Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

No. The most favoured nation rule means if you give a concession to a product for one trading partner you must give it to all trading partners big or small, rich or poor, weak or strong.

They can negotiate free trade deals etc but the starting point as far as WTO schedules seems to be where they will stay.

And the starting point is tailored for the EU not the UK. What is the point of Brexit?

Sovereignty to have the trading relationship that suits the EU perfectly, just after removing themselves from the EU.

so what are you saying, the eu/Canada trade deal is illegal?

Junkyard Tom

Enzokk wrote: »

She will have to go against the majority of voters at her own peril in the next election

I think only 20% of unionists voted against Brexit. The bulk of that 20% would likely be UUP voters so the impact for Foster/DUP at the ballot box will be minimal.

It's the long term impact for political unionism that's going to be interesting. Non-unionists have the option to vote the northeast of Ireland out of UK jurisdiction and if austerity bites that's very much a possibility.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think only 20% of unionists voted against Brexit. The bulk of that 20% would likely be UUP voters so the impact for Foster/DUP at the ballot box will be minimal.

It's the long term impact for political unionism that's going to be interesting. Non-unionists have the option to vote the northeast of Ireland out of UK jurisdiction and if austerity bites that's very much a possibility.

If it goes tits up along the border for business and farming, Arlene's seat will be in trouble.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it goes tits up along the border for business and farming, Arlene's seat will be in trouble.

To another DUP candidate?

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

To another DUP candidate?

I think they will turn to another DUP member and the UUP (if they can take advantage)
She has potentially devasted border business and farming.

steddyeddy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The placating of the Tory right.

A bunch of toffs destroyed this economy. I hope people remember what the Tories have done.

fritzelly

Grayson wrote: »

Interesting article about brexit that raises 20 points

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/06/twenty-reasons-brexit-trickier-than-we-thought

These are two of my favourite and really show the bull that is coming out of the UK government.

The points they raise are really laughable, totally biased piece

demfad

fritzelly wrote: »

The points they raise are really laughable, totally biased piece

Can you explain why they are laughable so we can all laugh along with you?

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The placating of the Tory right.

A bunch of toffs destroyed this economy. I hope people remember what the Tories have done.

The majority of British people voted for Brexit. Tories only gave people a choice.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The majority of British people voted for Brexit. Tories only gave people a choice.

No, several tories campaigned for Brexit and lied about the implications.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The majority of British people voted for Brexit. Tories only gave people a choice.

No, several tories campaigned for Brexit and lied about the implications.

No? So the majority of British people did not vote for Brexit?

Yes politicians lied but you can't argue against that the majority of people who voted favored leaving the EU. That's how referendums work.

FrancieBrady

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No? So the majority of British people did not vote for Brexit?

Yes politicians lied but you can't argue against that the majority of people who voted favored leaving the EU. That's how referendums work.

I can argue against that all day long.

Professor Moriarty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The majority of British people voted for Brexit. Tories only gave people a choice.

Were the terms of a hard Brexit laid out for them before they voted?

Billy86

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No? So the majority of British people did not vote for Brexit?

Yes politicians lied but you can't argue against that the majority of people who voted favored leaving the EU. That's how referendums work.

This is true and they decided to vote that was without looking into the implications or fact checking, so those that voted 'no' and now feel aggrieved can only blame themselves (or at least, can principally blame themselves). Still, doesn't excuse politicians from outright lying about so many things, NHS getting £350mn a week (seriously though, how the f*** did people buy that one for a second? A year fair enough, but a week!?) still remains my personal favourite.

Billy86

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Were the terms of a hard Brexit laid out for them before they voted?

It's something they should have looked at themselves prior to voting, things like single market access, (primarily Spanish based) expats and so on, and how much this would weaken their standing. I'm pro democracy and anti Brexit, but it just showed so well exactly where the failings in democracy lie and how self-entitled, low education* gobsh*tes are there for the taking be it by Farage, by Trump, by Le Pen, or if we're honest, ultimately by Putin who is winning the information war he has waged in a way that few people have won wars so decisively before.

They voted for it, they can have it. Maybe the suffering they endure as a result might cause them to actually pay attention next time.

*Not talking formal education but people who chose not to educate themselves on the implications of voting to leave.

Professor Moriarty

Billy86 wrote: »

It's something they should have looked at themselves prior to voting, things like single market access, (primarily Spanish based) expats and so on, and how much this would weaken their standing. I'm pro democracy and anti Brexit, but it just showed so well exactly where the failings in democracy lie and how self-entitled, low education* gobsh*tes are there for the taking be it by Farage, by Trump, by Le Pen, or if we're honest, ultimately by Putin who is winning the information war he has waged in a way that few people have won wars so decisively before.

They voted for it, they can have it. Maybe the suffering they endure as a result might cause them to actually pay attention next time.

*Not talking formal education but people who chose not to educate themselves on the implications of voting to leave.

I think it's a failure of the political system in Britain. FPTP is so black and white that there is no real understanding of nuance when it comes to voting. Thus a simple binary referendum was accepted as being natural and normal. Plus, as you say, politicians lied. I do hope there's a backlash against this populist, post-truth manipulation that's manifesting itself across the world.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so what are you saying, the eu/Canada trade deal is illegal?

Now. You are saying that I am saying that. What I am saying is in the quote below pay particular attention to the bolded part.

demfad wrote: »

No. The most favoured nation rule means if you give a concession to a product for one trading partner you must give it to all trading partners big or small, rich or poor, weak or strong.

They can negotiate free trade deals etc but the starting point as far as WTO schedules seems to be where they will stay.

And the starting point is tailored for the EU not the UK. What is the point of Brexit?

Sovereignty to have the trading relationship that suits the EU perfectly, just after removing themselves from the EU.

Iwasfrozen

Billy86 wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No? So the majority of British people did not vote for Brexit?

Yes politicians lied but you can't argue against that the majority of people who voted favored leaving the EU. That's how referendums work.

This is true and they decided to vote that was without looking into the implications or fact checking, so those that voted 'no' and now feel aggrieved can only blame themselves (or at least, can principally blame themselves). Still, doesn't excuse politicians from outright lying about so many things, NHS getting £350mn a week (seriously though, how the f*** did people buy that one for a second? A year fair enough, but a week!?) still remains my personal favourite.

If you were to discount the results of a referendum because the public weren't informed then you would be discounting the results of every referendum. Including the Irish referendum which brought the various EU treaties into place.

It's the responsibility of individuals to be informed. The government must carry out the will of the public.

demfad

It gets worse.
Hard Brexiters advocating the WTO option often site countries like the US, Australia and China as countries which have no FTA with the EU but have relatively fast cross border access. Brexiters miss that although there is no FTAs, goods from these countries comply with the EUs preferential regulatory framework.
"One of the most important types of trade agreement is the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on conformity assessment. This gets round the problem of border checks, as the EU will then recognise the paperwork on product testing and conformity certification. Throw in an agreement on Customs cooperation — to ensure that official paperwork and systems mesh — and you are on your way to trouble-free border crossings." USA, China and Australia have this type of agreement. Switzerland have very extensive ones."

Otherwise.....

And, for all that, the fundamentals are quite simple. The point about the Single Market is that border checks have been eliminated. The common rules are monitored by relevant national authorities and there is mutual recognition of standards. Thus, if you so desire, you can load a truck with grommets in Glasgow and ship them all the way to Alexandroupoli on the Turkish border, with just the occasional document check.

But the moment we leave the EU, this stops. Your component manufacturer may still comply with exactly the same standards, but the testing houses and the regulatory agencies are no longer recognised. The consignment has no valid paperwork. And, without it, it must be subject to border checks, visual inspection and physical testing.

What that means in practice is that the customs inspector detains your shipment and takes samples to send to an approved testing house (one for the inspector, one for the office pool, one for the stevedores and one for the lab is often the case). Your container inspection is typically about £700 and detention costs about £80 a day for the ten days or so it will take to get your results back. Add the testing fee and you’re paying an extra £2,000 to deliver a container into the EU.

Apart from the costs, the delays are highly damaging. Many European industries have highly integrated supply chains, relying on components shipped from multiple countries right across Europe, working to a “just in time” regime. If even a small number of consignments are delayed, the whole system starts to snarl up.

Then, as European ports start having to deal with the unexpected burden of thousands of inspections, and a backlog of testing as a huge range of products sit at the ports awaiting results, the system will grind to a halt. It won’t just slow down. It will stop. Trucks waiting to cross the Channel at Dover will be backed up the motorway all the way to London.

For animal products exported to the EU, the situation is even worse — if that is possible. Products from third countries (which is now the UK) are permitted entry only through designated border inspection posts (BIPs). Only at these can they be inspected and, if necessary, detained for testing. But, for trade between the UK and EU member states, there are no designated BIPs. Until one (or more) has been nominated and equipped trade in these products stops dead — say goodbye to a £12 billion export trade.

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128

Junkyard Tom

demfad wrote: »

It gets worse.

If that comes to pass the (already underwritten) economy in the northeast is screwed and will be even more dependent on England's goodwill.

The Oxford Economics Group carried out a study specifically on Northern Ireland and explained that we stand to lose more from leaving the EU than any other part of the UK

[NI] exported £3.6bn-worth of goods to the EU in 2014. That was 61% of total goods exports. Think about that figure: 61%. Three times as much as to the United States. Meanwhile, 34% of exports from Northern Ireland go to the Republic. £2.1bn was traded freely across our shared and open border last year alone.

belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Grayson

fritzelly wrote: »

The points they raise are really laughable, totally biased piece

Which ones in particular aren't true? Because if I posted lies, I'd like to know.

BTW, the piece is supposed to be laughable. It's pointing out the stupidity of the brexiteers.

Junkyard Tom

So the UK will have to clone all EU regulations, have them written into UK legislation, and make a deal based on being a de facto EU state hoping the EU will be okay it?

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So the UK will have to clone all EU regulations, have them written into UK legislation, and make a deal based on being a de facto EU state hoping the EU will be okay it?

the eu will be fine with it, it is the obvious starting point.

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the eu will be fine with it.

Let's hope so.

it is the obvious starting point.

But 'you can’t just copy and paste EU law' due to the complexities.

Even if they did manage it the Brexitwats will kick up stink about 'straight bananas' and having to squeeze a pint of ale into a half-litre glass etc.

Firefox11

What is the UK's plan post Brexit??.....simple......become a tax haven...

McDonald's to move non-US tax base to UK

McDonald's is to move its non-US tax base from Luxembourg to the UK, the company has said. The new holding company will pay UK tax on the royalties the firm receives outside the US. McDonald's said it had chosen the UK due to the "significant number of staff" it has in London.

The Luxembourg tax affairs of the burger giant are currently under formal investigation by the European Commission.

McDonald's said that the holding company would have "responsibility for the majority of the royalties received from licensing the company's global intellectual property rights outside the US".

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38252802

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Let's hope so.



But 'you can’t just copy and paste EU law' due to the complexities.

Even if they did manage it the Brexitwats will kick up stink about 'straight bananas' and having to squeeze a pint of ale into a half-litre glass etc.

I'm sure they will, but i would imagine 90% of the "eu laws" will still be there in 50 years time anyway.

to me, the logical thing to do is just adopt every law and trade agreement currently in place and then worry about tailoring it at a later date.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm sure they will, but i would imagine 90% of the "eu laws" will still be there in 50 years time anyway.

to me, the logical thing to do is just adopt every law and trade agreement currently in place and then worry about tailoring it at a later date.

It's a two way street Fred. Adopting a trade deal requires agreement on both sides.

volchitsa

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm sure they will, but i would imagine 90% of the "eu laws" will still be there in 50 years time anyway.

to me, the logical thing to do is just adopt every law and trade agreement currently in place and then worry about tailoring it at a later date.

Bit hard to see what the point of leaving is then, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's a two way street Fred. Adopting a trade deal requires agreement on both sides.

Yes, but why would a country not agree?

Sand

volchitsa wrote: »

Bit hard to see what the point of leaving is then, isn't it? :rolleyes:

I think people are mistaking the difference between the position 3 years from now, and the position 30 years from now. I think Brexit is moronic, but its only practical to replicate the existing trading conditions as much as is possible as a short term position, rather than trying to simultaneously negotiate new deals with the EU and the entire world.

The British have already taken the view that they will transfer all EU law into British law, and then adjust it later. I don't think people should be surprised that they would take a similar view to trading terms.