Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

O'Neill

cameramonkey wrote: »

A few skirmishes but not serious rioting. It is just the physical manifestation of Unionism via Loyalist gangsters hoping that it will sway the EU. As usual with the Unionists they have an over blown sense of their political importance.

Bit concerning that it's happening in numerous areas though no? It's not just in Belfast, they're also been riots in Derry.

cameramonkey

O'Neill wrote: »

Bit concerning that it's happening in numerous areas though no? It's not just in Belfast, they're also been riots in Derry.

the scale of the organised disturbances are not significant. the UK security services have run the Loyalist groups since the 1970s, they have the ability to turn them on and off if they wish.

ancapailldorcha

cameramonkey wrote: »

the scale of the organised disturbances are not significant. the UK security services have run the Loyalist groups since the 1970s, they have the ability to turn them on and off if they wish.

Mod: Please do not derail the thread with conspiracy theories like this. Thank you.

eire4

cameramonkey wrote: »

the scale of the organised disturbances are not significant. the UK security services have run the Loyalist groups since the 1970s, they have the ability to turn them on and off if they wish.

That is the key in the past it was from British security forces that the loyalists were getting their weapons, intelligence and ultimately acting at the behest of so what is going on now is not of any significance I agree with you.

Infini

Loyalists had support of state security forces in the past, they don't have that now and if anything Boris and co would probably dump Northern Ireland given half the chance if they could, its a liability and unwanted to them. The rioting up there is basically older bastards using stupid younger kids to do their dirty work, they don't have the same level of influence or support and at most they'll likely cause some disorder though in their own back yard more so. It's pointless in the end they supported Brexit without even bothering to do basic research and it blew up in their faces. Blame Boris for selling them out and not agreeing to May's deal, blame Arlene and her party for doing more damage in 3 years to the Union than the IRA ever did in 30 years but their blaming of the protocol is pointless hating for the sake of it, they lost because they couldnt leave things well enough alone and now they're going to have to accept the consequences of their own making.

CelticRambler

Here we go: the lifting of covid restrictions reveals a little more of the reality of Brexit Britain, this time for antiques dealers -

The legion of traders who have indulged Britain’s bargain hunters for decades with their van loads of curios and collectibles from France fear Brexit is about to upend their specialist trade just as open markets and vintage shops are about to reopen.

Importers of everything from farmhouse tables to art deco mirrors and vintage dresses fear they will be stymied by the complicated documentation now required for each item in their van.

“It’s such a strange thing to have this level of restrictions and difficulty with paperwork and import and export when really what you’re talking about is recycling stuff that has been covered in dust and sitting in a loft and would otherwise have been destined for the bin,” said Rebecca Merrill, who runs Sunless Antiques in St Leonards-on-Sea [Edit: Borough of Hastings - voted leave 55%]

...

Central to the challenge is the fact that customs declarations are required for each item, but also commodity numbers and the age of the antique or vintage clothing for VAT purposes.

As we've seen before, those who should have been making a lot more noise about this during the referendum campaign think that the way forward is an opt-out for people who don't think Brexit-means-Brexit should apply to them.

Kathyrn Singer, the director of strategy and operations at the British Antique Dealers’ Association, said she hoped the UK government would find a way of dealing with traders by “some kind of reworking to allow people to transport their own goods for trade purposes”.

But the official line, from the government that celebrated Britain's freedom from Brussels' red tape, is to wrap yourself in red-white-and-blue tape:

HMRC also advised businesses to go the six methods of calculating customs duties applicable since Brexit, which are on this 41-part government webpage.

Leroy42

Its a common theme running throughout brexit.

They all want Brexit, but they don't want it to impact them specifically. Musicians, NI, farmers, pensioners, travellers, hauliers, pet owners, seasonal workers, the list goes on, all should be exempted from Brexit it seems.

Akrasia

View wrote: »

On the contrary, such claims will be taken seriously.

For instance in the case of the AZ vaccine, the EU was the largest source of funding for the Oxford-based Jenner Institute, which developed the vaccine. Likewise, the EU handed over several hundred million to AZ as part of the contract with AZ.

In return for that, the Jenner/AZ vaccine is touted as the great success story “proving” the case for Brexit and AZ doesn’t bother even pretending it will deliver to EU countries, while simultaneously exporting vaccine supplies from EU countries to non-EU countries.

Was the vaccine funded under the Horizon program? I think only BioNTec and CureVac were funded from Horizon

dublin49

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its a common theme running throughout brexit.

They all want Brexit, but they don't want it to impact them specifically. Musicians, NI, farmers, pensioners, travellers, hauliers, pet owners, seasonal workers, the list goes on, all should be exempted from Brexit it seems.

Brexit was like Kevin the unruly teenager shouting at his parents he hated them and didnt want to live with them anymore,the problem was his teenage mate was given the job of agreeing a new relationship for Kevin.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its a common theme running throughout brexit.

They all want Brexit, but they don't want it to impact them specifically. Musicians, NI, farmers, pensioners, travellers, hauliers, pet owners, seasonal workers, the list goes on, all should be exempted from Brexit it seems.

Is that not the way of the world!

If Brexit was different for every Brexit voter, then the bit that affects me was not the bit I voted for - obviously.

Pet lovers wanted to keep pet passports. Employers wanted skilled Eastern Europeans because they worked hard and knew their stuff. People living in Spain (cash in hand) wanted things to continue as before because Spain needs us. Exporters were content to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union - well it will be OK because it has been OK for the last - well - forever. Truck drivers did not realise the licence issue combined with the Schengen issue would effect their livelihoods. Mobile phone roaming, booze cruises to Calais to fill up at the local supermarket. And so on.

What did the Romans EU ever do for us? Except (Life of Brian sketch) everything we need.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its a common theme running throughout brexit.

They all want Brexit, but they don't want it to impact them specifically. Musicians, NI, farmers, pensioners, travellers, hauliers, pet owners, seasonal workers, the list goes on, all should be exempted from Brexit it seems.

Another theory I've heard is that many Leave voters thought they could inflict their Brexit onto other people but they would be left completely unscathed i.e. permanently halting EU immigration to the country, perhaps even see EU citizens deported, but with no negative trade off for themselves.

druss

Strazdas wrote: »

Another theory I've heard is that many Leave voters thought they could inflict their Brexit onto other people but they would be left completely unscathed i.e. permanently halting EU immigration to the country, perhaps even see EU citizens deported, but with no negative trade off for themselves.

And why wouldn't they have thought that? It is what was promised by Vote Leave.

A too-big-to-fail, "sure you'd be a fool not to", opportunity.

UK gets to go bucannering round the world, gets to tell immigrants to shove off, gets more money for the NHS and whatever you're having yourself, AND gets all keep nice bits like continued residency abroad and rights to sell into the EU markets (without needing to worry about EU standards).

It was all going to be sorted by David Davis wandering into Merkel's office and showing her his crayon diagrams explaining how much Germany needed to sell cars to the UK.

Gerry T

Akrasia wrote:

Was the vaccine funded under the Horizon program? I think only BioNTec and CureVac were funded from Horizon

The UK gave AZ 65m stg in May the EU gave AZ 336m euro in Sept. Both sums used for vaccine development and setup of manufacturing facilities, supply lines etc.

forgottenhills

The OECD seem to believe that the UK economy will perform quite well going forward. All major economies hit by COVID in 2020 but all set to recover in 2021 and 2022 as per their recent forecast linked below. Just posting this as an alternative view to the many "the end is nigh" forecasts posted on this thread for the UK's economy.

http://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/march-2021/

forgottenhills

forgottenhills wrote: »

The OECD seem to believe that the UK economy will perform quite well going forward. All major economies hit by COVID in 2020 but all set to recover in 2021 and 2022 as per their recent forecast linked below. Just posting this as an alternative view to the many "the end is nigh" forecasts posted on this thread for the UK's economy.

http://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/march-2021/

Meanwhile the Pound is slowly increasing in value relative to the Euro, approaching €1.18 to the pound.
Still has a long way to go to match the €1.40 that it was before the vote though.

forgottenhills

forgottenhills wrote: »

The OECD seem to believe that the UK economy will perform quite well going forward. All major economies hit by COVID in 2020 but all set to recover in 2021 and 2022 as per their recent forecast linked below. Just posting this as an alternative view to the many "the end is nigh" forecasts posted on this thread for the UK's economy.

http://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/march-2021/

No one thinks the UK's economy won't grow again after dropping 9.9% in 2020.

forgottenhills

Deleted User wrote: »

No one thinks the UK's economy won't grow again after dropping 9.9% in 2020.

Yes but it's a reminder to keep a perspective on the big picture. The UK will remain an important destination for EU exports for the foreseeable future and it will be important not to start trade wars or disrupt supply chains over relatively small issues. Talking of them as the EU's enemy is more than a bit OTT and not particularly useful.

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

The UK will remain an important destination for EU exports for the foreseeable future and it will be important not to start trade wars or disrupt supply chains over relatively small issues.

So far, all the war-like talk and supply chain disruption has been directly due to hostile or ill-judged actions by the UK. If the UK wants to continue to buy the EU products they've come to love and depend on, then they need to facilitate that trade.

forgottenhills

forgottenhills wrote: »

Yes but it's a reminder to keep a perspective on the big picture. The UK will remain an important destination for EU exports for the foreseeable future and it will be important not to start trade wars or disrupt supply chains over relatively small issues. Talking of them as the EU's enemy is more than a bit OTT and not particularly useful.

What are the relatively small issues the EU would be best off ignoring?

Leroy42

forgottenhills wrote: »

Yes but it's a reminder to keep a perspective on the big picture. The UK will remain an important destination for EU exports for the foreseeable future and it will be important not to start trade wars or disrupt supply chains over relatively small issues. Talking of them as the EU's enemy is more than a bit OTT and not particularly useful.

So its not going to be totally sh** is the message?

No supply chains will be threatened. They either work out or alternatives will be found. Some times that alternative will mean higher prices, some times it may mean loss of the current supply chain.

But however one looks at it, there is very few reasons to be optimistic about things being better in the future compared to previously.

Even just taking account of the political time and capital spent, together with the bns spent preparing for Brexit. It will take a huge amount of positives to make that worthwhile.

forgottenhills

Deleted User wrote: »

What are the relatively small issues the EU would be best off ignoring?

Take one small issue at random - the granting of equivalence status for certain specific agricultural or food items. For instance at present the EU has blocked UK seed potato exports to the EU. The UK has allowed a derogation on EU seed potatoes entering the UK until June. It doesn't look like the EU will allow UK seed potatoes in (typically for Ireland these would come from Scotland) and if not, the UK will probably retaliate by blocking EU seed imports into the UK. The trade in potato seed is literally small potatoes (pun intended) but it has being going on for ages and is beneficial to both sides. If mutual equivalence is not granted it hurts both sides and these small line items can add up to engender distrust even anger on both sides which can result in dangerous escalations in much larger areas of negotiations such as financial services equivalence.

It might be beneficial to the EU not to stick so closely to the rulebook in all cases and to allow small derogations such as this, which are mutually beneficial to both sides and help to reduce tensions and encourage mutual trade.

Seth Brundle

forgottenhills wrote: »

If mutual equivalence is not granted it hurts both sides and these small line items can add up to engender distrust even anger on both sides which can result in dangerous escalations in much larger areas of negotiations such as financial services equivalence.

Is there anything available online to show the dissatisfaction within the EU that mutual equivalence isn't there WRT seed spuds?

forgottenhills wrote: »

It might be beneficial to the EU not to stick so closely to the rulebook in all cases and to allow small derogations such as this, which are mutually beneficial to both sides and help to reduce tensions and encourage mutual trade.

So the EU should drop it's standards to meet those of the UK? The UK is chose to diverge and you think the EU should change its standards to match the UK? It is the UK that has decided to drop the parity with the EU, not the other way around. If the UK wants to interact with the EU then they must adhere to certain standards; something they knew full well before they decided to leave.

Leroy42

forgottenhills wrote: »

Take one small issue at random - the granting of equivalence status for certain specific agricultural or food items. For instance at present the EU has blocked UK seed potato exports to the EU. The UK has allowed a derogation on EU seed potatoes entering the UK until June. It doesn't look like the EU will allow UK seed potatoes in (typically for Ireland these would come from Scotland) and if not, the UK will probably retaliate by blocking EU seed imports into the UK. The trade in potato seed is literally small potatoes (pun intended) but it has being going on for ages and is beneficial to both sides. If mutual equivalence is not granted it hurts both sides and these small line items can add up to engender distrust even anger on both sides which can result in dangerous escalations in much larger areas of negotiations such as financial services equivalence.

It might be beneficial to the EU not to stick so closely to the rulebook in all cases and to allow small derogations such as this, which are mutually beneficial to both sides and help to reduce tensions and encourage mutual trade.

Should the EU do that for every 3rd country or just for the UK?

Also, U am certain that it was on the table as part of the negotiations but one of both sides didn't feel it was worth it.

So, while small and easy to fix and beneficial to everyone, it would appear that it was a price not worth paying.

Nody

forgottenhills wrote: »

Take one small issue at random - the granting of equivalence status for certain specific agricultural or food items. For instance at present the EU has blocked UK seed potato exports to the EU. The UK has allowed a derogation on EU seed potatoes entering the UK until June. It doesn't look like the EU will allow UK seed potatoes in (typically for Ireland these would come from Scotland) and if not, the UK will probably retaliate by blocking EU seed imports into the UK. The trade in potato seed is literally small potatoes (pun intended) but it has being going on for ages and is beneficial to both sides. If mutual equivalence is not granted it hurts both sides and these small line items can add up to engender distrust even anger on both sides which can result in dangerous escalations in much larger areas of negotiations such as financial services equivalence.

It might be beneficial to the EU not to stick so closely to the rulebook in all cases and to allow small derogations such as this, which are mutually beneficial to both sides and help to reduce tensions and encourage mutual trade.

Honestly I despair when I keep reading this type of comments over and over again. Let's go over this again shall we? UK is a third party country. That means anything given to the UK = has to be given to every other country in the world as well. That's WTO rules for you; now UK are to stupid to understand that it applies to them as well and they will enjoy several hundreds of millions of pounds in fines over he next couple of decades from it, but that's a UK problem by keeping their border open without checks.

Now, back to the issue at hand. If UK wants to get equalence in agriculture there's nothing stopping UK from asking for that to be the case. However; that requires that UK commits to keep the standard at EU level for it and we know Boris and his boys don't want to do that. It's the exact same thing hitting all other food export from the UK as well; UK refuses to commit to keep the quality at EU standards and hence EU has two choices. Either allow products from all over the world in that do not meet the requirements or tell UK to suck it up butter cup because we're treating you as the sovereign nation you asked to be treated as. There is no fudging the line here; it literally UK refusing to commit to keeping the standard of products up to EU requirements. We've already seen the diverge in allowing EU banned pesticides for example and EU does not, and should not, jeopardize their higher standards by giving UK a free pass "to not look to closely at the rulebook". The party that's on the pain end here is the UK and not the EU or do we need to bring up the export and import statistics again to show the point? And don't claim Irish exports we've been over that one as well multiple times as well.

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

It might be beneficial to the EU not to stick so closely to the rulebook in all cases and to allow small derogations such as this, which are mutually beneficial to both sides and help to reduce tensions and encourage mutual trade.

So you want the EU to replicate the arrangement they have with Switzerland, that has proven to be an almighty headache for the last forty years? One that they said, from the outset, was absolutely, definitely, no way, not-a-chance on the table for the UK.

Knowing this, the UK opted for a "clean break, no exceptions" stance, and now you're saying the EU should tolerate the UK's stupidity because it's "small potatoes" ?

I presume you'd make the same argument in support of concessions for performing artists travelling and working in the EU, because they wouldn't be doing anyone any harm? Even though, again, the EU offered a tidy framework and the UK rejected it in favour of isolationism?

And then you'd like the EU to exempt hauliers from the 90-days-in-180 limit, because it's not fair to deprive them of their livelihoods, perhaps?

If Brexit meant Brexit, and the UK is determined to remain non-aligned, why are you arguing for the EU to force the UK back into a Remain-lite arrangement?

Strazdas

The main reason the EU can't give any Swiss style concessions to the UK is that it is a troublemaker and a substantial part of its government, media and population are hoping and praying for the destruction of the EU i.e. the last people on earth you would want to do any favours for.

forgottenhills

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is there anything available online to show the dissatisfaction within the EU that mutual equivalence isn't there WRT seed spuds?


So the EU should drop it's standards to meet those of the UK? The UK is chose to diverge and you think the EU should change its standards to match the UK? It is the UK that has decided to drop the parity with the EU, not the other way around. If the UK wants to interact with the EU then they must adhere to certain standards; something they knew full well before they decided to leave.

There is no dropping of standards in relation to seed potatoes which have been equivalent for donkeys years. Indeed there are potential diseases in alternative supplies from mainland Europe which would be a disaster if they reach here. It would be mutually beneficial to keep the existing trading arrangements and this is possible with derogations.

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

There is no dropping of standards in relation to seed potatoes which have been equivalent for donkeys years. Indeed there are potential diseases in alternative supplies from mainland Europe which would be a disaster if they reach here. It would be mutually beneficial to keep the existing trading arrangements and this is possible with derogations.

Yes, it's possible with derogations. But there won't be any. Do you know why?

forgottenhills

Nody wrote: »

Honestly I despair when I keep reading this type of comments over and over again. Let's go over this again shall we? UK is a third party country. That means anything given to the UK = has to be given to every other country in the world as well. That's WTO rules for you; now UK are to stupid to understand that it applies to them as well and they will enjoy several hundreds of millions of pounds in fines over he next couple of decades from it, but that's a UK problem by keeping their border open without checks.

It's you who don't understand trade deals. The EU and the UK have signed a trade deal on goods so they don't trade on WTO terms and hence mutual derogations are possible.

forgottenhills

CelticRambler wrote: »

So you want the EU to replicate the arrangement they have with Switzerland, that has proven to be an almighty headache for the last forty years? One that they said, from the outset, was absolutely, definitely, no way, not-a-chance on the table for the UK.

Knowing this, the UK opted for a "clean break, no exceptions" stance, and now you're saying the EU should tolerate the UK's stupidity because it's "small potatoes" ?

I presume you'd make the same argument in support of concessions for performing artists travelling and working in the EU, because they wouldn't be doing anyone any harm? Even though, again, the EU offered a tidy framework and the UK rejected it in favour of isolationism?

And then you'd like the EU to exempt hauliers from the 90-days-in-180 limit, because it's not fair to deprive them of their livelihoods, perhaps?

If Brexit meant Brexit, and the UK is determined to remain non-aligned, why are you arguing for the EU to force the UK back into a Remain-lite arrangement?

I am only suggesting some flexibility where there are clear benefits for the EU. Who is saying anything about remain lite? I have only suggested that some limited flexibility might be a good thing, not rewriting any agreements. It always makes sense in business to keep relations with important customers as good as possible and not get into rows over small things. Its only common sense.