Brexit discussion thread II

embraer170

Boris is still trying to sell the 350 million story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/15/exclusive-boris-johnson-yes-will-take-back-350m-eu-nhs/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_ApcPCdJQj6vh

Fratton Fred

View wrote: »

Parliament made a choice NOT to act on the majority view in the 1979 referendum on devolution for Scotland.

As such it is clear that Parliament is perfectly willing to ignore majority opinion in an advisory referendum when it suits itself.

Parliament didnt ignore anything, the criteria was not met.

Enzokk

embraer170 wrote: »

Boris is still trying to sell the 350 million story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/15/exclusive-boris-johnson-yes-will-take-back-350m-eu-nhs/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_ApcPCdJQj6vh

Boris Johnson, the man who wants to get rid of the tampon tax that is imposed on the UK by the EU, by voting against an amendment to force the government to go to the EU and lobby for a change. He is so for the change he voted against it, and he still thinks there will be £350 million per week as well. I think he has just set out his stall to be the next leader of the Conservatives, no single market, no customs union and no ECJ. He again plunged his party into chaos as whatever decision the PM does now will be seized upon. If she goes hard Brexit then you have only a small majority to work with. If she goes for a softer Brexit then Boris will be there with the other hard Brexit MP's to derail those plans. What a chaos creator. I guess Theresa May will rue the day she made him foreign secretary.

He adds: “Outside the EU there are obvious opportunities… in the setting of indirect taxation. At the stroke of a pen, the Chancellor will be able to cut VAT on tampons; often demanded by parliament but – absurdly – legally impossible to deliver.”

Quote from article above.

Tampon tax: Here are the MPs who voted against the amendment to scrap it

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm torn between hoping for a Swiss Brexit doing minimal damage for my own sake and that of the brits my age and younger who will be dragged out of the EU against their will, and a hard Brexit with rains of frogs, locusts the works to teach the UKippers a harsh lesson.

Switzerland was finally forced to accept free movement of workers in December 2016 after the EU withdrew access to research, Horizon and Erasmus until they changed their position. There are many other bilateral agreements that would infuriate Brexiteers so the Swiss model isn't a runner. The Swiss climb down is also a vivid warning to Brexiteers as to what happens when the EU flexes it's muscles in negotiations.

murphaph

How can the EU take the UK seriously as negotiating partners with such deep division in the sodding cabinet?! The government of the United Kingdom does not actually know what it wants from the negotiations.

Johnson is a despicable man on every level. He would happily destroy the economy of the UK for his own career.

solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Switzerland was finally forced to accept free movement of workers in December 2016 after the EU withdrew access to research, Horizon and Erasmus until they changed their position. There are many other bilateral agreements that would infuriate Brexiteers so the Swiss model isn't a runner. The Swiss climb down is also a vivid warning to Brexiteers as to what happens when the EU flexes it's muscles in negotiations.

Good morning!

There won't be a climb down here. The Government know that not delivering Brexit is electoral suicide. Unlike the Swiss Government democracy is respected in the UK. The EU isn't really a shining example of respecting democratic votes in national plebiscites.

I think there will be movement on the money issue next week. There's a lot of anticipation in respect to Theresa May's speech in Florence next week. According to the Financial Times Nick Clegg has pointed out that the Treasury have left aside funds for the possibility of contributions until 2021. Three years after Brexit. I think this funding will be used. I think Whitehall has known this for some time too. However the UK is going to insist that this is a contribution for single market access. That's the only way they can put this to the British public. They are obviously going to tie the payment to transition otherwise it is unsellable. The UK needs to get something out of this. I suspect they will.

This is why not giving the EU everything they want is the right strategy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

tomwaterford

View wrote: »

So, if you asked someone for advice and they advised you to give them all your money and to do so for the rest of your life, you'd regard their advice as being a binding instruction that you must follow, right? :-)

But of an irrelevant and silly anology


But still can't see how anyone can call themselves democratic and be in favour of ignoring election/referendum results what don't suit them


By all means dictatorship is a valid political opionn as any other,just it's been rejected around the world

Mancomb Seepgood

Boris has been given a Telegraph article - this is one of his 10 points for a successful Brexit.Honestly.

Brexit will be a success

“This country will succeed in our new national enterprise, and will succeed mightily.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/15/boris-johnsons-10-point-plan-successful-brexit/amp/

Jim2007

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Switzerland was finally forced to accept free movement of workers in December 2016 after the EU withdrew access to research, Horizon and Erasmus until they changed their position. There are many other bilateral agreements that would infuriate Brexiteers so the Swiss model isn't a runner. The Swiss climb down is also a vivid warning to Brexiteers as to what happens when the EU flexes it's muscles in negotiations.

I think we need to be careful here, because this is not how it is seen in Switzerland.

The referendum was carried on a low turnout by about 20,000 people. It was seen as a bit of nonsense and thus there was no campaign by the government nor the other political parties and voters did not feel the need to go out and vote it down. Thus it is seen as a mistake that needs to be fixed and we will with a referendum in the next two years.

So in Switzerland (CH), the EU and CH are seen to be on the same side trying to find a solution to a bit of stupidity that never should have happened. So not the same situation as the U.K.

The other thing to understand is that CH did actually get a significant concession. The new rule gives priority to Swiss citizens and permanent residents. So that now employers need to show that there is no one in the Swiss labor market available to take the job before a permit will be issued to an EU/EEA citizen. Furthermore salaries must be inline with market conditions and enforceable Swiss employment contracts must be submitted as part of the permit application process.

solodeogloria

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

Boris has been given a Telegraph article - this is one of his 10 points for a successful Brexit.Honestly.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/15/boris-johnsons-10-point-plan-successful-brexit/amp/

Good morning!

With all due respect the full article is here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

With all due respect the full article is here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The full article doesn't negate the fairy tale ideology Boris and the other Brexiters are espousing as economic fact.

Akrasia

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

That common travel area with Britain that Britain unilaterally voted to leave last year?
Ireland always wanted to be part of Shengen but couldn't because of the UK. Now that the border is back, Ireland can focus on EU integration without the UK holding us back.

steddyeddy

I may disagree with Leo in a number of ways but his is a voice that is largely absent from the Brexit debate in the UK. Not because the British remain voters are any less vocal in their arguement. It's because the voice of reason in the UK has been shouted down by the likes of Boris, Farage and Fox with chants and accusations to the tones of "Brexit means Brexit" and "a vote was cast and Britain made up her mind".

Leo's not restrained his views on the issues Brexit brings our country and the UK. Now he seems set to back that up by blocking the next round of Brexit talks due to lack of reality in the Irish border discussions. People may say that the EU doesn't care about Ireland, but they've shown us far more understanding for our situation than the Tory government.

"At a Fine Gael pre-Dáil conference in Co Tipperary, the Taoiseach sent out a stark message to our strongest trading partner, the UK, saying Ireland would not allow London to begin negotiating its future with the EU."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/leo-varadkar-set-to-block-next-stage-of-brexit-talks-459082.html

murphaph

Akrasia wrote: »

That common travel area with Britain that Britain unilaterally voted to leave last year?
Ireland always wanted to be part of Shengen but couldn't because of the UK. Now that the border is back, Ireland can focus on EU integration without the UK holding us back.

The sad reality is that we won't be joining Schengen anytime soon. The EU has no problem with a fairly porous immigration border with the UK so long as Ireland is outside Schengen. They have a problem with goods easily crossing into the EU unchecked.

Joining Schengen would mean we'd have to strictly control migration across the land border. This is just not realistic and would impose a lot of hardship on border dwellers. I think the EU will accept spot checks on goods but that would never be accepted for Schengen.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There won't be a climb down here. The Government know that not delivering Brexit is electoral suicide. Unlike the Swiss Government democracy is respected in the UK. The EU isn't really a shining example of respecting democratic votes in national plebiscites.

The UK has a ridiculous FPTP voting system, a second house which is not elected at all, so.e of which inherit their seats, some of whom get their seats on the basis of being senior clerics, an unelected head of state which is hereditary, ran a referendum in a ridiculously incompetent manner, and has a govt is trying to carry out a power grab from the elected house via Henry VIII powers and you think it can lecture Switzerland, a country with a hell of a lot of devolution, years of experience of direct democracy?

Not buying it.

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, parliament promised in 2013 to implement the result of the referendum.

Was that before or after the cabinet drafted the actual proposal that was carried through to referendum? Y'know, the one that has the words "advisory" and "referendum" next to each other.

Saying it should be ignored is just whinging because you lost.

Show me once where I have said the result should be ignored. Please. And whilst we're at it, how about answering my earlier questions put to you about your claims about everythign being crystal clear. Y'know, those questions that you have conveniently "forgotten" about in your reply. Well how about it solo? I wont be holding my breath on either your admission that I have never once said the result should be ignored nor your providing "crystal clear" citation of "crystal clear" objectives by the Leave campaign (and again, which leave campaign exactly?).

Also, if you want to find out why people voted leave, there are a number of good places near where you're living in South Yorkshire. If you live in Sheffield you could start there, but I'd recommend having a chat with people in Doncaster or in Wakefield (or watch the BBC Question Time episode from there before the summer recess). You could also try nearby Rotherham.

So, arrogance much? I lived in Rotherham. For six years to be exact. With front-row seats given where I lived for every single EDL/BNP/NF march/riot thank you very much. My next door neighbours are from Doncaster, and I've more than a few friends up that way too. Same in Barnsley and elsewhere, scattered amongst former pit villages a-plenty. And the common theme amongst all those who voted to leave is this: not one of them can articulate any coherent, tangible reason as to why. One of them came close but even he acknowledges that on the whole EU membership has been a positive and that leaving will be an absolute sh1t-show, but he wants out anyway. I've even had current and former workmates (from different jobs) suggest that I leave the country. All of that is on top of the common theme (in general) that is a shockingly low awareness of what the EU is/does/cannot do; I've heard some very peculiar notions over the years and not all #Wrexsh1t related.

I have a right to an opinion. You seem to have misunderstood my point though.

You have a right to an opinion. That doesn't mean you're either right nor have it right, nor even clear on what it is you're trying to say.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

There won't be a climb down here. The Government know that not delivering Brexit is electoral suicide. Unlike the Swiss Government democracy is respected in the UK. The EU isn't really a shining example of respecting democratic votes in national plebiscites.

How about you acknowledge Jim2007's post after yours regards the Swiss referendum fallout. Perhaps with a serving of humble pie.

solodeogloria

Akrasia wrote: »

That common travel area with Britain that Britain unilaterally voted to leave last year?
Ireland always wanted to be part of Shengen but couldn't because of the UK. Now that the border is back, Ireland can focus on EU integration without the UK holding us back.

Good afternoon!

You do realise that the Common Travel Area (CTA) is a cross travel area between Ireland and Britain that isn't dependent on membership of the European Union?

There has been free travel between Ireland and Britain since the establishment of the Free State in 1922, this continued when Ireland was granted dominion status (similar to Australia in the 1930's) and after the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act in parliament in 1949.

The UK have promised to keep this commitment to Irish citizens by ensuring the preservation of the Common Travel Area arrangements after Brexit.

The thing with EU integration is how much or how little do you want. Where does "ever closer union" stop? Are there aspirations in a real sense for a superstate like the "United States of Europe"? What do Jean Claude Juncker and others mean when they say they are passionate about the European project? What is the end goal of the European project?

These questions are real, and are serious. It's clear that the UK didn't want this, so to slam the brakes and change course is a good option. I would be sceptical as to how far Ireland would tolerate common tax harmonisation which is the basis of a lot of its economy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

PeadarCo

solodeogloria wrote:

You do realise that the Common Travel Area (CTA) is a cross travel area between Ireland and Britain that isn't dependent on membership of the European Union?

If the UK leaves the customs union and the single market there will be a hard border and the common travel area will be hard to sustain. There may not be an issue for Ireland and UK citizens but for every other nationality and the import and export of goods some sort of border post will be required. Businesses in Ireland will insist on it. You only need to cast your mind back to the foot and mouth outbreak in cattle back in 2001/2002. There was a large effort by the department of agriculture to ensure the disease didn't cross the border and harm the agriffood industry. That included monitoring people and vehicles crossing the border. If the UK start bringing in regulations that harm Irish businesses lobby groups won't be long in making themselves heard.

The IFA a number of years ago went to some considerable lengths to get Argentinean beef banned in the EU because they felt it wasn't up to EU standards. Don't be surprised if this starts happening when the UK leaves in different industries.

Christy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

You do realise that the Common Travel Area (CTA) is a cross travel area between Ireland and Britain that isn't dependent on membership of the European Union?

There has been free travel between Ireland and Britain since the establishment of the Free State in 1922, this continued when Ireland was granted dominion status (similar to Australia in the 1930's) and after the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act in parliament in 1949.

The UK have promised to keep this commitment to Irish citizens by ensuring the preservation of the Common Travel Area arrangements after Brexit.

The thing with EU integration is how much or how little do you want. Where does "ever closer union" stop? Are there aspirations in a real sense for a superstate like the "United States of Europe"? What do Jean Claude Juncker and others mean when they say they are passionate about the European project? What is the end goal of the European project?

These questions are real, and are serious. It's clear that the UK didn't want this, so to slam the brakes and change course is a good option. I would be sceptical as to how far Ireland would tolerate common tax harmonisation which is the basis of a lot of its economy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The cta changed once the UK and Ireland went into the EU.

The circumstances are different. The UK can promise what it likes. The issue of delivering is not so easy anymore.

It isn't clear what the UK wants at all which is a large part of the issue. Just over half want to leave the EU in some manner or form but what they want from that is anybodies guess.

I mean come on we have statements like red, white and blue brexit which is an entirely meaningless phrase. Most demands have not made sense either If politicians are not willing to lay down whst they want after the vote how do we know what the people wanted? How do we know they are going for the type of brexit a decent percentage wanted? It was a poorly worded referendum as the point was to get a few far right votes and then vote to stay in the EU.

That said they have set it up so it is hard to see them changing course. They have steered towards the cliff edge and while I can see why people want to figure out a way of changing this I don't see anything but brexit occurring.

As for the end goal of the European project, what is the end goal of the UK? There is none. Both of them simply have (or should have) the goal of improving the lives of the people which will be a never ending task. Obviously there are differences in opinion as to how to achieve this. Where the EU will go from here is up to the various member states and for them to agree on (including Ireland).

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

You do realise that the Common Travel Area (CTA) is a cross travel area between Ireland and Britain that isn't dependent on membership of the European Union?

Incorrect but not surprising! The CTA existed before the EU treaties, but the treaties do make a provision to allow it's continuation and modification between two member states.

And no I'm not going to waste time posting you a link etc... It up to you to keep informed.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

The sad reality is that we won't be joining Schengen anytime soon.

The question is will the EU and other Schengen members be willing to set up yet another exception to allow UK citizens visa free travel in the EU/EEA/CH area... or will they just have to apply for third country visas...

Thargor

Wow, Boris Johnson embracing the £350 million NHS battlebus out of nowhere all of a sudden, you'd think they'd want to leave that buried:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0916/905199-boris-johnson-brexit/

Just heard the presenter on Sky News describe the £350 million claim as "completely and utterly disproven" and him and his guests spent the rest of the segment wondering what he's doing.

This is Big Lie propaganda territory here, he knows its not true and so does everyone else, how are they going to defend this on the likes of Newsnight and Question Time?

Capt'n Midnight

Calina wrote: »

The UK has a ridiculous FPTP voting system, a second house which is not elected at all, so.e of which inherit their seats, some of whom get their seats on the basis of being senior clerics, an unelected head of state which is hereditary, ran a referendum in a ridiculously incompetent manner, and has a govt is trying to carry out a power grab from the elected house via Henry VIII powers and you think it can lecture Switzerland, a country with a hell of a lot of devolution, years of experience of direct democracy?

Not buying it.

Some more notes on UK democracy.
The right of hereditary peers to automatically sit has been removed, well sort of, they vote for each other.

House of Lords has a membership of 798 the quorum is 30 ( 1 in 26 ) for legislation and just 3 for a general or procedural vote.

The House of Commons has a quorum of 40 MP's out of 650 ( 1 in 16 ) and thanks to the Parliament Act can overrule the House of Lords.

And of course without a written constitution these restrictions could start to be removed by the next vote.

Enzokk

Thargor wrote: »

Wow, Boris Johnson embracing the £350 million NHS battlebus out of nowhere all of a sudden, you'd think they'd want to leave that buried:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0916/905199-boris-johnson-brexit/

Just heard the presenter on Sky News describe the £350 million claim as "completely and utterly disproven" and him and his guests spent the rest of the segment wondering what he's doing.

This is Big Lie propaganda territory here, he knows its not true and so does everyone else, how are they going to defend this on the likes of Newsnight and Question Time?

Seems like he is positioning himself where he wanted with Cameron, as the option for the right wing Conservatives at the next leadership election. Funny that he and Donald Trump positioned themselves with the right wing of the party/population to try and obtain power. Unfortunately I think that says much about those that have those points of view.

I read somewhere that Boris Johnson only does what is best for Boris Johnson and the rest be damned. Seems that is right on the money. He changed position very quickly and the fact that he had 2 pieces written, one for the EU and one against the EU, just before he declared he was all for leaving the EU should make anyone thinking he is an answer to anything sit up and take notice and think again.

But I guess he has funny hair and he talks in a strange way, so what could go wrong, right?

Rjd2

Thargor wrote: »

Wow, Boris Johnson embracing the £350 million NHS battlebus out of nowhere all of a sudden, you'd think they'd want to leave that buried:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0916/905199-boris-johnson-brexit/

Just heard the presenter on Sky News describe the £350 million claim as "completely and utterly disproven" and him and his guests spent the rest of the segment wondering what he's doing.

This is Big Lie propaganda territory here, he knows its not true and so does everyone else, how are they going to defend this on the likes of Newsnight and Question Time?

Picked a great weekend to do it as there is literally nothing more important going on in the UK at the moment.:mad::rolleyes:

No matter your POV on Brexit or Johnson, you should be able to recognise this is a power play from a man who has clearly got restless waiting for May to fall on her sword.

May who is still in charge won't thank for him it nor will Hammond but for someone like Johnson who as Brexit has proved politics is no more than sport for him, he won't give a ****.

Dont be at yourself

With May supposedly announcing in Florence a somewhat softening in her position, including the possibility of staying in the single market/customs union for a transition period, it seems clear that Johnson is just positioning himself for a leadership heave.

May will now need to sell the public on EU budget payments, whole Boris is continuing to set the expectation that the UK will be on the receiving end of a windfall.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I came across an excellent article in The Telegraph by two economists explaining the economic benefits of leaving the single market and the customs union. It could be a good starting point for discussing this properly.

It's a much much better articulation of some of the reasons I've highlighted already on this thread.

Its points on provision for services in the single market, EU free trade deals tending to be biased towards the interest of France and Germany, how WTO terms really aren't that terrible, and about the benefits of being able to negotiate free trade deals with countries individually outside of the EU tailored to national interests rather than the interests of 27 countries often with a strong bias towards 2.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Its points on provision for services in the single market, EU free trade deals tending to be biased towards the interest of France and Germany, how WTO terms really aren't that terrible, and about the benefits of being able to negotiate free trade deals with countries individually outside of the EU tailored to national interests rather than the interests of 27 countries often with a strong bias towards 2.

How are they biased exactly?

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How are they biased exactly?

Good evening!

Feel free to read the article and see what is said about it in the article and we can use that as a springboard for discussion.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

You do not appear to have provided a link to said article.

murphaph

"Also, the single market in services barely exists, despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Many EU nations refuse to drop barriers to imports of certain services – which severely penalises the UK, the world’s second-largest services exporter."

Interesting take on things! So the authors accept that the UK is heavily reliant on services but reckons sure the UK is barely selling any into the SM as is so not selling any at all will make no difference.

The rest of the article is nothing we haven't heard before.

murphaph

Calina wrote: »

You do not appear to have provided a link to said article.

He did.

Calina

Strangely it isnt rendering on the mobile UI for me although I can see a URL tag if I attempted to quote him.

I will have a look when I am at a full browser.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I came across an excellent article in The Telegraph by two economists explaining the economic benefits of leaving the single market and the customs union. It could be a good starting point for discussing this properly.

It's a much much better articulation of some of the reasons I've highlighted already on this thread.

Its points on provision for services in the single market, EU free trade deals tending to be biased towards the interest of France and Germany, how WTO terms really aren't that terrible, and about the benefits of being able to negotiate free trade deals with countries individually outside of the EU tailored to national interests rather than the interests of 27 countries often with a strong bias towards 2.

The article seems to want to blame the EU a little too much for my liking. Its almost like they think the UK has not been part of the EU but has been forced to participate in the rules only for trade, like Norway, instead of having a seat at the table as they have had for the past 50 or so years. Is that the way you perceive the relationship as well?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Feel free to read the article and see what is said about it in the article and we can use that as a springboard for discussion.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There is no evidence that the EU is biased in favour of France and Germany as you claimed. I'd like you to respond to that.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There is no evidence that the EU is biased in favour of France and Germany as you claimed. I'd like you to respond to that.

Good evening!

I claimed that the article raises these points. You can read the article and see what it says. You can see that in the first three words of what you quoted originally.

Its points on provision for services in the single market, EU free trade deals tending to be biased towards the interest of France and Germany, how WTO terms really aren't that terrible, and about the benefits of being able to negotiate free trade deals with countries individually outside of the EU tailored to national interests rather than the interests of 27 countries often with a strong bias towards 2.

Feel free to read it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I claimed that the article raises these points. You can read the article and see what it says. You can see that in the first three words of what you quoted originally.

Feel free to read it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So the article makes a claim and provides nothing whatsoever to back it up basically. Unless you've got some sort of evidence then that can be dismissed.

ancapailldorcha

To provide a more holistic opinion of the article, I found it quite confused and derivative. It's much of the same arguments we've heard before. The referendum is done so that doesn't interest me at the moment. However, it makes a big deal of the fact that non-EU trade outweighs EU trade. Then it says that tariffs aren't a big deal. Finally, it says that that French farmers and wine producers won't want tariffs? I thought these were no big deal. Especially when you consider that over 50% of British trade is done outside the EU27. If the customs union was truly such a burdensome construct, why is this the case?

And that's before we get to the unproven assumptions that we're just supposed to take as fact like:

The economic benefits of single market “membership” are, anyway, wildly overstated and may even be negative. Membership means all UK firms – including the 95pc that don’t export to the EU – must comply with often unnecessary and expensive EU rules.

Freedom of movement rules provide big firms with a ready stream of cheap, easily exploitable labour, while suppressing the wages of the UK’s most financially insecure workers.

The above are just unsourced, sensationalist claims. I don't really get the point given that Leave won the referendum and negotiations are well underway.

Britain benefits from powerful EU business lobbies urging their governments to strike a favourable UK trade deal, know­ing they’ll otherwise face reciprocated WTO tariffs.

Trading under WTO rules is often portrayed as a disaster. Yet most trade across the globe is conducted largely under WTO rules. The US and other leading economies trade with the EU on this basis, with each side paying tariffs that are generally very low. As such, it is by no means essential for the UK to strike a free-trade agreement with the EU ahead of March 2019. Failing to grasp this amounts to a major strategic error.

Tariffs are significant or they aren't. I wish the authors would pick one. Maybe Michael Gove was right. These so-called experts at least have proven to be quite unimpressive.

Lemming

Rjd2 wrote: »

No matter your POV on Brexit or Johnson, you should be able to recognise this is a power play from a man who has clearly got restless waiting for May to fall on her sword.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

With May supposedly announcing in Florence a somewhat softening in her position, including the possibility of staying in the single market/customs union for a transition period, it seems clear that Johnson is just positioning himself for a leadership heave.

This isn't so much BoJo making a power play for a leadership heave, and more a warning shot across the bow for May a few days before she goes to Florence. BoJo is clearly feeling the heat and knows that he's going to take the blame should the UK's stance soften.


Edit: So how about answering those questions from earlier solo? Hiding behind a Telegraph article doesn't answer anything I'm afraid. F for effort I'm afraid.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I came across an excellent article in The Telegraph by two economists explaining the economic benefits of leaving the single market and the customs union. It could be a good starting point for discussing this properly.

I'll try to explain this to you again again.

An FTA usually doesn't cover all trade and it usually doesn't come into effect now.

The Swiss-Chinese discussions started in 2007, before serious talks in 2011 and was signed in 2013 and came into force in 2014 and for some sections of Swiss exports to China the full tariff reductions won't kick in until 2029, and for others not even then.


Imagine telling UK small firms that "if we start negotiations with China next year, most of you will have tariff free export to China by 2040", it's not like the Chinese have unskilled over the last 22 years is it ?


It's also one-sided as the remaining Swiss tariffs on Chinese imports were removed. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/free-trade-agreement_china-opens-up-to-swiss-exporters/37462288

The small business federation notes that 44% of the volume of machine tools will not benefit from any exemption. “This means in particular high-precision tools,” says spokesman Philippe Cordonier.
...
Swiss agriculture’s flagship export item will not benefit from any great breaks. “Tariff barriers for cheese will only be gradually cut by a half in ten years,” Röösli notes.

Blessed are the cheesemakers :rolleyes:

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

View wrote: »

Parliament made a choice NOT to act on the majority view in the 1979 referendum on devolution for Scotland.

As such it is clear that Parliament is perfectly willing to ignore majority opinion in an advisory referendum when it suits itself.

Parliament didnt ignore anything, the criteria was not met.

A majority voted in favour of a proposal in an advisory referendum. Parliament didn't implement the proposal that the majority voted in favour of thus ignoring the advice of the electorate. Therefore it is clearly bogus to argue that Parliament can't ignore the wishes of a majority in an advisory referendum when it so chooses.

View

tomwaterford wrote: »

View wrote: »

So, if you asked someone for advice and they advised you to give them all your money and to do so for the rest of your life, you'd regard their advice as being a binding instruction that you must follow, right? :-)

But of an irrelevant and silly anology

Not at all. If you regard advice as something you can either act or not as you so choose then the advice you get from an advisory referendum is not and cannot ever be binding.

tomwaterford wrote: »

But still can't see how anyone can call themselves democratic and be in favour of ignoring election/referendum results what don't suit them

An advisory referendum is one in which it is optional to act upon the result or not. It is not binding. Were it binding it would not be an advisory referendum.

You seem to be arguing that a democracy can never hold an advisory referendum even if they make a democratic decision to have one. And yet, they are widely used by democracies around the world.

tomwaterford wrote: »

By all means dictatorship is a valid political opionn as any other,just it's been rejected around the world

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with a democracy holding an advisory referendum.

Rain Ascending

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think there will be movement on the money issue next week. There's a lot of anticipation in respect to Theresa May's speech in Florence next week. According to the Financial Times Nick Clegg has pointed out that the Treasury have left aside funds for the possibility of contributions until 2021. Three years after Brexit. I think this funding will be used. I think Whitehall has known this for some time too. However the UK is going to insist that this is a contribution for single market access. That's the only way they can put this to the British public. They are obviously going to tie the payment to transition otherwise it is unsellable. The UK needs to get something out of this. I suspect they will.

This is a very feasible scenario up to a point.

I can see the EU agreeing to single market access in a transition arrangement. The departure from that arrangement would be in line with the end of the EU budgetary cycle and hence line up with the end of a lot of the UK's residual commitments. The UK may be able to negotiate a few face-saving concessions (e.g. the right to commence negotiations for free-trade agreements during the transition period) to make it more politically palatable.

But, here's the tricky bit. The UK would have to continue to sign up to the principal of free movement for that single market access. Politically, the EU cannot change the rules on this for the UK. And politically, I doubt the current Conservative government will agree to freedom of movement lasting beyond March 2019.

So deadlock on the divorce payment?

Either the Conservative government can figure out a transition model that (a) they can agree to among themselves and (b) that would fit into a model that is familiar to the EU ... or ... we have another general election in the UK. If we get to deadlock before the end of this year, the pressures on May's minority government will become unmanageable inside the House of Commons in 2018.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

That common travel area with Britain that Britain unilaterally voted to leave last year?
Ireland always wanted to be part of Shengen but couldn't because of the UK. Now that the border is back, Ireland can focus on EU integration without the UK holding us back.

Good afternoon!

You do realise that the Common Travel Area (CTA) is a cross travel area between Ireland and Britain that isn't dependent on membership of the European Union?

This is incorrect.

The first formal mention of the CTA in an international treaty was in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Even there it just gets a brief mention in Protocol 20 (the Schengen opt-out one). As such the court that gets to decide future cases in relation to it is the CJEU and if they rule that it is incompatible with EU law, then that's the end of it.

And, no, it doesn't matter what the UK promises as the UK is fully aware that, under EU law, it has no legal authority whatsoever to make promises about how EU law will or will not be applied.

Obvious Otter

I think the ineptitude of this grand delusion can be seen in BoJo's incredible Telegraph article. It's amazing that this guy has any political capital left at all.

May has no control of her party and the Leavers expect this government to deliver a competent Brexit deal, which ironically wants a seamless trade barrier despite cancelling all EU customs, Revenue and Duty secondments. The biggest barriers to trade expansion in the EU has always been the UK. All these countries that the UK plan to trade with are still going to have the same demands as they did with the EU. The Etonian logic of offering shiny things to people with 'Watermelon smiles' doesn't really cut it these days.

solodeogloria

View wrote: »

This is incorrect.

The first formal mention of the CTA in an international treaty was in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Even there it just gets a brief mention in Protocol 20 (the Schengen opt-out one). As such the court that gets to decide future cases in relation to it is the CJEU and if they rule that it is incompatible with EU law, then that's the end of it.

And, no, it doesn't matter what the UK promises as the UK is fully aware that, under EU law, it has no legal authority whatsoever to make promises about how EU law will or will not be applied.

Good morning!

This is pedantry. The arrangements existed before the EU even if they weren't referred to by this title. Free movement existed between Ireland and Britain since the early 1920's. This wasn't dependent on the EU.

Ireland's position in UK law is based on the Republic of Ireland Act which dealt with the implications in UK law for Ireland ceasing to be a crown dominion.

This act is also the reason why Irish citizens have more rights in the UK than other EU citizens.

Rain Ascending wrote: »

This is a very feasible scenario up to a point.

I can see the EU agreeing to single market access in a transition arrangement. The departure from that arrangement would be in line with the end of the EU budgetary cycle and hence line up with the end of a lot of the UK's residual commitments. The UK may be able to negotiate a few face-saving concessions (e.g. the right to commence negotiations for free-trade agreements during the transition period) to make it more politically palatable.

But, here's the tricky bit. The UK would have to continue to sign up to the principal of free movement for that single market access. Politically, the EU cannot change the rules on this for the UK. And politically, I doubt the current Conservative government will agree to freedom of movement lasting beyond March 2019.

So deadlock on the divorce payment?

Either the Conservative government can figure out a transition model that (a) they can agree to among themselves and (b) that would fit into a model that is familiar to the EU ... or ... we have another general election in the UK. If we get to deadlock before the end of this year, the pressures on May's minority government will become unmanageable inside the House of Commons in 2018.

The free movement issue is addressed to a degree in the UK's proposals. After 2019 people will be able to enter for a transitional period. If they haven't accrued 5 years of residence after the transitional period they will need to apply for a visa because they won't be eligible for "settled status".

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The free movement issue is addressed to a degree in the UK's proposals. After 2019 people will be able to enter for a transitional period. If they haven't accrued 5 years of residence after the transitional period they will need to apply for a visa because they won't be eligible for "settled status".

But the UK wants to continue the CTA, so how do you police who comes into the country? You will not need a visa to get into the UK if you continue the CTA.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

But the UK wants to continue the CTA, so how do you police who comes into the country? You will not need a visa to get into the UK if you continue the CTA.

Good morning!

I suggest you read the Government's proposals. I've also raised this on this thread before I'm fairly sure. We should try avoid repetition.

After Brexit they aren't insisting on restricting travel. Visa free travel for EU citizens will continue.

Rights to employment on the other hand will not. This will be enforced primarily through employment checks.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

In other words the UK is outsourcing checks to employers and landlords.

Enforcement will be thin.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I suggest you read the Government's proposals. I've also raised this on this thread before I'm fairly sure. We should try avoid repetition.

After Brexit they aren't insisting on restricting travel. Visa free travel for EU citizens will continue.

Rights to employment on the other hand will not. This will be enforced primarily through employment checks.

It seems that immigration from the EU has not depressed wages and the real reason for people being paid less is the GFC and recession. It also seems that non-EU immigration could be detrimental to UK-born workers. And what immigration does the government actually control?

I would guess that people coming into the UK to work illegally will actually depress wages and work as they would work for cash and not pay taxes. Those people that want to do that will be able to come to the UK via Ireland if the UK continues the CTA.

I know this may be difficult for you to answer as you voted to remain, but for someone that has concerns about immigration, what do you think they will feel about an open door via Ireland?

I would think the best way to control immigration is at the first point, the border. If you outsource that to another agency then surely you open the system to abuse if there is an open door.

I am just trying to figure out the policies of the UK and if it makes sense. At the moment it doesn't to me and your referral to the position of the UK on any questions doesn't clear up the confusion. You have decided to defend the position of the UK government so unfortunately you will be questioned on their policies and if you think it makes sense.

The Labour Market Effects of Immigration