Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I meant the largest by population.

Nope. Both China and India have much larger populations than the EU and permit FOM within their borders for that population over vast areas of land. I think you are clutching at straws at this point.

An Ciarraioch

Looking at FT report on the EU mandate (Google "UK lays down red line for Brexit trade talks" ), the EU has agreed on level playing field provisions for state aid, environmental protection and labour laws. Also, dynamic alignment is being emphasised, and EU standards are the baseline being set.

RobMc59

ambro25 wrote: »

Where did I make any such suggestion?

As for the EU's negotiating strategy, what is relevant, and which informs my opinion, is the objective ('factual') record of 'Brexit' since 2016: but for the 3 extensions to get there, the WA with frontstop and political declaration signed up to by the UK in 2020 are 100% straight out of Barnier's first mandate of 2017, and fully according to objectives-
Factually therefore, by any measure you care to adopt, in terms of negotiation the UK has yet to get on the scoreboard nvm, the pitch. And in their infinite wisdom, after the first friendly they chose to ditch the caretaker manager for a mascot and the reserve squad for a goon squad before the first qualifier :pac:

Barnier's mandate for the next bit, is being agreed this week. By the way.

We`ll have to wait and see,if you are correct there is no hope of a negotiated agreement as the outcome is already decided according to you :rolleyes:
.

CelticRambler

rogue-entity wrote: »

The USA is the odd-man on that list as far as I can tell, and most of these FoM agreements have been long established and there hasn't been much appetite for extending those agreements with additional third countries.

Neither has there been any appetite for curbing the FoM that already exists. And the USA isn't that odd: it still permits the residents of 50 different states to up sticks and move to any one of the other 49 whenever they like. Their professional qualifications might not be recognised across the state line, and they might find themselves on the wrong side of laws relating to alcohol, cannabis, pornography, child marriage or the death penalty, but they can still work in any entry-level job or set up their own business.

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure this is a helpful analogy. Immigration control as employed by most countries do not involve micromanaging the economy.

Many labour immigration systems, and the proposed UK system, allow for sectoral exemptions, give the government the power to decide what is or isn't a skilled occupation, give the government the power to decide what sectors have shortages of labour, give the government the power to issue quotas of work permits in government designated shortage sectors, gives the governmemt the power to decide, beyond any minimum wage laws, minimum permitted salaries, give the government the power to decide on whether families can join workers or not, give the government the power to attach any other conditions it wants for the employment of migrant labour.

Whether you agree with a state having these powers or not, claiming that this degree of state control over a large proportion of the labour market doesn't amount to micromanagement of the economy is bizarre, as the state will be taking decisions that affect individual businesses to an extent far greater than other labour laws do.

Unless you believe that the labour market is tangential to the economy...

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Nope. Both China and India have much larger populations than the EU and permit FOM within their borders for that population over vast areas of land. I think you are clutching at straws at this point.

However China is a single country, as is India, and not a collection of countries sharing freedom of movement with each other. Moreover, China, despite being a single country, does not have freedom of movement within its own borders.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

We`ll have to wait and see,if you are correct there is no hope of a negotiated agreement as the outcome is already decided according to you :rolleyes:
.

Kinda odd you've reserved no ire for the completely bad faith flop flops from the torie government. You know the same people who are playing with people's lives and abjectly don't look like they want any deal as it will play havoc with a disaster capital plan for the upper echelons and their inner circle.

But yes... The EU boooo....


Jesus wept..

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

Whether you agree with a state having these powers or not, claiming that this degree of state control over a large proportion of the labour market doesn't amount to micromanagement of the economy is bizarre, as the state will be taking decisions that affect individual businesses to an extent far greater than other labour laws do.

Unless you believe that the labour market is tangential to the economy...

Still the countries employing these methods are generally not regarded as micromanaged economies hence the analogy with the former Soviet Union is not apt.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

However China is a single country, as is India, and not a collection of countries sharing freedom of movement with each other.

India is a federal union comprising 28 states and 8 union territories

You (and others) really need to stop trying to use the "single country" argument as some kind of defence when those countries (India, Russia, USA, Australia ... ) have implemented a form of unification that is the polar opposite to the UK's position vis-à-vis Europe.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

You (and others) really need to stop trying to use the "single country" argument as some kind of defence when those countries (India, Russia, USA, Australia ... ) have implemented a form of unification that is the polar opposite to the UK's position vis-à-vis Europe.

However if you look at the example of India, a federation of states, none of these states are independent countries. They can't legally secede from India and implement their own policies on migration. India as a whole has an immigration policy.

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

Still the countries employing these methods are generally not regarded as micromanaged economies hence the analogy with the former Soviet Union is not apt.

It's apt as regards their micromanagement of immigrant labour.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's apt as regards their micromanagement of immigrant labour.

I don't don't think so. If a country identifies a shortage of, say, plumbers and adjusts the points accordingly I don't think that is micromanagement. Market forces (expected salary, cost of living etc.) will still be at play. It helps prevent over-supply or under-supply of particular professions.

Or for example, if a country has a rule where companies must recruit nationally first before recruiting abroad is that micromanagement? The EU as a whole has a similar rule and it is not regarded as such.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't don't think so. If a country identifies a shortage of, say, plumbers and adjusts the points accordingly I don't think that is micromanagement. Market forces (expected salary, cost of living etc.) will still be at play. It helps prevent over-supply or under-supply of particular professions.

Or for example, if a country has a rule where companies must recruit nationally first before recruiting abroad is that micromanagement? The EU as a whole has a similar rule and it is not regarded as such.

You're assuming that such a country has the knowledge and expertise to manage the economy and workforce to a precise degree. Everything about Brexit UK and the Home Office suggests incompetence and them not being up to the job.

moon2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't don't think so. If a country identifies a shortage of, say, plumbers and adjusts the points accordingly I don't think that is micromanagement. .

I think what you've described is the textbook definition of micromanagement. The idea of someone monitoring a single profession, such as plumbers, to such a level that they can preemptively react to an upcoming shortage by bumping the numbers is lunacy. Multiply that out by the innumerable professions out there and you have soviet level central planning right there!

This doesn't even factor in the delays inherent in such a system.

if a country has a rule where companies must recruit nationally first before recruiting abroad is that micromanagement?

That's macromanagement. In this scenario the government merely say "Hire local first" and don't have to analyse every industry/profession and figure out how many immigration slots are needed per job type. It's nearly the polar opposite of your first example

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't don't think so. If a country identifies a shortage of, say, plumbers and adjusts the points accordingly I don't think that is micromanagement. Market forces (expected salary, cost of living etc.) will still be at play. It helps prevent over-supply or under-supply of particular professions.

I don't think it's a particularly bad way to run a country but it sounds like micromanagement, and it's what the British public voted against. The government opening or closing the faucet of international plumbers is much the same as natural market forces attracting or repelling EU plumbers. There is no particular need for the government to get involved.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think it's a particularly bad way to run a country but it sounds like micromanagement, and it's what the British public voted against. The government opening or closing the faucet of international plumbers is much the same as natural market forces attracting or repelling EU plumbers. There is no particular need for the government to get involved.

This. Basically the UK government is proposing to apply to the labour market the kind of central planning techniques that were derided when the Soviet government applied them to the market for consumer goods, or manufactured products, or whatever. Government is attempting to predict demand and direct resources to meet it, while at the same time applying restrictions to prevent market forces from doing the same task. It's likely to work about as well for the UK government as it did for the Soviet government.

Zubeneschamali

sondagefaux wrote: »

Because UK businesses that only trade with the EU will face increased costs from next year, and will have to deal with paperwork that they don't have to deal with now, which means added expense and potential for mistakes.

Don't forget British businesses which don't export at all but do ship to or from Northern Ireland. Maybe only 1 consignment in 20 will be checked, but everything will have to have EU standard import/export paperwork prepared and available for inspection.


I can see lots of them just giving up on NI, and even more "available only in Mainland UK" type messages.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

However if you look at the example of India, a federation of states, none of these states are independent countries. They can't legally secede from India and implement their own policies on migration.

Effectively the same as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, then, none of which can legally secede from the UK without England's permission which undermines the principle of secession. So we're back to the same old chestnut: anything that allows the English to lord it over everyone else is perfectly reasonable, and if that means keeping foreign blood out of the English gene-pool, so be it. Long live the Middle Ages. And fkkk business.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

Kinda odd you've reserved no ire for the completely bad faith flop flops from the torie government. You know the same people who are playing with people's lives and abjectly don't look like they want any deal as it will play havoc with a disaster capital plan for the upper echelons and their inner circle.

But yes... The EU boooo....


Jesus wept..

I'm upset about the UK stance and have no faith in the government.Staying in the EU would obviously be the best option imo.
Reading reports this morning following EU standards is a guideline start position for negotiations,not the do as you're told as suggested by ambro so I remain hopeful a deal can be struck.

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm upset about the UK stance and have no faith in the government.Staying in the EU would obviously be the best option imo.

Reading reports this morning following EU standards is a guideline start position for negotiations,not the do as you're told as suggested by ambro so I remain hopeful a deal can be struck.

Clearly, you prefer your hard truths sugar-coated, rather than straight up.

Do you understand the relevance of the UK's stated intent to diverge from the said EU standards, to this EU negotiating position?

Enzokk

If you want to see the evolution of the stance from the UK on the lowering of food standards, it seems to be playing out right now. Theresa Villiers stated, when she was the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, that chlorinated chicken will be off the table in future trade talks. The Government then didn't put this in the Agriculture Bill going through parliament and she was sacked in the reshuffle.

The new secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, George Eustice, has been using politicians language when the asked on this by avoiding the question and not being as forceful than his predecessor.

Link here to his interview, from about 7 minutes 30 seconds.

https://youtu.be/t-3zdbrjRtg?t=453

It will be interesting to see where they eventually land on this but it is clear farmers in the UK will be worried. They are caught between a rock and a very hard place. If the government allows cheap food imports from the US because of lower standards to produce the food then farmers will be priced out of the domestic market. They could go lower themselves but then eventually if the UK is looking for a more integrated deal with the EU then they will be caught out. Or they could decide to lose the UK market due to price and try to go for the EU market, by keeping EU standards. But what about tariffs and will the government care? I wonder why fish seem more important than chicken, both are important to feed your population.

Farmers pile pressure on UK government over chlorinated chicken

Farmers have hit back at suggestions the government will allow imports of chlorinated chicken and other low-standard farm produce in trade talks with the US, escalating the row over post-Brexit food standards.

Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union, will call for rules on minimum standards for imports to be enshrined in law, and insist that other countries must trade with the UK “on our terms”, rather than seek to water down food rules.

“We must not tie the hands of British farmers to the highest rung of the standards ladder while waving through food imports which may not even reach the bottom rung,” Batters will tell the NFU’s annual conference on Tuesday.

“If the government is serious about animal welfare and environmental protection, and doing more than any previous government, it must put legislation in the agriculture bill.”

RobMc59

ambro25 wrote: »

Clearly, you prefer your hard truths sugar-coated, rather than straight up.

Do you understand the relevance of the UK's stated intent to diverge from the said EU standards, to this EU negotiating position?

Your view of negotiations seems to differ from what is being reported this morning-if you choose to believe me hoping for a deal which suits both parties is naive that`s up to you.I`m British and so this is obviously of interest to me.Why are you so interested if you don`t mind me asking?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your view of negotiations seems to differ from what is being reported this morning-if you choose to believe me hoping for a deal which suits both parties is naive that`s up to you.I`m British and so this is obviously of interest to me.Why are you so interested if you don`t mind me asking?

I'd imagine like many EU citizens being practically run out of a country and having to sell your home and move jobs would leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Put yourself in a position where you've lived in a country for years . Worked bought your home raised kids only to be confronted with loosing all your rights and having to spend thousands for each family members to possibly be cleared to stay in their home they own.

Lovely stuff... Where do I sign.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your view of negotiations seems to differ from what is being reported this morning-if you choose to believe me hoping for a deal which suits both parties is naive that`s up to you.I`m British and so this is obviously of interest to me.Why are you so interested if you don`t mind me asking?

How is it naive? You have the government opening seeking loopholes to undermine the frontstop that they themselves agreed to after shooting down the backstop that the same party proposed in the first place.

The Brexit project is being pursued in nothing but bad faith. The Conservatives might think they are playing a blinder here and may even be able to hoodwink the nation but the EU are experienced negotiators and are patently able to appreciate how little trust the British government deserves.

ambro25

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your view of negotiations seems to differ from what is being reported this morning-if you choose to believe me hoping for a deal which suits both parties is naive that`s up to you.I`m British and so this is obviously of interest to me.Why are you so interested if you don`t mind me asking?

I don't disbelieve your wish to see a deal agreed between the parties, which "suits them both". I don't see that wish as naive, either.

I'm simply framing the negotiations and the notional deal in their proper context, i.e. which reflects the respective self-interests and economical weights of the parties on either side of the table: the EU dwarfs the UK economically, and cannot -and absolutely will not- prejudice its fundamental organising principles for the sake both of its internal cohesion and its geopolitical strength.

Therefore the provisions of any deal with the UK will invariably reflect and account for these basic tenets. Whether those provisions see the UK toeing the EU mandate (like we have seen with round 1), or amount to a 'no-deal-in-all-but-name FTA' (safeguarding the EU's self-interests placed above saving the UK from itself) is immaterial, since either outcome will respect these tenets just the same.

Or there simply won't be a deal.

Now, you can see that state of affairs as "the UK doing as it's told" (which is your own perception of my posts) and take exception, for all the good that will do. Or see it for what it is, a negotiation of unequal parties wherein the smaller party has little to no leverage (which is my premise), accept that premise, and move on with the debate.

I'm interested because, until 2 years ago, I had over 20 years invested in the UK and, Brexit or not, my wife of 24 years is still British (...at least for the next 3 years still, then we'll see).

I'm interested, because Brexit has caused me, and is still causing me to some extent (even post-Brexodus), as many real-life headaches and problems, what with family on either side of the Channel, as real-life opportunities (none benefitting UK plc, I'm afraid).

Lastly I'm interested, because this British socio-economic experiment is the most fascinating political event, moreover carried out by the unlikeliest of nations, in modern times.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think it's a particularly bad way to run a country but it sounds like micromanagement, and it's what the British public voted against. The government opening or closing the faucet of international plumbers is much the same as natural market forces attracting or repelling EU plumbers. There is no particular need for the government to get involved.

I don't think it is fundamentally different to, for example, our government looking at the skills requirements for the country and adjusting training and education policy accordingly. It is not trying to completely override market forces but rather work with them. If taken to extreme, of course, it could be regarded as micromanagement but I don't think that is the case with the UK proposals.

serfboard

Strazdas wrote: »

Everything about Brexit UK and the Home Office suggests incompetence and them not being up to the job.

Ah don't worry. Once Cummings fires them all and replaces them with (racist) wierdos, it'll be Great (Britain)!

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

I'd imagine like many EU citizens being practically run out of a country and having to sell your home and move jobs would leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Put yourself in a position where you've lived in a country for years . Worked bought your home raised kids only to be confronted with loosing all your rights and having to spend thousands for each family members to possibly be cleared to stay in their home they own.

Lovely stuff... Where do I sign.

I'm ashamed of the way the UK government is behaving and have no faith or trust in anything they say.
I'm getting out of here with my family,I don't want to see the UK being systematically brought to its knees and split asunder by its own so called leaders.

serfboard

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm getting out of here with my family,I don't want to see the UK being systematically brought to its knees and split asunder by its own so called leaders.

As a matter of interest, are you moving to another EU country, and if so, which one? Do you have another passport besides your British one?

Of course, no obligation to answer the question if you don't want to - I'm just curious/nosey!

RobMc59

serfboard wrote: »

As a matter of interest, are you moving to another EU country, and if so, which one? Do you have another passport besides your British one?

Of course, no obligation to answer the question if you don't want to - I'm just curious/nosey!

I'm looking to move to Ireland probably next year with Irish wife and granddaughter ,tentative employment enquiries have been encouraging.That does depend on the CTA remaining in place.