Brexit discussion thread III

Leroy42

blanch152 wrote: »

If Brexit results in reduced worker rights along with economic depression, that is plenty of cover for a change of heart by Corbyn - the Tory Brexit was a disaster, ours could have worked, but the only option now is to rejoin in some form.

There is no evidence that this will happen. All the previous points to somebody else being blamed and the people need to work harder, pay more taxes, and accept less services in order to compete.

And that will be wrapped up in some type of anti-EU (they screwed us with the deal, they were out to get May from day 1), they can blame any immigrants still in the country, or possibly blame NI for screwing up the whole thing.

Whatever, you can be absolutely certain that at no point will even the thought of Brexit being wrong be entertained.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

According to those poll numbers David Cameron is a terrible gambler as his party members favour leaving the single market by 75%, the customs union by 73% and they want EU nationals to have the same immigration rules as non-EU nationals (agree by 83%). How did he think he would win the referendum?

This was not a referendum of Tory party members, who are not representative of the country as a whole.

In any event, the figures you are giving are for the opinions of Tory party members now. As party loyalists they have a tendency to commit to support of party policy. If you'd conducted the same survey before the referendum and before the party committed to any of these positions - in fact, when they opposed them all - I think you would have got very different results.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

This was not a referendum of Tory party members, who are not representative of the country as a whole.

In any event, the figures you are giving are for the opinions of Tory party members now. As party loyalists they have a tendency to commit to support of party policy. If you'd conducted the same survey before the referendum and before the party committed to any of these positions - in fact, when they opposed them all - I think you would have got very different results.

True, although my comment was in reply to the one where the Labour party is only democratic if they agree with Jeremy Corbyn. If we take that to be the default position then we should see the Conservatives start agitating to bring back the death penalty. Or to continue austerity.

Just over half of Tory party members support the death penalty compared to under ten per cent of Labour and Lib Dem members and a fifth of SNP members.

On the economy, 11% of Tory members agree that austerity has gone too far, compared with 98% of Labour members, 93% of SNP members, and 75% of Lib Dem members.

Tories are older, whiter and more authoritarian

LeinsterDub

Hammond refuses to rule out customs union with EU after Brexit...

The Remain supporter, whose opposition to a hard exit from the bloc has angered some of his colleagues, left the door open to the UK signing up to an agreement that could restrict international trade deals.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0105/931226-brexit/

I wonder will the UK government make a public announcement when they've all finally sat down and agreed the UK's position and red lines?

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That said, I hadn't appreciated your point about the control offered by the EEA before. Fishing was just a tool to score points in decimated fishing communities to be discarded once they voted the right way.

...
Norwegians might be happy with the EEA but that indicates a degree of pragmatism and education on the subject which is missing here.

Norway ?

http://www.efta.int/EEA/Policy-Areas-2422

The EEA Agreement extends the application of EU Internal Market law to three of the EFTA States. Relevant legislation concerns the so-called "four freedoms", i.e. the free of movement of goods, services, capital and persons, as well as certain horizontal and flanking policies.

Also no passporting of financial services and having to accept huge chunks of EU rules and regulations without any say.


Also I could see an independent Scotland being let join the EFTA far more likely than the UK. Because Scotland wouldn't be the dominant member by population or economy. And the energy and fishing interests would parallel Norway.

Peregrinus

Creol1 wrote: »

I wasn't aware of this. Do you have any more details about it, because I'd like to learn more about the process?

I'm a bit hazy on the details, but so far as I know there's a two-stage system for involving EEA members in EU policy formation/legislation. The first involves consultation of EEA member states at an early stage about EU legislative proposals and policy initiatives. The second is that the finished product - the finalised legislation - is submitted to a body called the EEA Joint Committee, which includes representatives of all the EEA members states and of the EU. EU legislation doesn't apply to the EEA member states unless and until endorsed by the EEA Joint Committee. And, even then, it's not directly effective purely as a result of being endorsed; endorsement obliges the EEA members to adopt the legislation, but they each do that under their own domestic processes.

There's also an informal, but nevertheless quite effective, involvement in that the EEA states participate in a large number of EU agencies and, through this, they get ground-level influence, so to speak, on policy and legislative proposals emerging from those agencies.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also I could see an independent Scotland being let join the EFTA far more likely than the UK. Because Scotland wouldn't be the dominant member by population or economy. And the energy and fishing interests would parallel Norway.

The significance of EFTA membership is not really for relationships between the various EFTA states; they have no influence over one another. Rather, its for the relationship between the EFTA states and the EU. From this point of view, adding a large economy like the UK to EFTA could only give EFTA extra weight in its relations with the EU. I think existing EFTA members would see this as a plus, not a minus.

(And, of course, just as Scotland's energy and fishing interests would parallel Norwway's, so would the UK's. They are basically the same interests, after all.)

Jim2007

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think existing EFTA members would see this as a plus, not a minus.

Most certainly not! We, Switzerland, see value in EFTA for it’s many none EU trade agreements and indeed we do not participate in the EEA agreement at all.

Furthermore we see the UK as trouble, likely to demand special treatment and continue its EU opposition via EFTA. Norway is not very excited about the idea and I’d expect to see a referendum in Switzerland on the issue if it goes that far.

LeinsterDub

British Prime Minister Theresa May has said the UK will be looking for a free trade agreement with the EU that will cover goods and services in Phase Two of the Brexit negotiations this year.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0107/931554-may-brexit-trade/

So basically a customs union? As the EU doesn't include services in FTAs

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

The significance of EFTA membership is not really for relationships between the various EFTA states; they have no influence over one another. Rather, its for the relationship between the EFTA states and the EU. From this point of view, adding a large economy like the UK to EFTA could only give EFTA extra weight in its relations with the EU. I think existing EFTA members would see this as a plus, not a minus.

Only if the UK is singing from the same hymn sheet. Can you imagine the Brexiteers being happy to align with the current EFTA countries ?

At least in the EU you could explain majority decisions because the UK has a much smaller population. But if the UK had to accept a majority decision when they have a much larger population than the rest of the EFTA ? Taking back control indeed.

(And, of course, just as Scotland's energy and fishing interests would parallel Norwway's, so would the UK's. They are basically the same interests, after all.)

IMHO an independent Scotland would fit right in.

But the UK would expect the rule the roost and since they are against free movement but need services it's chalk and cheese.

Strazdas

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0107/931554-may-brexit-trade/

So basically a customs union? As the EU doesn't include services in FTAs

Strange that Marr didn't pull her up on that immediately. According to her own red lines, the EU have already said services are out of the question in any future trade deal.

ancapailldorcha

Strazdas wrote: »

Strange that Marr didn't pull her up on that immediately. According to her own red lines, the EU have already said services are out of the question in any future trade deal.

I would imagine that the BBC are currently playing a very careful game given that the government appears to be very weak and is ideologically opposed to the existence of a state broadcaster.

BonnieSituation

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would imagine that the BBC are currently playing a very careful game given that the government appears to be very weak and is ideologically opposed to the existence of a state broadcaster.

That's always the excuse given for the BBC and the likes of Marr for rolling over.

If it was New Labour ca 1998 we could say it's because the government is very strong.

If Brexit (and the ScotIndy Ref) have proven anything is that the BBC as it was is dead.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would imagine that the BBC are currently playing a very careful game given that the government appears to be very weak and is ideologically opposed to the existence of a state broadcaster.

There seem to be strong suggestions that Marr is a Brexiteer anyway and is fully on board the hard Brexit train.

steddyeddy

So how does the UK square no freedom of movement with free trade?

steddyeddy

The amount of EU academics that have left the UK has risen by 19% in the last year. This will be felt in biotech and related industry I'd wager.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-university-eu-academics-resign-immigration-brexodus-citizens-europe-a8143796.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0107/931554-may-brexit-trade/

So basically a customs union? As the EU doesn't include services in FTAs

No, not a customs union.

Norway, for example, has free trade in goods (through its participation in the EEA) but is not in the customs union, and so is free to set its own customs tariffs with respect to third countries.

The UK is looking for something similar - i.e. free trade in goods and services, but no customs union.

steddyeddy wrote: »

So how does the UK square no freedom of movement with free trade?

Exactly like that, basically. They'd like free trade in goods and services but not in labour. Essentially, they'd ask, if you can have free trade in goods but not in services (and everybody agrees that this is possible in principle) then why can't you have free trade in goods and services but not in labour?

In a nutshell, what the UK is proposing is that (say) a shoemaker in Glasgow should be free to make shoes in Glasgow and sell them to a customer in Genoa, but should not be free to make the same shoes in Genoa for sale to the customer in Genoa.

The EU rejects this because they feel it will undermine the integrity of the single market, under which the shoemaker is free to do either of those things.

They'd also point out that free trade in services, but not in labour, is a particulary incongruous combination. Services are, essentially, labour. It makes no sense to suggest that an accountant from London can provide accounting services to a customer in Lyon but only provided he stays in London while doing it.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, not a customs union.

Norway, for example, has free trade in goods (through its participation in the EEA) but is not in the customs union, and so is free to set its own customs tariffs with respect to third countries.

We are all aware what the UK wants. They want an EU pick and mix. My point was the EU has already ruled that out.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We are all aware what the UK wants my point was the EU has already ruled that out.

Yes, I agree. But, even so, what the UK wants is not a customs union.

And what the UK wants is not something which it's impossible for the EU to agree to; complete free trade in goods and services, without free movement of labour, is technically feasible. It's just something that the EU won't agree to (as the EU has made very clear) because it's very much not in the interests of the EU to agree to it.

There used to be a Brexiter fantasy that the EU would agree to this because the German car industry would make it agree, or something like that. This was even less grounded-in-reality that most Brexiter positions, and you don't hear much about it any more.

May, in suggesting something similar now, is doing two things. First, she is saying what her Brexiter supporters needs to hear. Brexiters are deeply insecure, live in perpetual fear of betrayal, and need constant reassurance that their lords and masters are still cleaving to the true faith. Secondly, she is signalling to the EU that the UK will not be a pushover in the next round of the negotiations. She's not disclosing what her actual bottom line in the negotiations is (if indeed she knows yet what it is, which I kind of doubt) but she is signalling the EU that she will press for something they won't easily agree to.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I agree. But, even so, what the UK wants is not a customs union.

We are agreeing with each other without realising it . I didn't mean to suggest the UK wants a CU. What I meant was the only way they'll get what they want from the EU is in a CU. Which of course they don't want which leads us back to square one and yet a other Brexit circular red line(s)

Strazdas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I agree. But, even so, what the UK wants is not a customs union.

And what the UK wants is not something which it's impossible for the EU to agree to; complete free trade in goods and services, without free movement of labour, is technically feasible. It's just something that the EU won't agree to (as the EU has made very clear) because it's very much not in the interests of the EU to agree to it.

There used to be a Brexiter fantasy that the EU would agree to this because the German car industry would make it agree, or something like that. This was even less grounded-in-reality that most Brexiter positions, and you don't hear much about it any more.

May, in suggesting something similar now, is doing two things. First, she is saying what her Brexiter supporters needs to hear. Brexiters are deeply insecure, live in perpetual fear of betrayal, and need constant reassurance that their lords and masters are still cleaving to the true faith. Secondly, she is signalling to the EU that the UK will not be a pushover in the next round of the negotiations. She's not disclosing what her actual bottom line in the negotiations is (if indeed she knows yet what it is, which I kind of doubt) but she is signalling the EU that she will press for something they won't easily agree to.

With good reason too. It would be practically impossible to justify any country being able to access the Single Market in a half in, half out manner and certainly not one which has been acting in a hostile manner recently and is even openly talking about being a competitor to the EU.

Tell me how

I think it's fair to say Theresa May has the most difficult job of any PM since....

BBC News

But Theresa May's detractors will claim this as evidence that she didn't have the authority to move her own ministers. One senior MP said "this reshuffle is embarrassing… far from asserting her authority, or some new found strength it's just highlighted how weak the PM is".

She is going to be thrown under the bus so hard the moment the ego's in the conservatives see the opportunity for themselves.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I think it's fair to say Theresa May has the most difficult job of any PM since....

BBC News

She is going to be thrown under the bus so hard the moment the ego's in the conservatives see the opportunity for themselves.

That being said, it's hard to say she's doing a fantastic job.

See image below of new cabinet positions announced today. The gap in the image immediately suggests division.



This is similar to the letters falling off the wall at the part conference. Not May's fault but doesn't do her any favours.

Nody

Tell me how wrote: »

This is similar to the letters falling off the wall at the part conference. Not May's fault but doesn't do her any favours.

Sorry but no, as the bloody leader of a country and party the bucket stops at her and no one else. Either she's up for the job or she should get the heck out and let someone more competent to do it.

Tell me how

Nody wrote:

Sorry but no, as the bloody leader of a country and party the bucket stops at her and no one else. Either she's up for the job or she should get the heck out and let someone more competent to do it.

What could she have done about this picture being published?

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

Nody wrote:

Sorry but no, as the bloody leader of a country and party the bucket stops at her and no one else. Either she's up for the job or she should get the heck out and let someone more competent to do it.

What could she have done about this picture being published?

its just another indication that things are allowed to be loose.  Where are the PR people to make sure everyone knows their task?

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote:

its just another indication that things are allowed to be loose. Where are the PR people to make sure everyone knows their task?

That's my point. She looks weak but she is being let down by her staff.

Agree she is person at the top but such things as this shouldn't have to be pointed out by her.

She needs a Malcolm Tucker in the background but doesn't seem she has one.

Nody

Tell me how wrote: »

What could she have done about this picture being published?

How about having someone stand at the photographer and spot the gap and get them to move together? Enough power as a leader to not have people leave a obvious gap? You could go on making a list of things done but at the end as the leader the blame and the bucket stops her feet and not someone else. She's the leader, she's in charge and responsibility and blame belongs to her accordingly.

Peregrinus

Tell me how wrote: »

That being said, it's hard to say she's doing a fantastic job.

See image below of new cabinet positions announced today. The gap in the image immediately suggests division.

Nitpick: these are not the new cabinet appointments. They are the new appointments to positions in Conservative Central Office. Internal party appointments, not government appointments.

Tell me how wrote: »

This is similar to the letters falling off the wall at the part conference. Not May's fault but doesn't do her any favours.

A couple of years ago the Tory party, who used to contract out the organisation and management of the party conference, took the function in-house again as a cost-saving measure. Which resulted in some fairly amateurish aspects to the conference, like the not-quite-magnetic-enough letters.

Don't know whether this also accounts for the sloppy posing of the photograph of the new Central Office officials. I suspect not.

Enzokk

I don't know what to think about this? Is this the UK being upset that the EU is planning for a no-deal Brexit because the UK has been saying all along they will leave without a deal? How about the UK making their own preparations for no deal but the EU may not advise companies to prepare? Is this what is happening here?

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/950501082903580672

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

That's my point. She looks weak but she is being let down by her staff.

Agree she is person at the top but such things as this shouldn't have to be pointed out by her.

She needs a Malcolm Tucker in the background but doesn't seem she has one.

Leadership comes from the top. She is clearly not on top of things the way she should be. She should have people working for her that demand the best, but instead they are happy with 'close enough, not worth the effort'. That stems from either how they see the boss or the belief they have in their roles.

Either way it is poor. When you couple this with her poor performance; the number of resignations, her inability to tackle the likes of Boris, her calamitous election campaign, it all points to a person who is not in control, but rather things just keep happening.

Of course luck plays it part, what the saying "give me a lucky general" but even that calls into question her leadership. If she isn't good or lucky then whats the point?

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know what to think about this?

Reading that letter, all I can hear is the sound of reality crashing against the rocks of denial.

Since the vote, hell even before the vote, the EU have had to listen whilst Brexiteers told anybody with a microphone or newspaper that the EU was a failing institution, that it needed the UK for its very survival, that German car manufacturers would be demanding Merkel roll over and that Brexit was a land of lollipops and gumstrees.

Now they are writing letters to each other bemoaning that unlike them, the EU have actually starting to plan for what is a very likely scenario in 14 months time. It almost if the EU thinks that it is right and proper to prepare for something it knows is likely to happen.

Still, at least Davies commission reports to tell him that fishing fleets are based mainly at the coast!

I actually hope the letter is a fake.

If not, we are in trouble here as the chasm between reality and the UK Government position cannot possibly possibly be closed within 8 months.

Does David Davis know what Article 50 is for?

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually hope the letter is a fake.

If not, we are in trouble here as the chasm between reality and the UK Government position cannot possibly possibly be closed within 8 months.

Does David Davis know what Article 50 is for?

Davis Davis that wanted to negotiate with Germany the day after Brexit?

https://twitter.com/andyrome64/status/950514346559528960

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course luck plays it part, what the saying "give me a lucky general" but even that calls into question her leadership. If she isn't good or lucky then whats the point?

All I'll say on luck can be summarized by a famous long distance skier who was asked if he felt lucky winning again with the answer "It's amazing that I keep getting luckier the more I train for it".

ECO_Mental

Enzokk wrote: »

Davis Davis that wanted to negotiate with Germany the day after Brexit?

https://twitter.com/andyrome64/status/950514346559528960

Wow... that one tweet saying that he they can negotiate a trade only with Germany is Trump Level ignorance not realizing that the EU only deals for the whole EU is mind blowing

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Davis Davis that wanted to negotiate with Germany the day after Brexit?

https://twitter.com/andyrome64/status/950514346559528960

Wow! Sounds like someone feels the need to create a narrative for a hard Brexit. Or was there drink taken I wonder?

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually hope the letter is a fake.

If not, we are in trouble here as the chasm between reality and the UK Government position cannot possibly possibly be closed within 8 months.

Does David Davis know what Article 50 is for?

Davis Davis that wanted to negotiate with Germany the day after Brexit?

https://twitter.com/andyrome64/status/950514346559528960

Yes that guy

One would have assumed that in his brief as minister for this, he'd have learned some basics about the process in the last 18 months.

The swashbuckling nonsense pre referendum was all just that imo. It's all very different once it's on official headed paper.

It's no longer a personal statement of crass ineptitude and ignorance. It's far far worse.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote:

It's no longer a personal statement of crass ineptitude and ignorance. It's far far worse.

And yet he's staying where he is after this week's reshuffle.

The mind boggles.

Of course, when Jeremy Hunt wouldn't do what he was told to, it seems she couldn't have found someone to take this job if she begged them to.

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

And yet he's staying where he is after this week's reshuffle.

The mind boggles.

Of course, when Jeremy Hunt wouldn't do what he was told to, it seems she couldn't have found someone to take this job if she begged them to.

I don't know how politically feasible it would be for May to appoint someone else to that role unless it was a prominent Brexiteer. I can't see Andrea Leadsom for example doing any better.

Enzokk

In reply to David Davis and his letter to Theresa May the EU commission has replied,

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/950697434413486080

"We in the European Commission we are surprised that the United Kingdom is surprised that we are preparing for a scenario announced by the UK government itself."

Skedaddle

It’s really mind blowing how ridiculous this is getting on the British side:

https://twitter.com/pablopereza/status/950690715218120704

The European Commission is surprised that the UK is surprised that the EU is preparing for the exact scenarios the UK outlined it intends to press ahead with i.e. a “hard Brexit”

CelticRambler

Regarding the earlier discussion about the transport of goods from Ireland to continental Europe, in the absence of a significant transitional agreement, this will surely have an impact:

drivers in the Union of a vehicle intended for the carriage of goods or for the carriage of passengers need to hold a certificate of professional competence certifying the initial qualification or periodic training and issued by competent authorities of an EU Member State or by an approved training centre in an EU Member State.

and

As of the withdrawal date, a driving licence issued by the United Kingdom is no longer recognised by the Member States on the basis of this legislation.

While this may not directly affect Irish drivers, it could mean being required to have two different sets professional certification just to make the landbridge journey and will inevitably add to the cost of such a trip.

On the other hand, UK haulage and coach companies will face the same burden, which could reduce the number of vehicles & drivers crossing the channel, making it easier/quicker for ro-ro through-traffic to get onto the ferries.

Rjd2

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/08/jeremy-corbyn-eu-single-market-after-brexit

Jez wants nothing to do with the single market, someday his cult will cop on that is at best a reluctant remainer.

He has played both sides very well, canny politics, but pretty ****ty all the same.

Professor Moriarty

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/08/jeremy-corbyn-eu-single-market-after-brexit

Jez wants nothing to do with the single market, someday his cult will cop on that is at best a reluctant remainer.

He has played both sides very well, canny politics, but pretty ****ty all the same.

I think if he had been anything other than lukewarm and disingenuous during the Brexit campaign then Britain and the EU wouldn't be in this mess. That aside and given the state of play right now, he really doesn't have any political choice but to be very opaque about Labour Brexit policy.

Skedaddle

I think a lot of people on this side of the Irish Sea drastically underestimate how big a deal Euroscepticism is in England, particularly outside the more outward looking big cities and the wealthier southern coastal regions. It's as much on the left as it is on the right and doesn't really equate to right wing outlooks on other topics. The divide is very much socioeconomic, not right vs left. There's a significant English Eurosceptic left wing vote too and Corbyn is clearly trying to move away from New Labour to avoid losing working class votes to populist UKIP/Tory jingoistic politics.

It’s a combination of rust belt economics that were largely created by successive failures of British governments to reinvigorate the old industrial areas and by a constant barrage of what amounted to almost propaganda from a section of the tabloids that utterly destroyed the English relationship with the EU.

Irish views of England tend to be of the more progressive parts of the country because that's where people emigrated to. You didn't really ever see much Irish emigration to depressed former mining towns. If anything those places were in exactly the same kind of economic dire straits Ireland used to be in and saw mass migration to the wealthier cities themselves over the years and a significant brain drain too.

We tend to see England through a prism of London, Manchester, Birmingham etc etc ties and almost exclusively through British television broadcast media which is good quality, well balanced and very well produced analytical news output. The crazy element of the uk media lives in print and is really not seen here very much as we don’t buy English editions of the tabloids in large quantities. So in general we get a rather sane impression of U.K. debate that isn’t really reflective of the reality.

I think one thing that's very interesting is that Scotland and Northern Ireland don't really consume the same print media as England. They've their own papers and localised versions of the tabloids. I sometimes wonder if that's fed into the big difference in attitudes?

Rjd2

Yes think Paul Mason said he would have been on the leave side, but he just did not want to associate with the likes of Farage etc.

The Morning Star ultimately backed leave, and Corbyn's hero Tony Benn's was not a fan of Europe whatsoever. Dennis Skinner one of the old school Labour MPS was also a prominent leaver.

MrPudding

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think if he had been anything other than lukewarm and disingenuous during the Brexit campaign then Britain and the EU wouldn't be in this mess. That aside and given the state of play right now, he really doesn't have any political choice but to be very opaque about Labour Brexit policy.

I believe the estimates are something like 80% of Labour voters voted remain. Would that remaining 20%, all of which he would not have been able to convince, no matter what he did, have been enough to swing the referendum the other way?

ambro25

CelticRambler wrote: »

Regarding the earlier discussion about the transport of goods from Ireland to continental Europe, in the absence of a significant transitional agreement, will surely have an impact:

<...>

While this may not directly affect Irish drivers, it could mean being required to have two different sets professional certification just to make the landbridge journey and will inevitably add to the cost of such a trip.

On the other hand, UK haulage and coach companies will face the same burden, which could reduce the number of vehicles & drivers crossing the channel, making it easier/quicker for ro-ro through-traffic to get onto the ferries.

On the (simplified) assumption that the UK's Withdrawal Bill effectively transposes EU legislation onto UK Statutes books verbatim as it proposes to do, then this will be a day 1 problem for UK professional drivers outside the UK (because the EU is not "transposing UK legislation at the European scale"), but not for EU (including IE) drivers in the UK (since the UK will effectively be maintaining the legal status quo, including in respect of EU licenses/quals, through that transposition).

So in the context of your post, the transitional agreement needs to cater for UK professional drivers activity in the EU27, and is necessarily for the UK to ask of the EU. That is, until and unless the UK amends the transposed EU texts along a protectionist trajectory (reciprocally requiring the "certification of the initial EU qualification or periodic training by an approved UK training centre in the UK").

This situation is no different in many (most?) other avenues of professional life, wherein professional activity across the EU hinges upon the reciprocal recognition of diplomas, qualifications, certifications <etc.> and, in some instances (such as IP law practitioners, of which I am one) domiciliation as well.

Plainly, and blunty: come Brexit day, UK-based and/or -qualified service providers (drivers, solicitors, etc.) cease to be able to provide their services freely in the EU27; but EU27-based and/or -qualified service providers <in the main> can still provide their services in the UK.

That's e.g. certainly the case for <e.g.> IP practitioners (since rights of audience before the UK intellectual property office are not contingent upon any UK qualification or domiciliation; unlike e.g. the Irish Patents Office or the European intellectual property office which both require EEA qualification and domiciliation).

Given the timescales now at hand and the enduring posturing by the UK, there is just about squat chances of such coalface issues being resolved prior to March 2019.

Professor Moriarty

MrPudding wrote: »

I believe the estimates are something like 80% of Labour voters voted remain. Would that remaining 20%, all of which he would not have been able to convince, no matter what he did, have been enough to swing the referendum the other way?

No, it was actually 64% of Labour voters voted remain. Which means that 35% of voters could have been swayed by a determined and passionate Corbyn. Given that 51.9% of voters voted for Brexit, it is very likely that an enthusiastic Corbyn would have persuaded enough of that 35% (and perhaps non-Labour voters who were undecided) to vote Remain.