.3217337

Honestly what is the point in leaving if you're just going to tow the EU line?

Because, in case it missed your notice, Europe has a bit of a problem with terrorism at the moment, plus a few issues with migrants trying to cross the Med.

Security is a mutually beneficial thing and the UK and the majority of eu countries will already cooperate on this through NATO anyway.

The reality is that the UK has already largely disengaged from such cooperation with the rest of the EU. Therefore any claims about it being a "mutually beneficial thing" is just empty rhetoric. The EU countries know that it will be them alone dealing with these issues.

flutered

steddyeddy wrote: »

A letter to the Irish Times today. Criticising Brexit is now anti-British. I guess all remainers must be anti-British so.

Sir. – Your newspaper’s strongly anti-British stance serves only to muddy the waters.

Try to accept that the British people have voted democratically to leave the EU and that, Sir, is exactly what we will do. Respect the will of the British people and offer a lead to all people of goodwill to help minimise the fallout. – Yours, etc,

DAVID E ELLIS,

Swindon,

England.

take a decco at yahoo.uk news as regards brexit, the comments underneath are all one track, we are going we are correct in doing so, any arguement contary are shall i say, spat upon

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just remind me ...

How many UK Navy vessels are in the med assisting with rescuing the migrants from their rubber dinghies?

How many refugees has the UK agreed to take from the above cohort?

How much influence does the UK expect from their above contribution to the above project?

Thought so.

Management of Calais refugee camps by France may take some interesting twists and turns.

blanch152

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because, in case it missed your notice, Europe has a bit of a problem with terrorism at the moment, plus a few issues with migrants trying to cross the Med.

Security is a mutually beneficial thing and the UK and the majority of eu countries will already cooperate on this through NATO anyway.

Yes, and anyone who want that can join NATO. Ireland will veto any further co-operation on defence issues, the UK knows this, why are they stupidly proposing something the EU doesn't need (because NATO does it already) or want (because the neutrals object)?

solodeogloria

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

While I don't doubt you, when I hear things like this one has to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Much like people said they'd move to Canada if Trump was elected, how many have followed through? It's an empty threat.

People will only leave the UK if the economy tanks.

Good evening!

For every person considering leaving there are many who want to stay. The UK is a fantastic country to live in. Good challenging work opportunities and great people. I'm not in a rush anywhere else.

The people making a decision to leave a supranational organisation because there are genuine opportunities elsewhere or genuine benefits elsewhere doesn't impact that.

I don't put a lot of emotional stock in being European and I don't feel a deeply heartfelt attachment to the European project. Sure, there's some plus sides but there are a lot of negatives too.

Brexit or not - I'm pretty confident the UK will remain a great country to live and work in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

For you, maybe, solo. It's not so much for other EU nationals, especially those without the "special" relationship between Ireland and the UK.

Still though, it'll be a *great* country for those that got what they wanted - all the unwanted people with funny accents gone. Fruit-picking jobs for everyone!

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

For every person considering leaving there are many who want to stay. The UK is a fantastic country to live in. Good challenging work opportunities and great people. I'm not in a rush anywhere else.

The people making a decision to leave a supranational organisation because there are genuine opportunities elsewhere or genuine benefits elsewhere doesn't impact that.

I don't put a lot of emotional stock in being European and I don't feel a deeply heartfelt attachment to the European project. Sure, there's some plus sides but there are a lot of negatives too.

Brexit or not - I'm pretty confident the UK will remain a great country to live and work in.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I mean this in the nicest be way possible but you the strangest remain voter I have come across. You put no emotional stock in being European and have set out arguments (flawed ones btw) on why the UK is better off out yet voted remain.

I mean there are U-turns...

flatty

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Well fwiw, I'm a well educated man who.is fortunate enough to have fairly sought after experience. My wife is similar. I have a share in a successful and expanding business, and pay a lot of tax in the UK.
It is now odds on that we are selling up and emigrating.
I don't want my kids brought up in a country with this "leadership"
I may or may not be typical, but we are most likely getting out.

While I don't doubt you, when I hear things like this one has to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Much like people said they'd move to Canada if Trump was elected, how many have followed through? It's an empty threat.

People will only leave the UK if the economy tanks.

Oh I'm deadly serious and have already set things in train. This isn't an "if trump gets in"
Trump getting in is neither here nor there to the average American.
The slow motion train crash that is brexit is already happening, with the leadership safe in the cabin at the back, only interested in which of them gets the captains stripes. It has brought an ugly side to the country. The company I'm involved with is a major employer in a poor area, and I'll sell my share, but I was instrumental in its foundation.
I doubt I'm alone.
My decision is not financial. I want my kids to grow up in an open national.
How TF is the economy not going to tank in any case?
Of course it's going to tank.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just remind me ...

How many UK Navy vessels are in the med assisting with rescuing the migrants from their rubber dinghies.

At the moment, HMS Echo, which replaced HMS Enterprise in December, which replaced RFA Mounts Bay, which replaced HMS Diamond......

Fratton Fred

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, and anyone who want that can join NATO. Ireland will veto any further co-operation on defence issues, the UK knows this, why are they stupidly proposing something the EU doesn't need (because NATO does it already) or want (because the neutrals object)?

Some needs to tell Jean Claude then https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/berlin-backs-jean-claude-juncker-call-for-european-army-1.2863126

In fact, someone better tell Michael D :eek:
http://www.military.ie/press-office/news-and-events/single-view/article/05-june-2015-eu-nordic-battlegroup-force-commander-visits-irish-istar-task-force/?cHash=75a718cdf2cb8226a6cea3967d4af58f

mountaintop

Two points continuously brought up by the Brexiters in the U.K. which unless I'm completely wrong are absurd but are never challenged. These are (1), that Britain's trade with the E.U. is vastly in the E.U.'s favour and (2), that 90% of world trade in the future will be outside the E.U.
On point (1), 27 nations combined will always have an advantage over one, but break the figures down and things change. For example, little old Ireland is Britain's fifth biggest export market. When Britain leaves the EU and supposedly trades with the rest of the world, will they say the rest of the planet sells more to it than it does to them. I mean, it would be odd if it didn't.
On point (2), 90% of the INCREASE in world trade will be outside the EU, but the actual increase it self will about 5% or something, it's 90% of that.
Am I missing something here? Everyday I hear these bandied about and people just don't challenge it. It's like a mantra now, and a central part of their argument.

Fratton Fred

Samaris wrote: »

Still though, it'll be a *great* country for those that got what they wanted - all the unwanted people with funny accents gone

In fairness though, can you actually put a price on getting rid of people from Cork :P

Water John

Hey, I hear that.

Sam Russell

We are to get two new MEPs following the UK exit.

The number of MEPs drops from 751 to 700, and following the UKs loss of 73 seats, we get two of them. The 51 seats are reserved for new members.

Water John

UK Govn't now ducking votes it would have lost. That's the def of lame duck.

Leonard Hofstadter

Sam Russell wrote: »

We are to get two new MEPs following the UK exit.

The number of MEPs drops from 751 to 700, and following the UKs loss of 73 seats, we get two of them. The 51 seats are reserved for new members.

Interesting development, I guess we'd probably go back to something like what we used to do before, separate three seat constituencies for Leinster/East, North West/Connacht-Ulster and Munster/South, with Dublin going back to four seats.

No harm to drop the number of MEPs either, will definitely make the EU look better in the eyes of the average voter.

Kermit.de.frog

...

solodeogloria

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I mean this in the nicest be way possible but you the strangest remain voter I have come across. You put no emotional stock in being European and have set out arguments (flawed ones btw) on why the UK is better off out yet voted remain.

I mean there are U-turns...

Good morning!

I think you've misunderstood the motivations of a large portion of remain voters if you think the driver was emotional attachment to the Euro-federalist project.

I'm supportive of respecting the democratic decision of the people and implementing it. I'm supportive of taking back control from the EU.

As for how European I feel, I said I didn't have a lot of emotional stock. Feeling European in any case doesn't require attachment to the Euro-federalist project.

Given that Jean Claude Juncker has learned sod all from the Euro crisis I'm glad that Britain is out. His only answer to everything is more integration even though this is precisely the problem with the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

mountaintop

What's wrong with further integration? When Britain is out of the EU, does that mean it's problems will stop? No, it means that the scapegoat for their problems will have been removed and they will now have to look at themselves. The so called faceless bureaucrats of the EU who they hate will be replaced by their own faceless bureaucrats who won't do them any favours. British governments have proven themselves to be brutal in their implementation of policies; without the EU, the monitor in the room will have been removed.

solodeogloria

mountaintop wrote: »

What's wrong with further integration? When Britain is out of the EU, does that mean it's problems will stop? No, it means that the scapegoat for their problems will have been removed and they will now have to look at themselves. The so called faceless bureaucrats of the EU who they hate will be replaced by their own faceless bureaucrats who won't do them any favours. British governments have proven themselves to be brutal in their implementation of policies; without the EU, the monitor in the room will have been removed.

Good morning!

"More integration" is key word for handing over more control to the EU. It means taking more control from the democratically elected parliamentarians in member states.

Take for instance membership of the Eurozone. Juncker is now saying that every member state should be a part of it. But Britain benefited significantly from being outside of it. Giving the bloc a new "finance minister" to strong arm member states isn't the answer.

Or compulsory membership of Schengen - it doesn't suit Ireland at all given our common travel area with the UK.

That's before we get into common tax policy which would threaten Irish business.

The EU isn't an all benevolent institution. If it wants to be a federal superstate it should propose this notion directly and see how much traction it gets.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

Tbh, I would be happy to drop the CTA and join Schengen. The UK gives no toss about Ireland other than to bully it or try and use it as a bargaining chip to protect itself from its own folly.

Enzokk

Calina wrote: »

Tbh, I would be happy to drop the CTA and join Schengen. The UK gives no toss about Ireland other than to bully it or try and use it as a bargaining chip to protect itself from its own folly.

Agreed, not having to apply for multiple visas could be a benefit for tourism in Ireland as citizens of most countries need to apply for both an Irish and British visa now in any case to visit both countries. If they wanted to take a trip to Europe from Ireland or the UK they needed to apply for a third visa. If Ireland joins the Schengen program it should attract more visitors that may have skipped the country before. Lots more tourists in the whole of the EU than the UK. France has more than double the amount of international tourist arrivals than the UK alone.

World Tourism rankings

More integration makes sense if you buy into the EU project as well. The UK didn't really so let them go. All this rabble about control is a fallacy as no-one has been able to show a loss of control. Parliament still makes their own laws and follows what they think is the right path. There is no input from the EU on this. Any decisions should in thought out as what benefits my country. If it benefits the country to follow the EU in a direction then that is what they should do. Not cry about a beneficial partnership that you decided to join.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

All this rabble about control is a fallacy as no-one has been able to show a loss of control. Parliament still makes their own laws and follows what they think is the right path. There is no input from the EU on this. Any decisions should in thought out as what benefits my country. If it benefits the country to follow the EU in a direction then that is what they should do. Not cry about a beneficial partnership that you decided to join.

Good morning!

You don't get to claim I've not listed several areas where control is handed over.

You also don't get to claim that there aren't restrictions on what member states can legislate for when there are. The restrictions are listed in the treaties. (TFEU lists these in the exclusive competences and "shared" competences of the EU. "Shared" competence means that the EU is kind enough to let member states make their own laws if it hasn't done so first!)

You know that EU law supersedes the laws of member states, so it wouldn't be truthful to say that there isn't a loss of control.

You can read my previous posts for more information.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

There certainly is a transfer of control involved in EU membership. Over a wide range of subjects, control is transferred from each member state individually to the member states collectively, acting through the EU institutions. From the perspective of the individual member state, this is a transfer, or at the very least a dilution, of control. This is undeniable.

But the way "Brexit means Brexit" is shaping up, Brexit clearly doesn't mean a return of control to "the democratically elected parliamentarians". May wouldn't have consulted Parliament at all if she could have got away with it; she had to be dragged kicking and into Parliament on this, and even know she's trying to transfer control to Ministers rather than to Parliament.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

You don't get to claim I've not listed several areas where control is handed over.

You also don't get to claim that there aren't restrictions on what member states can legislate for when there are. The restrictions are listed in the treaties. (TFEU lists these in the exclusive competences and "shared" competences of the EU. "Shared" competence means that the EU is kind enough to let member states make their own laws if it hasn't done so first!)

You know that EU law supersedes the laws of member states, so it wouldn't be truthful to say that there isn't a loss of control.

You can read my previous posts for more information.

List me the laws and specific examples where the UK would have had a different approach had they not been in the EU and it would have been a benefit to the country, as opposed to the current situation.

I am sure the free movement of goods may be an area that the UK could change to suit their needs had they not been in the EU, but what would the outcome have been had the UK not been part of the single market for the past how many years?

The way you post makes it sound like the UK has no say in any EU process and they have no representation in the EU. Maybe if the electorate didn't vote for people like Nigel Farage to represent them in the EU they would have had a better understanding of the EU. But you get what you vote for, and the wonderful people of the UK decided that Nigel Farage is what who they want to defend their rights and shape the EU.

Your arguments sound a lot like the bull argument that Labour caused the financial crash by the Tories. Nothing the Tories would have done would have lessened the impact of the GFC (GLOBAL Financial Crisis) as they were in favour of less regulation when more was needed. Those same people are now in charge of your Brexit, good luck with that.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

There certainly is a transfer of control involved in EU membership. Over a wide range of subjects, control is transferred from each member state individually to the member states collectively, acting through the EU institutions. From the perspective of the individual member state, this is a transfer, or at the very least a dilution, of control. This is undeniable.

But the way "Brexit means Brexit" is shaping up, Brexit clearly doesn't mean a return of control to "the democratically elected parliamentarians". May wouldn't have consulted Parliament at all if she could have got away with it; she had to be dragged kicking and into Parliament on this, and even know she's trying to transfer control to Ministers rather than to Parliament.

And not only is she not returning control of the (3% law making controlled by EU) to parliament she is taking the other 97% that it already controls away.

mountaintop

I know in my heart that when Brexit is over and Britain is a 'Great' nation again, it's problems will not have gone away. They will still be there. Who will they blame then? I think the problem is nostalgia: a hankering for a time past when life was simpler and better. Take away all the nit-picking, take-away all the we've lost our control, etc, the reality is stark: Britain is a wealthier, more prosperous country since it joined the EU. The issues with the EU are issues the British have with themselves: They are stuck in the past, they want to get back the great empire that once had. That is gone. Europe is at peace now, it is integrated. I mean, it was in ruins in my parents time. I got sick on a holiday in Spain recently and had to be hospitalised. I presented my E111 card and received excellent free public health care. It made me proud to be part of Europe. I often wonder why Britain joined the EU in the first place. And all the arguments I hear for them leaving are in the majority populist soundbites. It certainly won't end immigration, just wait and see. Most immigration by far to the UK is still from its former 'Empire' countries. Get real! And as for Scottish independence, that's like a slow cooking stew, it just needs time. Fully agree with Enzokk's comment's by the way.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

You also don't get to claim that there aren't restrictions on what member states can legislate for when there are. The restrictions are listed in the treaties. (TFEU lists these in the exclusive competences and "shared" competences of the EU. "Shared" competence means that the EU is kind enough to let member states make their own laws if it hasn't done so first!)

You know that EU law supersedes the laws of member states, so it wouldn't be truthful to say that there isn't a loss of control.

Put aside the fact that the UK wilfully consented to these "restrictions" BITD and since (with many at the initiative of the UK itself!), the exclusivity and/or the sharing of certain competences, under which these "restrictions" arise, have at all times been there for the good functioning of the EU as a collective, supranational endeavour.

You can't have a club, without club rules that are devised for the best interests of both the club's longevity and its members. That's common sense at the most basic level.

For instance, it is quite clear that not promulgating exclusive competency for international trade deals would had the UK, Germany and France (-at least) pull the proverbial international trading blanket away from each other, and from the EU as a coherent trading whole, all sorts of nationalist preferential ways, to the extent that bi- and multi-lateral deals in that notional context would have long rendered the whole EU endeavour redundant.

That was well understood by politicians of the day and since (until recently in the UK), likewise by all the other socio-economic stakeholders involved, including large national and multinational investors and wealth creators.

Now, you can perfectly well believe -and argue- that the UK is now in a position wherein it does not require the multifarious benefits of its club membership any longer. Rightly or wrongly, matters not: after all that is opinion territory, and here is debate.

But considering where the UK was when it originally joined the EU, and where the UK was some 40 years later, in June 2016 in the aftermath of the worst global financial crisis since 1929, you yourself don't get to claim that this 'loss of control' has hampered the UK's development in any way, nor that there is an economic case for the UK 'taking back control'.

There may well be a social and/or political case for it. But policies aimed at these aspects of British society don't put food on tables or roofs on heads: these always have to be paid for by economic activity in the first place.

Professor Moriarty

Juncker's speech yesterday has greatly increased the likelihood of a hard Brexit. The Tory press was gleefully all over it like a rash. It's as if the EU has decided that Brexit is an opportunity for further integration (though Poland and Hungary might spike those guns) now that British recalcitrance and their veto will be gone. The corollary of that is that Brits will believe that the Leavers were right all along about the EU. It's now very hard to see how this will be resolved amicably and in a way that suits all parties.