Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

The comments she made about digital and financial services were in relation to the UK joining the Pacific alliance.

The CPTPP does contain quite far-reaching provisions on liberalising trade in services.

But they are much, much less far-reaching than the Single Market provisions liberalising trade in services. And the Single Market is, for the UK, a much closer, much larger and much more prosperous market than the CPTPP members.

So Truss's position is essentially saying that, in burning down the house of EEA membership the UK has cleared a space in which the quite nice garden shed of CPTPP membership might possibly be erected, and that this makes her optimistic.

She may think it makes her optimistic, but everyone else will think it makes her delusional.

Seth Brundle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Looks like it might not be the full 50 years. Here's Truss claiming that the deal will place the UK in a "very strong position" with no elaboration whatsoever:

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1405050808211812353

What I'm hearing her say is that we'll increase a paltry amount of trade by up to 65% but hey, we will make it much easier for British people to emigrate.
What can go wrong with that plan?

PeadarCo

RobMc59 wrote: »

You mistakenly assume my patriotism means I agree with brexit,I don't.

But people aren't criticising the UK per say, they are criticising the UK government(even if some people use UK as shorthand for the UK government) decisions around Brexit. Just because you dislike Brexit does not mean they dislike the UK as a nation. Its like saying that criticising the Irish government makes you unpatriotic or dislike Ireland. Which is obviously ludicrous/very totalitarian.

Brexit is a stupid decision for the UK from an economic perspective and especially how it was carried out. It has had very little upside. Criticising Brexit does not make you anti British. If that was the case Boris Johnson is anti UK because he has tried to rewrite the Brexit deal he agreed mere weeks after he agreed it. The same goes for pretty much his entire party. That's how bad Brexit is that the people who support it don't like Brexit. I get you don't like the UK being critiqued however the UK and the UK government are two different things.

Enzokk

The UK Government and officials are not to be trusted and we cannot believe any agreement they negotiate and sign.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1405084364342546432?s=20

.@DavidGHFrost tells the NI Affairs Cttee the Northern Ireland Protocol is "a very delicately balanced set of provisions, with quite a lot of loose ends and open ended provisions for subsequent negotiation…" [Not the EU's understanding of it]

You could get away with this sort of rubbish if Labour was in charge of the negotiations, but that you yourself led the talks makes this astonishing. He doesn't understand or he is willfully being ignorant of the agreement. Either one means he is unfit to run his monthly budget for shopping at home, nevermind the biggest negotiations the country has faced in a generation.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

The annual duty-free quota for Australian beef imports into the UK initially will be 35,000 tonnes in year 1, rising steadily to 110,000 tonnes at the end of 10 years.

Here's the old numbers to compare

Australia’s previous 7,150 tonne EU Hilton beef quota has been split: 3,389 tonnes to the EU and 3,761 tonnes to the UK
Australia’s 19,186 tonne sheepmeat/goatmeat quota has been split: 5,851 tonnes to the EU and 13,335 tonnes to the UK.

Here's the old costs

Under the existing trading regime, Australian beef exporters face a blanket 12 per cent tariff on beef products, with a surcharge of between £1.40 and £2.50 a kilo depending on the cut, and an annual lower tariff quota of 3,761 tonnes.

Transport costs are minimal for refrigerated meat. First cargo from Australia to the UK was in 1880.

Very soon the UK will be allowing more duty free beef from Oz than the EU will from the rest of the world. 110,000 tonnes would covers what the EU currently allows in at zero ‘Grain Fed Beef’ and 20% tariff 'High Quality Beef'.

UK farmers didn't win this round.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK Government and officials are not to be trusted and we cannot believe any agreement they negotiate and sign.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1405084364342546432?s=20



You could get away with this sort of rubbish if Labour was in charge of the negotiations, but that you yourself led the talks makes this astonishing. He doesn't understand or he is willfully being ignorant of the agreement. Either one means he is unfit to run his monthly budget for shopping at home, nevermind the biggest negotiations the country has faced in a generation.

That reminds me of the Garda being asked, under oath, if he knew some fact, which he clearly did but appears to be denying that he knew that fact. His reply - 'Well, I did not know it officially!'

So Lord Frost, Minister, was not informed by the negotiator, David Frost.

Seth Brundle

It goes further with Frost seemingly saying that they don't trust the EU and the Uk should oversee any SPS agreement...
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1405089972408000515
and...
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1405093121483067393

This apopears to be a clear indication that the UK will move further away from the EU and the TCA and that they will not inmplement the NIP. Trouble ahead for sure.

He also seems to allude to the July marching season in NI and how they will do things unilaterally to suit themselves...
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1405088394015805440

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

He doesn't understand or he is willfully being ignorant of the agreement. Either one means he is unfit to run his monthly budget for shopping at home, nevermind the biggest negotiations the country has faced in a generation.

Or, he knows exactly what he was signing and agreeing to and they never had even the remostest intention of following it through.

It was simply a step. They needed to 'Get Brexit done". That was it. What came next was the next fight.

Sign a deal, any deal, bask in the collection worship and audulation and then go about ignoring the deal and see how far you can get away with it.

When inevitably the EU raises concerns, simply blame legalese and interpretation and that if ony others would understand what was really meant then the EU could stop bing bullies!

Its a win/win for Johnson and Frost. They very much know what they are doing. This has nothing to do with ignorance.

dogbert27

Leroy42 wrote: »

Or, he knows exactly what he was signing and agreeing to and they never had even the remostest intention of following it through.

It was simply a step. They needed to 'Get Brexit done". That was it. What came next was the next fight.

Sign a deal, any deal, bask in the collection worship and audulation and then go about ignoring the deal and see how far you can get away with it.

When inevitably the EU raises concerns, simply blame legalese and interpretation and that if ony others would understand what was really meant then the EU could stop bing bullies!

Its a win/win for Johnson and Frost. They very much know what they are doing. This has nothing to do with ignorance.

Maybe not ingorance but they are certainly being ignorant.

Enzokk

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1405089107412455425?s=20

Don’t know how many times this needs to be said before it’s fully accepted as true.
NI Protocol is a technical trading arrangement to manage the disruption of #Brexit for the island of #Ireland to the greatest extent possible…. It’s not about constitutional matters. - Simon Coveney tweet in reply to below

For the record

Lord Frost confirms to NIAC "that the protocol is 100% clear that nothing in it affects the territorial integrity" of the UK.
it's "clear" that constitutional change to NI not part of NIP.
Hoare: So it's a trade agreement not constitutional agreement - Lisa O'Carroll tweet

Simon Coveney commenting on the appearance of Frost this morning. Seems to blow one of the UK negotiation points out of the water. The NIP does not violate the constitutional integrity of NI and it is only to do with trade.

timetogo1

Another win for the Australia trade deal.

UK citizens can now get a working holiday visa up to the age of 35

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/australia-trade-deal-uk-working-holiday-visas-b1866384.html

Yay.

So that brings them up to the same age as Irish citizens, French & Canadians
https://www.dfa.ie/irish-embassy/australia/our-services/visas/working-holiday-authorisation/

RobMc59

timetogo1 wrote: »

Another win for the Australia trade deal.

UK citizens can now get a working holiday visa up to the age of 35

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/australia-trade-deal-uk-working-holiday-visas-b1866384.html

Yay.

So that brings them up to the same age as Irish citizens, French & Canadians
https://www.dfa.ie/irish-embassy/australia/our-services/visas/working-holiday-authorisation/

According to the link you provided British citizens can extend their stay up to three years under the proposed agreement whilst EU citizens can stay for one year according to information online.

Leroy42

Its the fact thet the UK haven't even tried to implement it. They simply decided its a bit complicated and so they are not going to bother.

If they tried it for a year or two, even the EU could see what bits needed work and I am sure they could be resolved.

This blancket 'it is impossible and will never work' leaves no room for any discussion.

Nody

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to the link you provided British citizens can extend their stay up to three years under the proposed agreement whilst EU citizens can stay for one year according to information online.

You need better sources then. Irish and French have up to 35 years; rest of EU 30 years. Hence what EU countries already had before Brexit UK now managed to negotiate as well and they only got it because UK allowed Aussies to do the same (i.e. more immigration but immigration UK always had control over to limit or allow as they saw fit as it's not an EU competency):

The “rite of passage” working holiday visa allowing Australians to work and travel in the United Kingdom when international borders reopen will be retained and extended to people aged 35 under a new free trade deal.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed the FTA agreement in principle today with the fine print to be thrashed out in coming days.

Currently, Australian citizens between the ages of 18 and 30 are eligible for the Working Holiday visa (Subclass 417), which allows you to work and travel in Britain for up to two years.

To be eligible you need to be under the age of 30 and have £2530 ($4628) in savings in your bank account for 30 consecutive days.

But under the changes agreed to by Britain, Australians aged up to 35 will now be able to apply for the working visas.

You will also be able to stay longer with the new visa to grant working rights for up to three years.

Bundling it with the FTA I guess is more to give some good news because I'm quite certain Australia would have struck the immigration deal with UK without a FTA as well.

breatheme

ckeng wrote: »

Do you think the Australians would describe it in the same way? I'm sure many Aussies would argue that, in economic terms at least, the UK was tried, tested and found wanting when they chose the EEC over the commonwealth back in the '60s.

I hear this get peddled every now ant then... But Australia was also keen to unshackle itself from Britain and do more business with the US and China. It was one of the main drivers from changing the Australian Pound (in Imperial) to the Australian Dollar (to better align with the decimal dollar).

timetogo1

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to the link you provided British citizens can extend their stay up to three years under the proposed agreement whilst EU citizens can stay for one year according to information online.

Third Working Holiday visa
This visa lets people 18 to 30 years old (inclusive) - and Canadian, French and Irish citizens 18 to 35 years old (inclusive) - who currently hold, or who have held, a second Working Holiday visa, have a third working holiday in Australia.

That's from the Australian government site

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/work-holiday-417

What site are you using?

RobMc59

timetogo1 wrote: »

Another win for the Australia trade deal.

UK citizens can now get a working holiday visa up to the age of 35

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/australia-trade-deal-uk-working-holiday-visas-b1866384.html

Yay.

So that brings them up to the same age as Irish citizens, French & Canadians
https://www.dfa.ie/irish-embassy/australia/our-services/visas/working-holiday-authorisation/

timetogo1 wrote: »

Third Working Holiday visa
This visa lets people 18 to 30 years old (inclusive) - and Canadian, French and Irish citizens 18 to 35 years old (inclusive) - who currently hold, or who have held, a second Working Holiday visa, have a third working holiday in Australia.

That's from the Australian government site

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/work-holiday-417

What site are you using?

I was quoting from this:

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/working_abroad/working_outside_the_eu.html

timetogo1

RobMc59 wrote: »

I was quoting from this:

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/working_abroad/working_outside_the_eu.html

It doesn't mention extending an Australian visa at all. But I'll stop asking about it now. I just thought it was funny that it's being posted as a win in a trade deal in the UK when it's just catching up with us.

RobMc59

timetogo1 wrote: »

It doesn't mention extending an Australian visa at all

No,it says how long EU citizens can stay.
The extension to three years for UK citizens is in the link you posted.

Leroy42

But you can see now that the 'benefit' is nothing of the sort. It could have been got while the UK were still in the EU, as the French and Ireland already have it.

So whilst it may be welcomed, it has nothing to do with Brexit Britain.

So, again, the government are trying to mislead people. Shocked I am!

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

But you can see now that the 'benefit' is nothing of the sort. It could have been got while the UK were still in the EU, as the French and Ireland already have it.

So whilst it may be welcomed, it has nothing to do with Brexit Britain.

So, again, the government are trying to mislead people. Shocked I am!

This link shows the UK see any potential deal as a gateway to that region which is a burgeoning market.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/business/britain-australia-trade-deal.html

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

This link shows the UK see any potential deal as a gateway to that region which is a burgeoning market.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/business/britain-australia-trade-deal.html

Paywalled. What are the particular points? How much growth is expected and who is forecasting this growth (we know it can't be experts).

Given the UK government are saying this may! result in .02% GDP growth it is hardly something to get excited about.

So instead of the benefit of the trade deal itself, we now have to wait to future, as yet unknown, trade deals with other countires which apparently this deal gives the Uk and advantage in securing.

So yet again Brexit will deliver something in the future. No one can say when, how are where, and no one seems to be able to give an answer as to what the UK are supposed to do while they wait for this new age to arrive.

paul71

Australia beware, wait a few months UK government on previous form will impliment the aspects of the deal that suit them and refuse to adhere to aspects of the deal that do not.

Strazdas

RobMc59 wrote: »

This link shows the UK see any potential deal as a gateway to that region which is a burgeoning market.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/business/britain-australia-trade-deal.html

Debatable if the UK would ever be able to take advantage of it. This was always a Brexiteer fantasy, ditch the EU and start trading with the Pacific nations instead, but it was mostly being pushed by people who hadn't a clue about how international trade works.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

What are the particular points? How much growth is expected and who is forecasting this growth (we know it can't be experts).

There are none. You just have to believe!

RobMc59 wrote: »

This link shows the UK see any potential deal as a gateway to that region which is a burgeoning market.

Yeah. The government says it's a gateway. Great. Is that the same region that includes China? Because the article also says this deal (that isn't actually a deal) is great for Australian beef farmers and wine growers because it'll make up for their loss of access to the Chinese market.

It's all spin, spin, spin, spin, spin. As pointed out by myself and others, Ireland has exactly the same access through our EU gateway and our own trade and diplomatic missions (no shiny new boat needed). The difference between us and the UK being that we actively pursue those new markets using those existing networks and are way ahead of the UK on a per-capita basis, and (in the case of China, for example) in real fiscal terms.

What, then, can you point to in the information published to date that shows that this new agreement offers the UK any advantage over and above what it enjoyed up until it left the EU?

Quin_Dub

I've yet to see or hear anything that the UK Government have achieved (or even plan to achieve) that they either didn't already have within the EU or couldn't have gotten within the EU anyway.

All this upset and damage , just so things can have a Union Jack on them instead of an EU logo?

Strazdas

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I've yet to see or hear anything that the UK Government have achieved (or even plan to achieve) that they either didn't already have within the EU or couldn't have gotten within the EU anyway.

All this upset and damage , just so things can have a Union Jack on them instead of an EU logo?

Everything about Brexit was purely political. Their dislike of "foreigners" in the EU trumped everything : the economic / trade arguments were tacked on to justify their dislike of said foreigners. Many of the original Eurosceptics never even relied on economic arguments to criticise the EU.

Professor Moriarty

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I've yet to see or hear anything that the UK Government have achieved (or even plan to achieve) that they either didn't already have within the EU or couldn't have gotten within the EU anyway.

All this upset and damage , just so things can have a Union Jack on them instead of an EU logo?

Get Brexit done. Take back control. Brexit means Brexit. 350m extra per week for the NHS.

What part of these political positions do you not understand?

RobMc59

Strazdas wrote: »

Debatable if the UK would ever be able to take advantage of it. This was always a Brexiteer fantasy, ditch the EU and start trading with the Pacific nations instead, but it was mostly being pushed by people who hadn't a clue about how international trade works.

According to this link,the UK has been beavering away in regards to trade deals post brexit.
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/ey-brexit/status-of-uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to this link,the UK has been beavering away in regards to trade deals post brexit.
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/ey-brexit/status-of-uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries

And? That is the very least they should be doing. What really matters is the mess they have made of the biggest single trade deal they have tried to do, signing off on a deal that they either didn't understand or never intended to implement. And yet we are supposed to believe that these same people have any ability to get better trade deals in the future?

So even if they are busy with loads of trade deals, it won't come close to replacing what they lost, it won't come close to making up for the amount of time and effort that expended.

Imagine, if they weren't wasting all this time on Brexit, imagine that they put that money into schools. Or dealing with the cladding legacy issues highlighted by Grenfell? Or invested in green fuel technologies? Or upped the state welfare such that people didn't need food banks. Or bothered to go to Cobra meetings to get ahead of the Covid pandemic.

But instead we should somehow be impressed that the very job they said would be done in no time at all, is now taking up valuable time and resources?