Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)
Options
Comments
-
theological wrote: »Neil was right to argue from precedence as to what other countries have previously agreed.
As far as I'm aware, there are no EU trade deals that would count as precedence for this. And even if there were, what does it matter what happened in another deal?0 -
Well, that makes no sense, for two reasons.theological wrote: »The thing that is great about Neil as a presenter is that he automatically plays devils advocate for the opposing position. For example if a Tory MP comes on he will challenge them from a Labour perspective.
Neil was right to argue from precedence as to what other countries have previously agreed. I think Johnson is right to refuse automatically adopting EU rules and it is good to make that clear now. If the EU were convinced that Canada's labour laws were good enough they should be convinced in respect to UK laws.
First, I can obviously think the laws of country A on some matter are pretty sound, while holding a different view about the laws of country B. Are UK labour laws identical to Canadian labour laws? No? The why is my view of Canadian labour standards remotely relevant to my view on UK labour standards?
Secondly, Canada hasn’t just brexited precisely to obtain and exercise the freedom to diverge from EU standards. The UK, however, has. UK labour laws today are obviously satisfactory from an EU point of view, since they are fully compliant with EU law. But the EU - or, for that matter, the UK - has no reason to think that this will be so in 12 months or 2 years or 5 years or whenever, and the EU cannot but note that the UK is not claiming that it will be so, and is refusing to commit that it will be so. So accepting that it might not be so seems to me a matter of common sense.
No, it wouldn’t be. As Canada doesn’t commit to alignment with EU standards, the question of a forum for determining whether they are aligned to EU standards doesn’t arise. A role for the ECJ isn’t an add-on on top of the notion of being aligned to EU market rules on state aids, market standards, etc; it’s simply an aspect of it, the ECJ’s role in interpreting and applying the rules being part of the regulatory system.theological wrote: »ECJ oversight is not included in the Canada FTA either.
Here, I think, we agree.theological wrote: »The comment about being Boris Johnson's spokesman was silly. It's almost like she expects journalists to fall behind and advocate automatically for the EU.
You could say that the practice of simply taking one side’s talking points and putting them to the other side is poor journalism. By putting, say, Tory soundbites to a Labour interviewee, or vice versa, is the journalist lending an air of credibility or objectivity to what is in truth purely a partisan soundbite? But, to be fair to Neil, I don’t think that’s what he does; I think he actually evaluates the various positions of different sides, and if he puts a Tory criticism to a Labour interviewee it’s because he thinks the Tory criticism actually has some legs; it raises legitimate points that do call for an answer.0 -
Keep up, Theo. It’s “Australia-style” now.theological wrote: »Johnson has been pretty clear that he wants a Canada deal with the EU.
Yeah, last week it was Canada-style. But there was a time when an Irish sea border was unthinkable, and there was a time when Johnson would rather have died in a ditch than seek an extension of the Article 50 deadline. You can accuse Johnson of a lot of things, but not of being inflexibly committed to the positions that he adopts. “Canada-style” is gone, along with “implementation period”, “deep and special partnership”, “ambitious”, “unique”, “bespoke” and other hitherto politically correct terms for what the UK is seeking.
Only if you think Canada stands in the same relationship to the EU as the UK does.theological wrote: »I think he's right to reject any proposal that requires automatic alignment of the EU rule book and any oversight by a body that doesn't have both UK and EU representatives on it with a third party. That means even if the EU say quotas are required.
I think there's still a strong enough argument for the merits of an FTA without these demands in it. If there was the case for Canada there's the case for the UK.
Which, obviously, is very hard to think.0 -
theological wrote: »I think there's still a strong enough argument for the merits of an FTA without these demands in it. If there was the case for Canada there's the case for the UK.
Of course you think there are strong arguments for the UK sitting on the edge of Europe accessing its market while not having to follow any standards or regulations regarding state aid.. Because you're just looking at it from the UK's side.
The reason the EU needs protections is simple. An example would be the UK say wanting to grow its cheese industry. Import cheap milk from China, turn it into cheese, subsidise British cheese manufacturers for five years and dump it onto the EU market for 20% of the cost of Dutch cheese. When EU manufacturers go out of business, remove the subsidies and raise prices again.
Perhaps you think the EU should just trust that the UK wouldn't do that. I'd say that would be very foolish considering how many MPs want the EU to die in a ditch.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Of course you think there are strong arguments for the UK sitting on the edge of Europe accessing its market while not having to follow any standards or regulations regarding state aid.. Because you're just looking at it from the UK's side.
The reason the EU needs protections is simple. An example would be the UK say wanting to grow its cheese industry. Import cheap milk from China, turn it into cheese, subsidise British cheese manufacturers for five years and dump it onto the EU market for 20% of the cost of Dutch cheese. When EU manufacturers go out of business, remove the subsidies and raise prices again.
Perhaps you think the EU should just trust that the UK wouldn't do that. I'd say that would be very foolish considering how many MPs want the EU to die in a ditch.
Actually - the UK being on the edge of the Europe (in the sense of Europe being the European Union) is the perfect example. The UK continuing to have a good trading relationship while still being free to pursue trading relationships with other countries including the United States, Australia, New Zealand and even further afield.
In order to do this properly the UK needs to reject automatically taking the EU rulebook. Automatically reject the suggestion. If Canada doesn't do it, the UK shouldn't do it in my book. Irrespective of what they argue even if it means quotas in the FTA.
ECJ oversight - definitely no.0 -
Advertisement
-
But Canada's not on the edge of Europe.theological wrote: »Actually - the UK being on the edge of the Europe (in the sense if Europe being the European Union) is the perfect example. The UK continuing to have a good trading relationship while still being free to pursue trading relationships with other countries including the United States, Australia, New Zealand and even further afield.
In order to do this properly the UK needs to reject automatically taking the EU rulebook. Automatically reject the suggestion. If Canada doesn't do it, the UK shouldn't do it in my book. Irrespective of what they argue even if it means quotas in the FTA.
If the EU had asked Canada for high alignment (they didn't for reasons already mentioned, but if they had) Canada would certainly have rejected this, because Canada's on the edge of the United States, and its next biggest trading partner is China, and then Japan. It does less than 10% of its foreign trade with the EU, and the potential gains in from even the best FTA, while material, are nothing like material enough to persuade them to enter into that degree of alignment with what is for them a relatively minor market in a different hemisphere.
The UK's situation is entirely different. The EU is alway, always going to be far and away the UK's largest trading partner, and the difference for the UK between a good and a poor FTA is very significant. Alignment with the EU doesn't prevent the UK from pursuing trade with other countries; the UK's foreign trade right now is higher, as a percentage of UK GDP, than it has ever been at any point in history, so the claim that it somehow hampers the development of the UK's trade is hard to reconcile with the evidence.
Basically, there's much more downside her for the UK in not getting a trade deal with the EU than there was for Canada; the UK government's own figures show this very graphically. And there's much more potential downside for the EU in granting the UK high access but low alignment than there was for granting that to Canada. So, assuming both parties pursue their own best advantage and accept it as reasonable that the other party will do the same, a high-access high-alignment deal is the expected outcome.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »But Canada's not on the edge of Europe.
That doesn't matter. The UK should still say no. It isn't in the UK's interest to accept a worse deal than what has been accepted to other countries. ECJ oversight and automatic acceptance of the EU rulebook with no say make it worse than the Canada model even if there's quotas.Peregrinus wrote: »If the EU had asked Canada for high alignment (they didn't for reasons already mentioned, but if they had) Canada would certainly have rejected this, because Canada's on the edge of the United States, and its next biggest trading partner is China, and then Japan. It does less than 10% of its foreign trade with the EU, and the potential gains in from even the best FTA, while material, are nothing like material enough to persuade them to enter into that degree of alignment with what is for them a relatively minor market in a different hemisphere.
And the UK should reject it also. It's worth pointing out that the US is the single biggest country that trades with the UK.Peregrinus wrote: »The UK's situation is entirely different. The EU is alway, always going to be far and away the UK's largest trading partner, and the difference for the UK between a good and a poor FTA is very significant. Alignment with the EU doesn't prevent the UK from pursuing trade with other countries; the UK's foreign trade right now is higher, as a percentage of UK GDP, than it has ever been at any point in history, so the claim that it somehow hampers the development of the UK's trade is hard to reconcile with the evidence.
It limits the types of trading arrangement that can be agreed with certain countries and also it flatly stands in opposition to taking back control of UK law. So definitely no.Peregrinus wrote: »Basically, there's much more downside her for the UK in not getting a trade deal with the EU than there was for Canada; the UK government's own figures show this very graphically. And there's much more potential downside for the EU in granting the UK high access but low alignment than there was for granting that to Canada. So, assuming both parties pursue their own best advantage and accept it as reasonable that the other party will do the same, a high-access high-alignment deal is the expected outcome.
I'm not convinced the UK can't get a trade deal with the EU. Rejecting these demands is essential to getting the right sort of trade deal.
ECJ oversight of the arrangements is particularly ludicrous. No deal should have exclusive jurisdiction of the other party. An arbitration panel with both parties and an observer should be the only way to go here.0 -
theological wrote: »If Canada doesn't do it, the UK shouldn't do it in my book.theological wrote: »That doesn't matter. The UK should still say no. It isn't in the UK's interest to accept a worse deal than what has been accepted to other countries.
I'll let Peregrinus respond to the rest since he knows more, but I have to wonder why you feel this way in the posts above.. Do you feel that the UK is owed something better than Canada or other countries?0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »I'll let Peregrinus respond to the rest since he knows more, but I have to wonder why you feel this way in the posts above.. Do you feel that the UK is owed something better than Canada or other countries?
I feel the UK as a much larger market economy shouldn't accept less than Canada. The UK would be making a big mistake by conceding such a point which is obviously not in its interest to do so. This is also a point that was strongly expressed both in the referendum and in the recent election.0 -
Advertisement
-
theological wrote: »I feel the UK as a much larger market economy shouldn't accept less than Canada.
The EU is offering the UK far far more than it has ever offered anyone before. No quotas / tariffs and lots of services potentially.
But that's not what you mean by "less". It's about sovereignty, control and all that lark. Any standards or alignment means the UK is getting "less" than Canada since Canada doesn't have to sign up to those things.
If we forget that for a second, can you just confirm for us that you understand why the EU requires these things?0 -
joeguevara wrote: »I’m going to do something I thought I wouldn’t have to do on this thread. However entrenched Bored is in his ideas. However infuriating he is in his beliefs. The only times it has annoyed me reading his posts is when he called Ireland irrelevant.
But he is a decent skin. I am actually impressed in his arguments. He won’t listen to me and thinks I’m talking out my ass but doesn’t keeps to the point without personal attack.
To say all that is wrong in Ireland is to do with English occupation is nonsense. It was mentioned about non access to housing, education culture etc. But what about the highly educated Irish, in accommodation and cultured. Yes we had issues but not any more, well not to do with English.
Brexit is bizarre. I don’t agree with it. I think it won’t be successful but it is understandable when you look at demographic who voted it. The areas and people who voted to leave had reasons. They saw no advantages from EU unlike Areas where cash was pumped in. Fishing industries decimated, coal and steel too. Car industries losing out. Urban areas saw growth and cash injections.
Honestly if you look at groups who protest homelessness in Ireland the constant theme is giving out about refugees getting houses. (Not my belief).
Joe everybody is entitled to their point of view. Some peoples point of view is based on misinfo and their beliefs. Both can be incorrect.
I do not give out personal attacks. I just take the piss. I will take anything directed at me. I will never complain.
I agree with what you say except refugees. There are refugees and migrants. Ireland shouldnt take any migrants..........unless the want to but should sort its homeless out first.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The EU is offering the UK far far more than it has ever offered anyone before. No quotas / tariffs and lots of services potentially.
But that's not what you mean by "less". It's about sovereignty, control and all that lark. Any standards or alignment means the UK is getting "less" than Canada since Canada doesn't have to sign up to those things.
If we forget that for a second, can you just confirm for us that you understand why the EU requires these things?
An arrangement with quotas would be better than an arrangement with regulatory alignment and ECJ oversight.
You use the word "requires". It doesn't "require" it. It demands it to keep the UK under its control. The answer should be a flat no.0 -
Canada's business with the EU does not include being part of the highly integrated, interdependent supply chains that flourished under the efficiences of the Single Market. Much of the UK's does and no trade "deal" can replicate that.theological wrote:I'm not convinced the UK can't get a trade deal with the EU. Rejecting these demands is essential to getting the right sort of trade deal.
The UK will lose most of that business and it won't be replaced by trade "deals' on the other side of the globe.0 -
I think what we have here is just another iteration of what I have just decided to call the Brexiter’s Dilemma. It has bedevilled the Brexit project pretty much from the get-go, initially because too many Brexiters were simply in denial that the Brexiter’s Dilemma existed, and then because they simply refused or were unable to make the choice that the Dilemma required them to make, and then because they could not agree among themselves how to make that choice. Brexit was three times delayed by the Brexiter’s dilemma, May’s career was ended by it and it played at least a signficant role in the collapse of Corbyn’s hopes and dreams.
The Dilemma is simply this: there’s a trade-off between regulatory freedom and trade integration. Brexit was about “taking back control” but, arguably, the “control” which Brexit restores to the UK is the control which enables them to choose between regulatory freedom and trade integration. Even more arguably, though, they had that control all along; Article 50 always gave them that right. It’s just that, until the Brexit referendum, their exercise of that control was a systematic choice of trade integration over regulatory freedom. The Brexit referendum is, essentially, a vote to strike a different balance between them.
What Brexit does not, and cannot, and could never give the UK was control that would enable them to choose both regulatory freedom and trade integration.
The Brexit referendum campaign never admitted or conceded this. That’s not surprising; it’s in the nature of political campaigners not to admit the difficulties or limitations or deficiencies in their own position. So they routinely maintained, both before the Brexit vote and for a considerable time after, that of course the UK could leave the EU and still participate in the single market, trade freely with the EU, etc, etc. To maintain this was either unbelievably stupid or (more probably) dishonest, but I don’t know that it was outside the usual range of stupidity and dishonesty that politics engenders. During the Brexit referendum campaign it was Remainers who said a Brexit vote would mean leaving the single market, and they were rubbished by Brexiters for saying so. (“Project Fear!”)
Right. After the Referendum, when it became clear that Brexit meant that the UK could no longer participate in the Single Market this was initially framed as “bullying” by the EU; an oppressive stance designed to injure Brexit Britain, to discourage other member states from following the UK’s noble example. When May, whose priority was always controlling immigration, adopted the position that, yes, the logic of Brexit did indeed require the UK to withdraw from the Single Market, a further pivot took place. Before too long Brexiters were now telling people that of course Brexit meant leaving the Single Market and it always had meant that and everybody always understood this and how could it be otherwise and the Brexit vote therefore conferred an imperative mandate to leave the Single Market and the customs union.
But, even at this point, they were still in denial about the implications this has for trade integration, for they were still insisting that leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union did not require any hardening of the Irish border and that the EU, in making the linkage, was “weaponising” the border, trust us, we’ll sort it out, etc. etc. They still saw no reason why trade couldn’t cross the EU/UK border freely, without inspection, without regulation, without imposition of taxes.
We were stuck in that phase for quite a while, as boardies will recall, and in fact moving on from it nearly shattered the Brexit movement. The Tory government signed up to the Joint Report, committing to the degree of regulatory alignment needed to keep the Irish border open, and then almost immediately went into a long-drawn out disintegration which culminated in the fall of May and the rise of Johnson who, after a few months posturing, accepted that keeping the Irish border open did indeed require a high degree of regulatory alignment, and managed to bring the bulk of the Brexit movement along with him.
Now we’re facing yet another variant on the same issue. The UK wants to pursue a degree of trade integration which is formally (i.e. in its form) similar to the degree Canada has, with the (low) degree of regulatory alignment that Canada has. But in substance the UK is seeking to maintain a much, much higher degree of trade integration than Canada has; the value of UK:EU trade is between 7 and 8 times greater than the value of CAN:EU trade in absolute terms, and is also much greater as a proportion of total trade for both the UK and the EU. And, while Halifax to Rotterdam by sea is more than 6,000 km, the UK shares a land border with the EU, and a large number of short sea routes. UK trade is hugely more integrated with the EU than Canada’s is, and therefore the degree of regulatory alignment, and the threat to the EU from not having regulatory alignment, is vastly more significant. The Brexiter failure to recognise this and the hard choices that flow from it is, well, something we have seen before more than once already.
That the EU is being denounced as unreasonable in pointing to this link is hardly surprising; that has been the treatment all along for anyone who calls attention to the Brexiters’ Dilemma. But, in the end, Brexiters will be dragged kicking and screaming to a point where they make the choice that the Dilemma requires them to make.
Their current rhetoric suggests that they will choose regulatory autonomy over trade integration. Well, perhaps they will. But at several points in the past they have made the opposite choice, so I would take nothing as settled yet.0 -
theological wrote: »An arrangement with quotas would be better than an arrangement with regulatory alignment and ECJ oversight.
You use the word "requires". It doesn't "require" it. It demands it to keep the UK under its control. The answer should be a flat no.
So you don't understand. You imagine that the EU sat down and had a conversation about how to keep the UK under its control and that is the reason for its proposals.
If you took the ten minutes it requires to mull through the details of the EU's negotiating position, you would actually understand the other side's motivations, and the quality of your posts and conversation would be so much higher over the next ten months. A minute for each month. It's really a great deal.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »This makes no sense at all. Do you want to have another go at saying whatever it is you are trying to say?....Its as plain as day my dear. Voting for Brexit means somebody has voted not to be part of the EU. It does not mean they have put on Jackboots and stated an invasion of their neighbours..........Voting against immigration is a legal democratic right......it is not racist to object to immigrants coming into your country. .....If you think it is then you have no idea of racism.
Nonsense. I have often seen Brexiters use “empire” a slur, when they characterise the EU as an empire.
The EU is nothing like an empire, of course, but Brexiters cannot conceive of the EU operating in any way other than the way the British ran their empire, back in the day..........If you think the idea of an empire is marching in and taking control....then you are correct........today nobody could ever do that so they do it in other ways.....that is most likely what they refer too.
The contempt and disdain with which Northern Ireland has been systematically treated throughout the Brexit process has had no effect on Anglo-Irish relations, and has nothing to do with anyone in the UK? Yeah, right.........Well that is up to them to sit there and take it or go......but I dont believe that is what has soured relations.....more like the 2 fools after a better job and re-election.
And you forget - or, possibly, never knew - that over the period since independence Ireland has performed much better than the UK, and in particular better than the part of Ireland which remained within the UK. Quite why this means that the Irish leaders are donkeys is not clear, and I shudder to think what it implies about UK leaders. Dodos? Turnips? Simple unicellular organisms? Mark Francoises?............Yes you did admirably.........thats why you ran and joined the EU and took billions of other peoples hard earned cash what they could ill afford to build up what you couldnt do for yourself...........if somebody wants to give me billions then I could say I have done better as well couldnt I.
“What NI or Scotland do is all up to them, which is why their votes on Brexit, and their views on Brexit, have been completely ignored, and a hard Brexit which they do not want and do not like is being imposed on them in an attempt to gratify the English right, which is also why Scotland is being told by the right-wing Tory government that it is not allowed to have an independence referendum. By ‘up to them’ I in fact mean ‘the English will tell them what will be done to them and they will just have to put up with it’”........Listen you are part of a club, a team, an organisation..........are you really saying that if Mayo and Galway vote opposite to the rest of the country, then the rest of the country goes back to the drawing board and does what they want?........lunacy mate.......you go with the majoriaty vote.........thats the club rules.........dont like it get out...........The point of Scotland is........their last vote was agreed by them to be once in a generation...........not a few years down the line when it suits........why should the rest of that club have to put up with that crap and in their case pay for the garbage...because they certainly dont..........the rest of the UK subs that place quite handsomely0 -
Deleted User wrote: »So you don't understand. You imagine that the EU sat down and had a conversation about how to keep the UK under its control and that is the reason for its proposals.
If you took the ten minutes it requires to mull through the details of the EU's negotiating position, you would actually understand the other side's motivations, and the quality of your posts and conversation would be so much higher over the next ten months. A minute for each month. It's really a great deal.
The UK has to set some red lines also and define what is in and what is not in their interests. Giving ECJ jurisdiction over UK law and automatically adopting the EU rulebook isn't acceptable. That is irrespective of what the EU is concerned with.
Again the line I would hold is that if Canada wouldn't accept it the UK shouldn't either. I would happily consider a quota based FTA over this.
It isn't that I don't understand. I don't agree.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I think what we have here is just another iteration of what I have just decided to call the Brexiter’s Dilemma. It has bedevilled the Brexit project pretty much from the get-go, initially because too many Brexiters were simply in denial that the Brexiter’s Dilemma existed, and then because they simply refused or were unable to make the choice that the Dilemma required them to make, and then because they could not agree among themselves how to make that choice. Brexit was three times delayed by the Brexiter’s dilemma, May’s career was ended by it and it played at least a signficant role in the collapse of Corbyn’s hopes and dreams...... Both those people were pound shop politicians........May is the kind of person who goes to work and causes chaos with whatever they do.....we all have one in our office/factory........Corbin is just a commie Brit hater.
The Dilemma is simply this: there’s a trade-off between regulatory freedom and trade integration. Brexit was about “taking back control” but, arguably, the “control” which Brexit restores to the UK is the control which enables them to choose between regulatory freedom and trade integration. Even more arguably, though, they had that control all along; Article 50 always gave them that right. It’s just that, until the Brexit referendum, their exercise of that control was a systematic choice of trade integration over regulatory freedom. The Brexit referendum is, essentially, a vote to strike a different balance between them.........Brexit was a chance to vote on whether the people wanted to be in the EU or not.....nothing else.
What Brexit does not, and cannot, and could never give the UK was control that would enable them to choose both regulatory freedom and trade integration.
The Brexit referendum campaign never admitted or conceded this. That’s not surprising; it’s in the nature of political campaigners not to admit the difficulties or limitations or deficiencies in their own position. So they routinely maintained, both before the Brexit vote and for a considerable time after, that of course the UK could leave the EU and still participate in the single market, trade freely with the EU, etc, etc. To maintain this was either unbelievably stupid or (more probably) dishonest, but I don’t know that it was outside the usual range of stupidity and dishonesty that politics engenders. During the Brexit referendum campaign it was Remainers who said a Brexit vote would mean leaving the single market, and they were rubbished by Brexiters for saying so. (“Project Fear!”)...........Even before the referendum Farage and others were saying that a Brexit vote was the vote to walk away from everything.......so your talking bollox.
Right. After the Referendum, when it became clear that Brexit meant that the UK could no longer participate in the Single Market this was initially framed as “bullying” by the EU; an oppressive stance designed to injure Brexit Britain, to discourage other member states from following the UK’s noble example. When May, whose priority was always controlling immigration, adopted the position that, yes, the logic of Brexit did indeed require the UK to withdraw from the Single Market, a further pivot took place. Before too long Brexiters were now telling people that of course Brexit meant leaving the Single Market and it always had meant that and everybody always understood this and how could it be otherwise and the Brexit vote therefore conferred an imperative mandate to leave the Single Market and the customs union..........Having access to what you call the single market was used as a blackmail item by the EU........they are still trying to use it....but it appears the UK are just ignoring it and now looking elsewhere.
But, even at this point, they were still in denial about the implications this has for trade integration, for they were still insisting that leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union did not require any hardening of the Irish border and that the EU, in making the linkage, was “weaponising” the border, trust us, we’ll sort it out, etc. etc. They still saw no reason why trade couldn’t cross the EU/UK border freely, without inspection, without regulation, without imposition of taxes. ..........The border issue is gone.....its been bypassed as it always was going to be......it was only ever thrown up as an obsticle anyway.....you are talking in the past.
We were stuck in that phase for quite a while, as boardies will recall, and in fact moving on from it nearly shattered the Brexit movement. The Tory government signed up to the Joint Report, committing to the degree of regulatory alignment needed to keep the Irish border open, and then almost immediately went into a long-drawn out disintegration which culminated in the fall of May and the rise of Johnson who, after a few months posturing, accepted that keeping the Irish border open did indeed require a high degree of regulatory alignment, and managed to bring the bulk of the Brexit movement along with him.
Now we’re facing yet another variant on the same issue. The UK wants to pursue a degree of trade integration which is formally (i.e. in its form) similar to the degree Canada has, with the (low) degree of regulatory alignment that Canada has. But in substance the UK is seeking to maintain a much, much higher degree of trade integration than Canada has; the value of UK:EU trade is between 7 and 8 times greater than the value of CAN:EU trade in absolute terms, and is also much greater as a proportion of total trade for both the UK and the EU. And, while Halifax to Rotterdam by sea is more than 6,000 km, the UK shares a land border with the EU, and a large number of short sea routes. UK trade is hugely more integrated with the EU than Canada’s is, and therefore the degree of regulatory alignment, and the threat to the EU from not having regulatory alignment, is vastly more significant. The Brexiter failure to recognise this and the hard choices that flow from it is, well, something we have seen before more than once already.
That the EU is being denounced as unreasonable in pointing to this link is hardly surprising; that has been the treatment all along for anyone who calls attention to the Brexiters’ Dilemma. But, in the end, Brexiters will be dragged kicking and screaming to a point where they make the choice that the Dilemma requires them to make.
Their current rhetoric suggests that they will choose regulatory autonomy over trade integration. Well, perhaps they will. But at several points in the past they have made the opposite choice, so I would take nothing as settled yet......My dear god something or somebody has upset you this morning...chill out man.0 -
Surely this version of Brexit subordinates UK sovereignty to that of Canada?theological wrote: »Again the line I would hold is that if Canada wouldn't accept it the UK shouldn't either.
More seriously, Canada wasn't asked to accept it, so we can only speculate about what they would do. But we can say with confidence that Canada's decision would reflect Canada's circumstances, which are not those of the UK; Canada's interests, which are not those of the UK; and Canada's objectives, which are not those of the UK.
So, "what would Canada do?" is (a) speculative, and (b) not terribly relevant. I think the UK needs to find some different basis for making this decision.
And I cautiously suggest that that basis should probably be: talk to the EU. This is their opening position, but at no point have they said that it can't be adapted to take account of UK concerns, once the UK articulates them. If the suggested mechanism for protecting the interests of the EU and addressing their concerns is not attractive to the UK, then the UK should suggest a different mechanism. More than once in this process the EU has moved when this has been done - offering the UK-wide backstop when May wanted that, and then reverting to the NI-only backstop when Johnson wanted that, but adding an NI Assembly-driven break clause to address concerns about democratic buy-in. But the key to this is suggesting a mechanism which actually takes EU concerns seriously, and seeks to address them. There is no point in putting forward suggestions that ignore this (like the Brady amendment - remember that?)0 -
Advertisement
-
theological wrote:An arrangement with quotas would be better than an arrangement with regulatory alignment and ECJ oversight.
Quotas for who?
I don't you understand how international trade works. Governments don't sell to each other; trade is carried out between private companies, one sale at a time.
The whole point of the EU (and especially the Single Market) is to get governments OUT of the trade business. by creating an environment where companies compete and trade with each other based on quality, price and performance.
Regulatory alignment is a fundamental part of that. Quotas are the exact opposite.0 -
theological wrote: »The UK has to set some red lines also and define what is in and what is not in their interests. Giving ECJ jurisdiction over UK law and automatically adopting the EU rulebook isn't acceptable. That is irrespective of what the EU is concerned with.
Again the line I would hold is that if Canada wouldn't accept it the UK shouldn't either. I would happily consider a quota based FTA over this.
It isn't that I don't understand. I don't agree.
I agree with you regarding ECJ. It should be along the lines of what was agreed in CETA or something. But I don't see what you mean by saying "you don't agree"? It isn't an opinion.. Their reasons are laid out here. I wanted to know if you understood that their reasons are not "to keep the UK under its control".
As for the rest, the EU's red lines are there to limit an actual existential threat to the bloc. The UK's red lines are only there to keep it open for business around the world.
It's up to the UK to decide how this plays out. I imagine the UK will end up taking your approach and go with something very limited. I think this is a bad idea as average tariffs around the world are so low already, there isn't a massive amount to be gained. Not enough anyways to make up for what differing standards will do to the UK's EU trade and manufacturing processes.
That's about all there is to what the EU's opening position was. They offered the UK maximum trade, but with caveats. It had to do this. Now, the UK will lay out its position in more detail and the EU will respond accordingly.0 -
Boredstiff666 wrote: »Even before the referendum Farage and others were saying that a Brexit vote was the vote to walk away from everything.......so your talking bollox.
The border issue is gone.....its been bypassed as it always was going to be......it was only ever thrown up as an obsticle anyway.....you are talking in the past.
My dear god something or somebody has upset you this morning...chill out man.
You are incredibly rude.0 -
Boredstiff666 wrote: »Joe everybody is entitled to their point of view. Some peoples point of view is based on misinfo and their beliefs. Both can be incorrect.
I do not give out personal attacks. I just take the piss. I will take anything directed at me. I will never complain.
I agree with what you say except refugees. There are refugees and migrants. Ireland shouldnt take any migrants..........unless the want to but should sort its homeless out first.
You are defo taking the P.
Most of your posts on this thread are you complaining that people are taking something you said and twisting it.
As for the homeless, we are a very wealthy nation, we have plenty of money as a nation. Migrants are not the cause of the homeless issues. Lack of joined up thinking, lack of a concerted effort, lack of building, peoples desire to maintain the value of their own homes, lack of spending on mental health, drug treatment, leaving charities (many of them competing against each other) to deal with the slack. And of course a degree of personal responsibility.
There is a multiple of reasons why homelessness is an issue, but all of them can be solved regardless of migrants.
I notice as well that you completely failed to give any basis for your measurement of Brexit outcome. Maybe you missed the post.
Since you seem to push off any suggestion that Brexit is causing issues for the economy, I was wondering what your basis for judging Brexit actually is?0 -
You are defo taking the P.
Most of your posts on this thread are you complaining that people are taking something you said and twisting it.
As for the homeless, we are a very wealthy nation, we have plenty of money as a nation. Migrants are not the cause of the homeless issues. Lack of joined up thinking, lack of a concerted effort, lack of building, peoples desire to maintain the value of their own homes, lack of spending on mental health, drug treatment, leaving charities (many of them competing against each other) to deal with the slack. And of course a degree of personal responsibility.
There is a multiple of reasons why homelessness is an issue, but all of them can be solved regardless of migrants.
You misunderstand. I didnt mean migrants cause homelessness. I meant there is a clear distinction between refugees and migrants.
A refugee is someone in danger in their homeland and needs help so should we accept them...As long as they are genuine and law abiding yes.
A migrant is somebody who just decided to go and live elsewhere and not because their lives were in danger........Should we accept them.....absolutely not and if you do it only encourages more of the same.........Migrants must only be accepted if they are needed and wanted by the population. Not because someone is going to benefit by accepting them (political).
If you do accepts migrants then it not only affects the native population it also affects genuine refugees in many ways and none of them good.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »You are incredibly rude.
Rude possibly. But it is also offensive to mislead people. So which is the worst.........misleading people or calling them out abruptly?0 -
Boredstiff666 wrote: »You misunderstand. I didnt mean migrants cause homelessness. I meant there is a clear distinction between refugees and migrants.
A refugee is someone in danger in their homeland and needs help so should we accept them...As long as they are genuine and law abiding yes.
A migrant is somebody who just decided to go and live elsewhere and not because their lives were in danger........Should we accept them.....absolutely not and if you do it only encourages more of the same.........Migrants must only be accepted if they are needed and wanted by the population. Not because someone is going to benefit by accepting them (political).
If you do accepts migrants then it not only affects the native population it also affects genuine refugees in many ways and none of them good.
I'm English, spent most of my life as a "migrant" in Ireland and contributed positively to the country. I now live in England again but if I decide to return to Ireland are you saying I shouldn't be allowed?0 -
Boredstiff666 wrote: »Rude possibly. But it is also offensive to mislead people. So which is the worst.........misleading people or calling them out abruptly?
Misleading people, but I don't see that he was, and nothing you posted convinced me he was factually incorrect. Why do you think making yourself look like an arsehole is the best way to combat what you see as misleading information?0 -
Boredstiff666 wrote: »Both those people were pound shop politicians........May is the kind of person who goes to work and causes chaos with whatever they do.....we all have one in our office/factory........Corbin is just a commie Brit hater.
I don't understand. The people voted for her. Are you trying to suggest that both the conservative party and the voters got that wrong?Boredstiff666 wrote: »Brexit was a chance to vote on whether the people wanted to be in the EU or not.....nothing else.
100%. It said nothing about how integrated with the EU UK would remain. Said nothing about standards, borders, payments. So, as you agree, the UK could leave the EU and BRINO and that would meet the result of the vote.Boredstiff666 wrote: »Even before the referendum Farage and others were saying that a Brexit vote was the vote to walk away from everything.......so your talking bollox.
Rubbish. Farage himself, claimed that Norway wouldn't be bad and something the UK should look to. Many MEP, MPs etc said that nobody was advocating leaving the SM. Can you point to any evidence of someone, before the vote, calling for a hard Brexit?Boredstiff666 wrote: »Having access to what you call the single market was used as a blackmail item by the EU........they are still trying to use it....but it appears the UK are just ignoring it and now looking elsewhere.
He calls it the SM because that is what it is. It is a leverage point, kind of like the whole 'german car makers need us'. The problem for the UK is that the SM is worth far more than the UK market to the German car makers.Boredstiff666 wrote: »The border issue is gone.....its been bypassed as it always was going to be......it was only ever thrown up as an obsticle anyway.....you are talking in the past.
Fair enough. The sea border it is, along with the customs checks and delays that brings. Not sure I heard too much about that during the ref, but I assume that is what people voted for.0 -
Advertisement
-
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »I'm English, spent most of my life as a "migrant" in Ireland and contributed positively to the country. I now live in England again but if I decide to return to Ireland are you saying I shouldn't be allowed?
As a migrant myself I would say as long as you obey the law then yes.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement