Brexit discussion thread III

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

Yes that is within the public health exception. But can you point at what exception that the EU can impose checks on all goods from ROI.

Its an illustration that even for trade within the Single Market, the capability exists to isolate and check consignments without great difficulty.

The exception that would be invoked in Ireland's case would be that the prevailing trade practice with a non EU member was not reliable enough to ensure the integrity of the Single Market. It would only arise if the Irish border arrangements so required. It would apply as long as those practices were in effect.

Do you think you will need me to explain this a few dozen more times?

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

which is how the Scottish Parliament managed to get away with excluding Non Scottish Brits from free university places.

Was just about to mention this.

Really Interested wrote: »

Exactly but ROI or Irish passport carrying NI residents did get advantage.

WE didn't get an advantage as ROI resident citizens, we had the same rights as ALL (non-British) EU citizens.

NI resident Irish citizens briefly had an advantage over their Welsh and English compatriots which was closed soon after it was realised.

Rjd2 wrote: »

The trade minister chatting with Andrew Neil the other day.

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/961282397194072064

Nothing to be worried about whatsoever.:P

I mean, we know they haven't a clue what they are on about... but everyday there's a NEW thing. It really is mindblowing that we never seem to get to the bottom of the barrel of incompetence and lunacy.

jm08

CelticRambler wrote: »

While not wishing to defend First Up's position, I've cited one example above, regarding the movement of cattle. A staunchly loyalist beef farmer in Antrim cannot just pop over to Dumfries and buy a bullock, load it on a trailer, bring it across the Irish Sea and drive unchecked off the ferry. Even though the origin and destination are two points within the UKofGBandNI, EU rules allow for the creation of barriers to free movement if there's a good reason (see here to see just how many hoops our NI farmer friend has to jump through to bring in that bullock)

When it comes to disease control, there are very good reasons. Extending that to cover everything that might be produced in the Republic is an entirely different story.

On the other hand, this is just one of many "them and us" arrangements that undermine the DUP's staunch opposition to NI having special status, where "Great Britain" is already treated as a separate territory to Northern Ireland.

I think the reason why NI is treated differently in regard to animal movement and health goes back to BSE & Foot and Mouth epidemics. NI farmers ditched their lot with the rest of the UK as it was dragging them down and fair play to them they achieved BSE negligible risk status, the safest level possible about a year ago - something that the Republic hasn't achieved yet.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

Its an illustration that even for trade within the Single Market, the capability exists to isolate and check consignments without great difficulty.

The exception that would be invoked in Ireland's case would be that the prevailing trade practice with a non EU member was not reliable enough to ensure the integrity of the Single Market. It would only arise if the Irish border arrangements so required. It would apply as long as those practices were in effect.

Do you think you will need me to explain this a few dozen more times?

The public health exception is in the Treaties can you point to the exception that “non EU member was not reliable enough to ensure the integrity of the Single Market. ” such exception allowing the EU to impose checks on a member.

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

The public health exception is in the Treaties can you point to the exception that “non EU member was not reliable enough to ensure the integrity of the Single Market. ” such exception allowing the EU to impose checks on a member.

Well you could start by familiarising yourself with 765/2008 that deals with the market surveillance requirements of member states. Each member state has a designated authority for this that is empowered to investigate and/or intervene in any case where they have reason to suspect non-compliance.

The Commission has plenty of boffins and legal eagles who can highlight the most relevant sections if/when it comes to that.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

Well you could start by familiarising yourself with 765/2008 that deals with the market surveillance requirements of member states. Each member state has a designated authority for this that is empowered to investigate and/or intervene in any case where they have reason to suspect non-compliance.

The Commission has plenty of boffins and legal eagles who can highlight the most relevant sections if/when it comes to that.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0030:0047:en:PDF

Does not give any power to the EU to put barriers on a member due to non compliance of a non member.

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Well you could start by familiarising yourself with 765/2008 that deals with the market surveillance requirements of member states. Each member state has a designated authority for this that is empowered to investigate and/or intervene in any case where they have reason to suspect non-compliance.

The Commission has plenty of boffins and legal eagles who can highlight the most relevant sections if/when it comes to that.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0030:0047:en:PDF

Does not give any power to the EU to put barriers on a member due to non compliance of a non member.

It doesn't matter what its due to. The designated authorities in every member state are not just empowered to check for compliance - they are required to.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think quality of life for people in NI would plummet like a stone if NI were to have to go without the subsidies it gets from Westminster. Tax revenues would be a meagre fraction of what they are today while unemployment would skyrocket leading to significant amounts of emigration as people leave to find work. It ultimately depends on what you mean by survive but I would say no. It's too small, has no real economy of its own and the potential of such a serious economic downturn to stir up trouble would like deter prospective employers who'd want to be able to access the EU single market anyway.

Compare that to Corsica where the locals want their own language given special status and other goodies, but now want to stay in France, because they know they can't go it alone.

http://www.france24.com/en/20180207-macron-backs-corsica-french-consitution-no-official-status-language

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

It doesn't matter what its due to. The designated authorities in every member state are not just empowered to check for compliance - they are required to.

Which includes Ireland. You claimed that the EU not members will impose checks in Ireland. Now you are saying that each member may check goods from Ireland (something they must do in relation to all goods from all states) make up your mind. Is that checks of some goods or does it as you implied cover every thing coming from Ireland? You are saying that to be clear that some idea to deal with Ireland not doing it job will invoke EXTRA checks on all goods before they leave Ireland.

Sand

I must admit I've been confused by the fixation on the UK's status regarding a customs union with the EU, and the impact of that on the nature of the Irish border. The Single Market is far, far, far more than a customs union which is only concerned with tariffs. The SM is a common set of product standards, which are defined under a common set of regulations (not harmonised), which are enforceable under a common court. It requires pooled sovereignty in a way a customs union does not. Even with the UK in a customs union, there is still a host of non-tarriff barriers to trade which will necessitate a hard border between the UK and Ireland/EU.

The only real way to prevent a hard border between the Ireland/EU and the UK is for NI to stay in the single market and for there to be a sea border between NI and GB. Everything else requires an enforced border, though some arrangements may allow some efficiency in how it is enforced.

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

It doesn't matter what its due to. The designated authorities in every member state are not just empowered to check for compliance - they are required to.

Which includes Ireland. You claimed that the EU not members will impose checks in Ireland. Now you are saying that each member may check goods from Ireland (something they must do in relation to all goods from all states) make up your mind. Is that checks of some goods or does it as you implied cover every thing coming from Ireland? You are saying that to be clear that some idea to deal with Ireland not doing it job will invoke EXTRA checks on all goods before they leave Ireland.

Ah come on. It isn't that hard.

Customs and surveillance procedures are carried out by the competent authorities in each member state, working to a common set of rules. We are the EU.

A hard border is the simplest solution in the event of the UK leaving the SM and CU. That is undesirable for political, social and economic reasons.

Other ways of keeping the border open while protecting the integrity of the SM are being explored, including increased surveillance on Irish exports to the 26 to ensure that flexibility to cross border trade is not abused to undermine the integrity of the SM. That is comfortably within the scope of 765/2008 and the competence of the authorities in each member state.

It is however a potential threat to Irish competitiveness and wider economic strategy. If the UK can't/won't stay in the SM or CU, I'd see a a hard border as preferable and should be the Irish govt's favoured solution, despite the political flak.

First Up

Sand wrote: »

I must admit I've been confused by the fixation on the UK's status regarding a customs union with the EU, and the impact of that on the nature of the Irish border. The Single Market is far, far, far more than a customs union which is only concerned with tariffs. The SM is a common set of product standards, which are defined under a common set of regulations (not harmonised), which are enforceable under a common court. It requires pooled sovereignty in a way a customs union does not. Even with the UK in a customs union, there is still a host of non-tarriff barriers to trade which will necessitate a hard border between the UK and Ireland/EU.

The only real way to prevent a hard border between the Ireland/EU and the UK is for NI to stay in the single market and for there to be a sea border between NI and GB. Everything else requires an enforced border, though some arrangements may allow some efficiency in how it is enforced.

Agreed in principle but even if the political obstacles could be overcome, could the UK be trusted to manage such an "'internal" border?

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

Agreed in principle but even if the political obstacles could be overcome, could the UK be trusted to manage such an "'internal" border?

Well, the EU have indicated that they are quite prepared to take rapid and significant measures against the UK if they do not adhere to the agreements. Grounding flights has been mentioned among other measures.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Agreed in principle but even if the political obstacles could be overcome, could the UK be trusted to manage such an "'internal" border?

Well, the EU have indicated that they are quite prepared to take rapid and significant measures against the UK if they do not adhere to the agreements. Grounding flights has been mentioned among other measures.

That doesn't answer the question. If NI sticks to EU standards while Britain "takes back control" and strikes new trade deals that allow in all sorts of rubbish, who will check that the rubbish isn't coming into NI - and potentially into the ROI and onward in the EU?

Water John

Well the whole issue will ripen, over the next two weeks. If the war cabinet cannot agree positions, the EU will get very shirty.

Sand

First Up wrote: »

Agreed in principle but even if the political obstacles could be overcome, could the UK be trusted to manage such an "'internal" border?

Clearly, if the principle of an internal border to the UK market is to be set with the EU, the EU would also require oversight and enforcement measures to be implemented at NI ports/airports. How that is done largely depends on how NI is kept within the single market. Its not going to be revolutionary or without precedent in any case. All ports and airports within the single market must operate such controls at least to some extent, and not all such ports/airports are within the EU.

It wont be a matter of trust alone though. The EU has taken absolutely nothing from the UK on trust, and the conduct of the UK government ensures there will be no trust extended.

First Up

Sand wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Agreed in principle but even if the political obstacles could be overcome, could the UK be trusted to manage such an "'internal" border?

Clearly, if the principle of an internal border to the UK market is to be set with the EU, the EU would also require oversight and enforcement measures to be implemented at NI ports/airports. How that is done largely depends on how NI is kept within the single market. Its not going to be revolutionary or without precedent in any case. All ports and airports within the single market must operate such controls at least to some extent, and not all such ports/airports are within the EU.

It wont be a matter of trust alone though. The EU has taken absolutely nothing from the UK on trust, and the conduct of the UK government ensures there will be no trust extended.

Trust would be the least of it but it would be fun to watch.

LeinsterDub

UK negotiators have been warned that the EU draft withdrawal agreement will stipulate that Northern Ireland will, in effect, remain in the customs union and single market after Brexit to avoid a hard border....

As it stands, however, the UK is expected by Brussels to sign off on the text which will see Northern Ireland remain under EU law at the end of the 21-month transition period, wherever it is relevant to the north-south economy, and the requirements of the Good Friday agreement.

The move is widely expected to cause ructions within both the Conservative party and between the government and the Democratic Unionist part

This was apparent from December. Remaining in effect the CU or regulatory alignment if you're of the Brexit persuasion was what was proposed. Of course given all the attempted back sliding recently the UK government is shocked at this turn of events that they signed up for and had to happen.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/09/northern-ireland-will-stay-in-single-market-after-brexit-eu-says

Christy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

UK negotiators have been warned that the EU draft withdrawal agreement will stipulate that Northern Ireland will, in effect, remain in the customs union and single market after Brexit to avoid a hard border....

As it stands, however, the UK is expected by Brussels to sign off on the text which will see Northern Ireland remain under EU law at the end of the 21-month transition period, wherever it is relevant to the north-south economy, and the requirements of the Good Friday agreement.

The move is widely expected to cause ructions within both the Conservative party and between the government and the Democratic Unionist part

This was apparent from December. Remaining in effect the CU or regulatory alignment if you're of the Brexit persuasion was what was proposed. Of course given all the attempted back sliding recently the UK government is shocked at this turn of events that they signed up for and had to happen.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/09/northern-ireland-will-stay-in-single-market-after-brexit-eu-says

Shockingly the EU is unhappy with the UK effectively saying take backsy! The UK needs to accept it made commitments and be a serious negotiating partner at some point.

LeinsterDub

Christy42 wrote: »

Shockingly the EU is unhappy with the UK effectively saying take backsy! The UK needs to accept it made commitments and be a serious negotiating partner at some point.

Unfortunately I just don't see this happening. The only time it appeared they where serious was December and now they've come out and said haha we had our fingers crossed the whole time. This is heading for a no deal brexit simply because the UK doesn't have a negotiating position nor has anyone been empowered as a plenipotentiary. If you look back at the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921, at least the British knew they were dealing with the decision makers and as such it was for the Irish delegation to sell their position to an Irish audience once agreement was reached.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This was apparent from December. Remaining in effect the CU or regulatory alignment if you're of the Brexit persuasion was what was proposed. Of course given all the attempted back sliding recently the UK government is shocked at this turn of events that they signed up for and had to happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/09/northern-ireland-will-stay-in-single-market-after-brexit-eu-says

This is the key sentence, I think:

"The UK will be put under even greater pressure to offer up a vision of the future relationship that will deliver for the entire UK economy, but the inability of that model to ensure frictionless trade is likely to be exposed."

Either there exists a feasible cakeist solution under which the UK leaves the SM/CU while the Irish border remains open and the integrity of the SM is preserved, or there does not. Most on the EU side believe that there does not (as does the Guardian), but the UK still insists that one can be found.

I think the purpose of this draft text is to make the UK side put up or shut up - either produce a feasible cakeist solution now, or accept that the withdrawal agreement must provide for what will happen without one.

What will happen without a cakeist solution is already agreed - the UK will "maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 [Good Friday] agreement". The EU's reading of that, per the Guardian report, will be that it means that NI must "in effect, remain in the customs union and single market", and that's what the withdrawal agreement is going to say.

Foreseeably, the UK will disagree with that reading (though it's obviously a correct reading). But a row over the reading can be avoided if if the UK produces the cakeist solution that they insist is possible. If there's a cakeist solution, we no longer have to argue about what will happen if there is no cakeist solution. So now is the time for the UK to produce their cakeist solution.

Added on edit: What happens if, as I suspect is likely, the UK fails to come up with a functional cakeist deal? There are a couple of possibilities:

1. The UK govt can't or won't agree to the EUL wording about NI, the talks break down, there is a no-deal brexit and, inevitably, a hard border.

2. A variation on the above; the UK govt agrees to the EU wording, or something very like it, but a backbench revolt leads to a putsch, a new Prime Minister, rejection of the deal, breakdown in talks. Possibly a general election, possibly not; in either event, given the running of the clock, no-deal brexit and hard border seem likely.

3. The UK government accepts the EU wording and the party leadership survives, probably by claiming as a fig-leaf that it will operate only temporarily; that a functional cakeist solution will be found. The DUP will be furious, and will probably bring down the government, but maybe not, because they then lose all their bargaining power.

4. If the EU wording is accepted and comes into operation on brexit day, what it effectively means is NI remaining in the SM/CU, and the possibility of a Canada-type deal for GB. In principle, that works for Ireland and for the EU, and it substantially gives the UK much of the freedom to make trade deals that Brexiters aspire to. Economically, it'll be a poor outcome for GB, of course, but they seem determined on that, and the EU won't try to stop them.

Christy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Shockingly the EU is unhappy with the UK effectively saying take backsy! The UK needs to accept it made commitments and be a serious negotiating partner at some point.

Unfortunately I just don't see this happening. The only time it appeared they where serious was December and now they've come out and said haha we had our fingers crossed the whole time. This is heading for a no deal brexit simply because the UK doesn't have a negotiating position nor has anyone been empowered as a plenipotentiary. I f you look back at the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921, at least the British knew they were dealing with the decision makers and as such it was for the Irish delegation to sell their position to an Irish audience once agreement was reached.

That is the point of making the UK sign up to this.

It even includes a sunset clause so it becomes inactive if a technological solution like people have been suggesting becomes available. The EU know what they are doing here and are boxing the UK into putting pen to paper. Once the UK signs up to this they will only have the option of leaving NI in the single market or no deal.

Certainly the EU can never prevent the UK from saying no deal at any point but they can work on ensuring that any deal has key points as pillars. Such as NI which is something the EU sees as a key point which is great for us.

Harika

Peregrinus wrote: »

<-snip->

Either there exists a feasible cakeist solution under which the UK leaves the SM/CU while the Irish border remains open and the integrity of the SM is preserved, or there does not. Most on the EU side believe that there does not (as does the Guardian), but the UK still insists that one can be found.

This guy thinks the solution is easy:

https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/960488390968791040

Basically companies are filling out an electronic form what they are moving between borders. Unfortunately the commentator didn't put the finger in the obvious hole of that idea.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If you look back at the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921, at least the British knew they were dealing with the decision makers and as such it was for the Irish delegation to sell their position to an Irish audience once agreement was reached.

In fairness, selling it to the Irish audience did not go so well - roughly 2000 dead.

ArmaniJeanss

Telegraph suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn is open to a major U-turn on the CU and ECJ. Could be another strategic EU leak (second of the week) though also could be the Telegraph making something up to take the heat off 'their side'.

Behind paywall but you'll get the first few paragraphs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/08/eu-memo-barnier-meeting-raises-questions-jeremy-corbyns-brexit/

Personally I'd be inclined to believe it, always felt it was a matter of time (and opportune timing) before Labour made this move.

Zubeneschamali

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Telegraph suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn is open to a major U-turn on the CU and ECJ.

Well why the feck wouldn't he be? No-one voted to leave the CU, Labour Party policy was to remain in the EU, why would anyone think Labour would want to leave the SM?

The whole policy of leaving the SM and CU was explicitly rejected by many leading Leavers before the referendum. It is completely nuts.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fairness, selling it to the Irish audience did not go so well - roughly 2000 dead.

Much like the British back then, the EU's position is not our problem.

Nody

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Telegraph suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn is open to a major U-turn on the CU and ECJ. Could be another strategic EU leak (second of the week) though also could be the Telegraph making something up to take the heat off 'their side'.

Behind paywall but you'll get the first few paragraphs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/08/eu-memo-barnier-meeting-raises-questions-jeremy-corbyns-brexit/

Personally I'd be inclined to believe it, always felt it was a matter of time (and opportune timing) before Labour made this move.

Sorry but I highly doubt Corbyn and his ever growing unionist left wing is going to go all happy clappy on EU; they are happy to hint at it because they know it means remainers are more likely to vote for them but actually change stance? Sorry not happening.

Beyond personal beliefs etc. it's the simple fact Labour is as divided as the Tories on the topic so why bother make a promise when being non committal and letting the Tories suicide on the topic as a party works just as well? All he has to do is sit back and wait and make noises about how badly Tories are handling it and let the Tories **** up the transition to sweep in afterwards and blame Tories for why things can't be turned back any more even if he wanted to. He'll roll back the parts he really care about such as working hours directives etc. but can skip out on things such as mandatory bidding in all of EU on government contracts to keep them local and his unions happy.

Sam Russell

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Telegraph suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn is open to a major U-turn on the CU and ECJ. Could be another strategic EU leak (second of the week) though also could be the Telegraph making something up to take the heat off 'their side'.

Behind paywall but you'll get the first few paragraphs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/08/eu-memo-barnier-meeting-raises-questions-jeremy-corbyns-brexit/

Personally I'd be inclined to believe it, always felt it was a matter of time (and opportune timing) before Labour made this move.

Try this:
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20180209/281509341642297

Full article. Corbyn denies he said what the headline says, but then adjusts it a bit.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

why bother make a promise when being non committal and letting the Tories suicide on the topic as a party works just as well?

Well, yes, never interrrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.

At some point, Labour will need a policy, though. I think a Norway deal could be a good compromise between Remain and Brexit - many brexiteers (notably the Telegraph) were polite about a Norway deal before they got into the driving seat and started towards the cliff.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

At some point, Labour will need a policy, though. I think a Norway deal could be a good compromise between Remain and Brexit - many brexiteers (notably the Telegraph) were polite about a Norway deal before they got into the driving seat and started towards the cliff.

There are however a few major issues with a Norway deal. First of all the UK would still pay as much to EU (Norway pays as much per head as UK does currently) which ruins the dreams of money for NHS which was a big driver. Second UK would get basically no say in the rules to be implemented (they would be "consulted") which reduces even further the whole "taking back control" spiel of Brexiteers since they will be dictated EU laws basically. Third Norway had a very specific reason to want to stay out of the EU rules which UK does not really; so the benefit is what exactly? And fourth and final to join such a deal (i.e. remain in EEA only) would require Norway etc. to agree to it and they are unlikely to want such a big player in there distorting the power in the group.

Enzokk

Harika wrote: »

This guy thinks the solution is easy:

https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/960488390968791040

Basically companies are filling out an electronic form what they are moving between borders. Unfortunately the commentator didn't put the finger in the obvious hole of that idea.

Ah, yes Daniel Hannan. He said there is no risk to the UK leaving the single market during the campaign. Seems to me that the MEP didn't really know what leaving the EU really meant. Seems to be a theme with UK politicians not knowing or deliberately lying to get the result they desired.

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but I highly doubt Corbyn and his ever growing unionist left wing is going to go all happy clappy on EU; they are happy to hint at it because they know it means remainers are more likely to vote for them but actually change stance? Sorry not happening.

Beyond personal beliefs etc. it's the simple fact Labour is as divided as the Tories on the topic so why bother make a promise when being non committal and letting the Tories suicide on the topic as a party works just as well? All he has to do is sit back and wait and make noises about how badly Tories are handling it and let the Tories **** up the transition to sweep in afterwards and blame Tories for why things can't be turned back any more even if he wanted to. He'll roll back the parts he really care about such as working hours directives etc. but can skip out on things such as mandatory bidding in all of EU on government contracts to keep them local and his unions happy.

Maybe it is the fact that government figures are stating any deal will leave the UK worse off. How can a politician in good conscious vote for worse results for the economy? Are they not elected to ensure the prosperity of the country and in effect the citizens? How can you better the lives of the working class if you reduce the economy on purpose?

I think Jeremy Corbyn was probably a skeptic of the EU before the election. He may have campaigned (reluctantly) for remain but since like many who actually learn what the EU has done for the UK has had to reassess his own personal stance. The EU is a whole lot better at protecting workers rights in the UK than a opposition Labour against a Conservative government out to gut workers protections and rights. The problem he has is he still needs Leave voters in areas while they digest the negative projections of leaving the EU and he will be crucified in the press if he changes his mind. The key for him is to announce it when it is clear there really isn't any kind of promised land as sold by Brexiteers.

Then again it could just be me projecting onto him as he apparently hasn't said anything yet. But I am sure with this current leak of his feelings and a story earlier that I read that he has privately changed his view on the importance of the EU.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

Maybe it is the fact that government figures are stating any deal will leave the UK worse off. How can a politician in good conscious vote for worse results for the economy? Are they not elected to ensure the prosperity of the country and in effect the citizens? How can you better the lives of the working class if you reduce the economy on purpose?

That's one is very simple to answer because you're using your own view as the basis for your opinion. In Corbyn's and the Unions view EU is bad because it allows for cheap labour to come in and work "under cutting" the proper Union workers as well as encourage the black economy (see building sites etc.). On top of this it (depending on POV) encourages to require government to outsource and choose the cheapest offer even if the company don't follow the Union minimum salaries etc. Hence for the country that in Corbyn and the Union's view should be something like a Communist style driven country (as seen by the Tories) or run for the benefit of the workers (Corbyn's view) it's best to be outside of EU to stop having those pesky laws stopping them. Of course once implemented in Corbyn's world view things will become great for everyone and those economical forecasts will turn out to be wrong; and we can borrow more money anyway if not. Hence being outside of EU and best for the country are not necessary two diverging points of view; all it depends on is how you see the future should be as best for the UK in general and if EU is part of that view or not.

The EU is a whole lot better at protecting workers rights in the UK than a opposition Labour against a Conservative government out to gut workers protections and rights.

But a Corbyn government alone can go way further than EU law would allow; don't forget that. He can then also ensure to select contracts based on what he thinks is best for the Unions and his party rather then being tied to EU law about cheapest cost etc. and can add on the bacon for his Unions that got him elected to power (both in party and government).

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

But a Corbyn government alone can go way further than EU law would allow; don't forget that.

Yes, he can nationalize the crap out of industries without regard to EU rules...

demfad

Twitter finally accepts that the Russian Trolls from the Internet Research Agency interfered in the EU referendum. They have started their pitch small, tiny compared to other studies, but this tends to rise over time (7 in November) also as the US 2016 election examples have shown. Cyber influence campaigns need direction, materials, human resources and these do not occur without orders from the Kremlin.
In limiting their investigation to just the Internet Research Agency, Twitter missed that it is only one troll farm of a much larger disinformation ecosystem in St. Petersburg. Others include, Glavset an alleged successor of the Internet Research Agency.
The FBI is investigating connections between Russian social media actors and the big data company Cambridge Analytica. CA were also seemingly involved in all 5 'Leave' campaigns, the official 'Vote Leave' campaign paying CA's sister company AggregateIQ £3.9m out of the £7 million available to the campaign.
Aaron Banks is also a person of interest in the FBI investigation and is being investigated by the UK electoral commission over the source of the £12 million funds he donated to Brexit.
Nigel Farage called reporters from das Bild 'hysterical' when they asked him about a leak that he was also a person of interest of the FBI. However, he has not denied the claim or that he has hired a legal team to defend him.
More recently, Glenn Simpson has made a direct allegation under oath to the US congress that Farage handed Julian Assange a data stick in the Ecuadorian Embassy. (Hurry up Mueller!)

Twitter said the tweets accounted for a tiny 0.005% of accounts that posted about the UK referendum, and 0.02% of total tweets about the vote during the campaign.

"These are very low levels of engagement," the company wrote in a statement.

Nick Pickles, Twitter's senior UK policy manager, revealed the numbers during an evidence session held by British politicians in the US on Thursday. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee spent hours grilling tech executives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google about the spread of misinformation on their platforms. It was the first committee hearing of its kind, taking place outside the UK.

While Twitter claims the numbers are low, its report on Russian accounts doesn't entirely stack up with media and academic reports of widespread Russian misinformation on Brexit.

A City University report identified a 13,500-strong bot network that was only active during the Brexit referendum, then abruptly disappeared. Twitter later claimed a small fraction of the bot's accounts were registered in Russia, and that many of the accounts identified by City had already been blocked or labelled as spam. A separate investigation by The Times found Russian accounts posting 45,000 tweets about Brexit in the space of 48 hours.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/twitter-identified-49-accounts-run-by-a-russian-troll-factory-during-brexit-2018-2?r=US&IR=T

Nody

Nody wrote: »

That's one is very simple to answer because you're using your own view as the basis for your opinion. In Corbyn's and the Unions view EU is bad because it allows for cheap labour to come in and work "under cutting" the proper Union workers as well as encourage the black economy (see building sites etc.). On top of this it (depending on POV) encourages to require government to outsource and choose the cheapest offer even if the company don't follow the Union minimum salaries etc. Hence for the country that in Corbyn and the Union's view should be something like a Communist style driven country (as seen by the Tories) or run for the benefit of the workers (Corbyn's view) it's best to be outside of EU to stop having those pesky laws stopping them. Of course once implemented in Corbyn's world view things will become great for everyone and those economical forecasts will turn out to be wrong; and we can borrow more money anyway if not. Hence being outside of EU and best for the country are not necessary two diverging points of view; all it depends on is how you see the future should be as best for the UK in general and if EU is part of that view or not.

But a Corbyn government alone can go way further than EU law would allow; don't forget that. He can then also ensure to select contracts based on what he thinks is best for the Unions and his party rather then being tied to EU law about cheapest cost etc. and can add on the bacon for his Unions that got him elected to power (both in party and government).

And of course the irony of the British being the ones against the working time directive and allowing the new entrants to the EU full access with no quotas for a few years seems to be lost on them. The EU is more "corporatist" than it would be without the British because of the British.

Christy42

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Telegraph suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn is open to a major U-turn on the CU and ECJ. Could be another strategic EU leak (second of the week) though also could be the Telegraph making something up to take the heat off 'their side'.

Behind paywall but you'll get the first few paragraphs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/08/eu-memo-barnier-meeting-raises-questions-jeremy-corbyns-brexit/

Personally I'd be inclined to believe it, always felt it was a matter of time (and opportune timing) before Labour made this move.

It would be a smart choice. Certainly the vote to leave should be respected but Labour need to court the votes at the next election, not the last one. Plenty of protest votes from th leave campaign could be interested in such a stance as well as people changing their minds after the UK has been so badly shown up in negotiations.

Chips Lovell

We're rapidly approaching the point where the UK's self-contradictory position will no longer be able to be explained away with hand waving:

(Barnier) confirmed the Guardian’s report that, under the draft withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland would in effect stay in the single market and customs union where relevant to the north-south economy and Good Friday agreement.

Essentially we're at the point where the UK government:

1. Promises no hard border in Northern Ireland, i.e. effectively remaining in Single Market and Customs Union
2. Promises the DUP there will be no divergence between Northern Ireland and the UK.
3. But insists that it intends to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union.

One (or more) of these promises will now have be reneged on. And it sounds like they don't even know which way they'll go:

It’s hard to negotiate with the British government because the British government is effectively still negotiating with itself

LeinsterDub

Britain has a message for the rest of the world after Brexit next year: please pretend we are still in the EU.

A “technical note” prepared by the British government calls on non-EU nations to treat the UK during its post-Brexit transition period after March 2019 as if it was still covered by more than 700 treaties Brussels has struck with third countries on everything from fishing rights to data sharing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/britain-to-world-please-pretend-we-are-not-leaving-eu-1.3386401

I honestly can't keep up with all the flip flops .

Baron de Charlus

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

We're rapidly approaching the point where the UK's self-contradictory position will no longer be able to be explained away with hand waving:



Essentially we're at the point where the UK government:

1. Promises no hard border in Northern Ireland, i.e. effectively remaining in Single Market and Customs Union
2. Promises the DUP there will be no divergence between Northern Ireland and the UK.
3. But insists that it intends to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union.

One (or more) of these promises will now have be reneged on. And it sounds like they don't even know which way they'll go:

what is an "Influential source in Dublin"?

“It’s hard to negotiate with the British government because the British government is effectively still negotiating with itself,” said one influential source in Dublin.

Very poor reporting there from the Times

BonnieSituation

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/britain-to-world-please-pretend-we-are-not-leaving-eu-1.3386401

I honestly can't keep up with all the flip flops .

I remember a few weeks ago I was all "this has to be it" when it came to the madness emanating from London. I didn't truly believe it, but I don't have the brain capacity to work out just how stupid the Brits can get.

And here we are... I mean it's a daily sham and still it's being masked as something positive.

This is GUBU territory.

I wouldn't let these clowns run a tap, never mind a country.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

what is an "Influential source in Dublin"?

Very poor reporting there from the Times

Do you think the source is wrong? Just yesterday we heard may was convening a war cabinet to discuss what outcome the UK wants from the talks.

It certainly sounds to me as if the source is correct.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Do you think the source is wrong? Just yesterday we heard may was convening a war cabinet to discuss what outcome the UK wants from the talks.

It certainly sounds to me as if the source is correct.

you seem obsessed with the term "War Cabinet". This is just an expression for a smaller more focused cabinet. The word "War" is just an expression and one that is used by the media, not the government.

is it correct? doesn't really matter, I would expect a newspaper to offer a better source than "Influential". That is basically just them trying to add their some sort of credence to their own opinion.

Water John

The 'war cabinet' is in total 11. They have a number of meetings scheduled over the next two weeks. Sadly and predictably, they made little or no progress at the first one, discussing the NI border.
It has 4 brexiteers, four remainers, and the other 3 incl TM have flip flopped.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

you seem obsessed with the term "War Cabinet". .

The point of my post was not the term War Cabinet - it is that this inner circle are meeting to try and agree what the UK wants from negotiations.

In other words, the "very poor reporting" you complain about is accurate.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The point of my post was not the term War Cabinet - it is that this inner circle are meeting to try and agree what the UK wants from negotiations.

generally, when entering a negotiation, you have meetings to work out your strategy. What's the big deal?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In other words, the "very poor reporting" you complain about is accurate.

nope. it was poor reporting. If they have a source, quote the source rather than just give a non descriptive excuse of a source. It is Daily Mail esque standard of reporting that normally the Times wouldn't engage in.

Chips Lovell

I think you'd be hard put to find a newspaper that doesn't make liberal use of anonymous sources when reporting on politics.

Water John

It's very simple, the super 11 met a few days ago, but could agree. diddly squat.
It's standard practice to use two anon sources and that allows you run the story.

Chips Lovell

Folks, please heed the charter:

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

generally, when entering a negotiation, you have meetings to work out your strategy. What's the big deal?

They are not working out strategy. Strategy would be how to get what they want.

They are still trying to agree on what they want. 6 months into negotiations, they don't know what they want to get from them.