Brexit discussion thread II

Enzokk · 01-12-2017 10:19AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK proposal is that there will be no immigration border in Ireland, or between NI and GB. They are committed to maintaining the Common Travel Area.

Nody wrote: »

They will be implementing the border due to WTO rules however but that requires them to get sued first since they are to clueless to know that it's required. Having said that note how the word most commonly used is "We don't want a border" rather than "There will never be a border".

Listening to the statements at the moment it seems that Brexiteers think that they can just ignore the border if they want to. They have abdicated all responsibility of maintaining a border to the EU and if there is a border it will be the EU's fault. Is this the same as the divorce bill? Where they all were saying that they don't have to pay anything but it turns out that they in fact do have to pay?

Peregrinus · 01-12-2017 10:22AM

Nody wrote: »

They will be implementing the border due to WTO rules however but that requires them to get sued first since they are to clueless to know that it's required. Having said that note how the word most commonly used is "We don't want a border" rather than "There will never be a border".

WTO rules don't require them to control migration in any way - the WTO MFN requirements apply to trade, not migration.

If they leave the EU without a trade deal then, yes, they have to control trade across their border with the EU (or else open all their borders to unrestricted trade with the entire world). A few Brexiters who are solid bone from ear to ear - most recently Kate Hoey, I think - have suggested that they would not control the Irish border at all, but the UK government has never suggested that.

Nody · 01-12-2017 10:27AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Listening to the statements at the moment it seems that Brexiteers think that they can just ignore the border if they want to. They have abdicated all responsibility of maintaining a border to the EU and if there is a border it will be the EU's fault. Is this the same as the divorce bill? Where they all were saying that they don't have to pay anything but it turns out that they in fact do have to pay?

Peregrinus touched on it below but it's very simple; whatever controls they do on EU goods they can do on goods from everyone else importing; whatever controls they don't do on EU goods they can't do on anyone else importing. Hence if they leave the border open as now they would not be allowed to do any controls on any goods of any kind imported from anywhere in the world; think a moment on Chinese export without any checks on quality, content etc. flowing into UK and the screams that would raise. That is why there will be a border in the north with controls short of the best trade deal in the word for EU (we get unlimited access to your market without controls but we keep all our controls on our side for your goods) being implemented.

flaneur · 01-12-2017 10:58AM

The fundamental problem is that the DUP and the right wing of the Tories and UKIP are all expressions of the same thing - British nationalism.

Without an assembly in Northern Ireland you will probably just see it being cut off by a border. You are getting undiluted DUP policies in a way that was never envisioned by the Good Friday Agreement because of the weird alignment of political circumstances in London

I think any deal on Northern Ireland, certainly with the current politics in London, is going to be impossible.

kowtow · 01-12-2017 11:19AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat. Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it? Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them. By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground. Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2. It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

It's worth remembering that there is a very clear distinction in the British constitution between the person and the office. That Trump occupies the office of President is unfortunate, but remember that it is impossible for Donald Trump to come on a state visit to anywhere, only the President of the United States, an office currently occupied by Trump, can come on a state visit.

May is not in Trump's pockets, even if there had been no Brexit she would still be saying similar things where the U.S. is concerned - diplomacy is aimed at the Office and the country it represents, not the man in it. It doesn't mean she likes him any more than the rest of us.

Trump has outrageous faults, but London has hosted previous occupants of the same office who have been directly responsible for torture, committed gross sexual misdemeanors, and God knows what else. In recent memory State coaches have been provided for cannibals. Diplomacy and court convention requires that we honour the office and the Nation, not the occupant of the office personally, at least within reason. Both Ireland and Britain have hosted heads of states with atrocious human rights records.

The UK will host, at some point, the President of the United States because the U.S. is a close ally, and the President was democratically elected. It's a State visit, not a political endorsement.

Red_Wake · 01-12-2017 11:37AM

kowtow wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat. Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it? Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them. By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground. Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2. It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

It's worth remembering that there is a very clear distinction in the British constitution between the person and the office. That Trump occupies the office of President is unfortunate, but remember that it is impossible for Donald Trump to come on a state visit to anywhere, only the President of the United States, an office currently occupied by Trump, can come on a state visit.

May is not in Trump's pockets, even if there had been no Brexit she would still be saying similar things where the U.S. is concerned - diplomacy is aimed at the Office and the country it represents, not the man in it. It doesn't mean she likes him any more than the rest of us.

Trump has outrageous faults, but London has hosted previous occupants of the same office who have been directly responsible for torture, committed gross sexual misdemeanors, and God knows what else. In recent memory State coaches have been provided for cannibals. Diplomacy and court convention requires that we honour the office and the Nation, not the occupant of the office personally, at least within reason. Both Ireland and Britain have hosted heads of states with atrocious human rights records.

The UK will host, at some point, the President of the United States because the U.S. is a close ally, and the President was democratically elected. It's a State visit, not a political endorsement.

Sorry for the tangent, but who does this refer to? I'm quite curious.

ArmaniJeanss · 01-12-2017 11:41AM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Sorry for the tangent, but who does this refer to? I'm quite curious.

State visits by Idi Amin of Uganda in the 1970s I guess.

Leroy42 · 01-12-2017 11:41AM

You completely miss my point. Brexit has meant that the UK, already having as many countries do, to rely on the US, now need them even more. Of course at some stage Trump will depart but the core balance of the relationship will not change. What has changed is that by leaving the EU, UK now is 60 million vs 350 million rather than a combined 500 million v 350 million.

And Trump, as much as Putin, knows this. A fractured Europe is in their interests. Then the US can start to demand things like chlorinated chicken, GM crops etc etc, and UK will have little option but to agree. There are the little things. Privatisation of the NHS etc is the bigger thing.

It goes back to the distinction between sovereignty and control. The world has changed such that very few countries can exit without joining with others.

It is easier for Ireland to accept that as we don't have a history of being in charge, so if we pulled out of EU we would need to enter into agreements with UK or US. We would probably end up worse off in terms of control than before. But the world has changed from the time Uk stood alone and could dictate across the world.

You had equal say in 28 and felt that you couldn't get want you wanted. Now you will significantly less say in numerous relationships and expect to have more! For US you can also out in issues with China & Russia.

murphaph · 01-12-2017 12:07PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

At arm's length, but with a totally open border?

Yes. The way it is today. Open border but the UK's problem.

murphaph · 01-12-2017 12:14PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat. Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it? Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them. By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground. Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2. It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

Good comparison with Ireland. We were sovereign but still in the UK's shadow for decades with little power/control. We now have the apparent upper hand but we actually surrendered some sovereignty to the EU to gain that power.

Interesting dynamic for sure.

kowtow · 01-12-2017 12:14PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Then the US can start to demand things like chlorinated chicken, GM crops etc etc, and UK will have little option but to agree.

Take your point on the sovereignty / control thing. The detailed analysis of it up the thread was thoughtful and thought provoking.

At a slight tangent I do wonder whether anybody - in the UK, the US, or anywhere else is ever going to be able to sell a chlorine washed chicken again after the press it has been getting. Nobody hates industrial food production more than I do, and if I had my way everybody would eat local chicken - but washing a carcass in dilute chlorine seems an odd choice to demonize as a food safety standard. The reality is, of course, that it is not washing itself (there is plenty of chlorine around Irish food premises) but what it might cover up which people are worried about.

And as for GM - we haven't yet found an economic way to produce GM free milk in Ireland, despite the demand for it, because we already rely on cheap GM protein crop imports to feed our cows.

Panrich · 01-12-2017 12:46PM

murphaph wrote: »

Good comparison with Ireland. We were sovereign but still in the UK's shadow for decades with little power/control. We now have the apparent upper hand but we actually surrendered some sovereignty to the EU to gain that power.

Interesting dynamic for sure.

I'd liken taking back control in the case of Brexit to a decision to give up your job.

You might decide to quit your current job and venture forward into the marketplace with high expectations of getting a better job in the near future as the job you just quit was increasingly becoming a bit of a bore although the pay and conditions were by no means bad. Just that there were a few people who you didn't get on with and some things that you felt could be better.

Now that you've quit, you are free to manage your time and take control of where you want to work. That's a great relief of relief and you start to send your cv around to the agencies. However it soon turns out that you've been employed so long in the one job and have failed to keep your qualifications up to date and have done no real analysis of the jobs market in your area prior to quittng.

Now you thought at the worst that your old company would be glad to give you agency work to tide you over as you felt that you had unique qualifications and experience that would be impossible to replace. However, they too seem to be a bit put out by the circumstances of your leaving, and are putting a lot of unreasonable demands on conditions of how you might get work there in future.

So as you sit in total control of your destiny, there is a plethora of bills to be paid and no new job on the horizon.

Professor Moriarty · 01-12-2017 12:48PM

Panrich wrote: »

I'd liken taking back control in the case of Brexit to a decision to give up your job.

You might decide to quit your current job and venture forward into the marketplace with high expectations of getting a better job in the near future as the job you just quit was increasingly becoming a bit of a bore although the pay and conditions were by no means bad. Just that there were a few people who you didn't get on with and some things that you felt could be better.

Now that you've quit, you are free to manage your time and take control of where you want to work. That's a great relief of relief and you start to send your cv around to the agencies. However it soon turns out that you've been employed so long in the one job and have failed to keep your qualifications up to date and have done no real analysis of the jobs market in your area prior to quittng.

Now you thought at the worst that your old company would be glad to give you agency work to tide you over as you felt that you had unique qualifications and experience that would be impossible to replace. However, they too seem to be a bit put out by the circumstances of your leaving, and are putting a lot of unreasonable demands on conditions of how you might get work there in future.

So as you sit in total control of your destiny, there is a plethora of bills to be paid and no new job on the horizon.

Very clever.

Lemming · 01-12-2017 12:58PM

kowtow wrote: »

At a slight tangent I do wonder whether anybody - in the UK, the US, or anywhere else is ever going to be able to sell a chlorine washed chicken again after the press it has been getting.

Quite easily unless regulatory bodies put a halt to it I should imagine. If you are in dire financial/social straits and hungry, necessity makes a cruel bed-fellow. Besides, if the media has shown nothing else is that the public as an entity has an incredibly short memory.

solodeogloria · 01-12-2017 01:02PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

And Trump, as much as Putin, knows this. A fractured Europe is in their interests. Then the US can start to demand things like chlorinated chicken, GM crops etc etc, and UK will have little option but to agree. There are the little things. Privatisation of the NHS etc is the bigger thing.

Good afternoon!

I'll never understand the fear that some people have of the nasty American boogeyman. I've got no more reasons to be suspicious of America than I do of the European Union.

Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe. I'd eat chicken without hesitation in America.

GM crops are also perfectly safe.

Having public private partnership is a rather different thing to privatisation. I have no issue at all with American firms being able to bid for public private partnership contracts on the basis of merit like any European company can do today.

I think it could be in Britain's interests to reach further across the Atlantic post-Brexit. I hope for a good partnership. I know that whatever the terms of this agreement are, they are not going to demand anywhere near the same type of terms as the EU demand of Britain today in terms of free movement, payments for access and restricting trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

swampgas · 01-12-2017 01:05PM

kowtow wrote: »

At a slight tangent I do wonder whether anybody - in the UK, the US, or anywhere else is ever going to be able to sell a chlorine washed chicken again after the press it has been getting.

My guess - a UK free of onerous EU interference would have no problem at all gutting food labelling regulations. The consumer simply won't be given the information to tell whether it's chlorine washed or not.

J Mysterio · 01-12-2017 01:22PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat. Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it? Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them. By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground. Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2. It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

Also ironic to say its the relationship that matters, forget the details.

Leroy42 · 01-12-2017 01:22PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'll never understand the fear that some people have of the nasty American boogeyman. I've got no more reasons to be suspicious of America than I do of the European Union.

Once again, you always go for the most extreme to try to make a point. Just like nobody ever claimed the City of London would be totally lost, nobody ever claimed that the US, Russia or China were bogeymen. They are trading countries with one aim, to do the best for them. They will do whatever they can to achieve that aim. if that involves being unfair to other countries then so be it.

It was one of the good things of the EU, countries couldn't just selfishly to whatever it wanted they wanted without due regard to the effect on other countries

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think it could be in Britain's interests to reach further across the Atlantic post-Brexit. I hope for a good partnership. I know that whatever the terms of this agreement are, they are not going to demand anywhere near the same type of terms as the EU demand of Britain today in terms of free movement, payments for access and restricting trade policy.

The UK couldn't get these things you hope for when an equal partner within 28, as you seem to think that the EU was talking complete advantage of the UK. I would even argue that the UK was more than just an equal partner. As one of the big countries it carried more weight than just a single vote.

How are the UK going to stop the US from doing that when they are not even close to be equal partners?

I really can't understand you logic in thinking that UK can punch so above its weight against bigger countries when, according to you, they failed to when in the EU.

Samaris · 01-12-2017 01:25PM

swampgas wrote: »

My guess - a UK free of onerous EU interference would have no problem at all gutting food labelling regulations. The consumer simply won't be given the information to tell whether it's chlorine washed or not.

Fortunately, they cannot do that (admittedly, I do not know the exact rule on notifying about chlorine rinsing). May proclaimed about taking back control of labelling. She was wrong; EU and UK are both rule-takers on labelling and will remain so under WTO trade agreements.

Side thingie, but I'm grand with no chlorinated chicken. I react badly to the stuff and even the low level chlorine in tap water doesn't do me much good (and it's not like youcan boil it out either). So I'm just fine with it staying out of Ireland, thanks, even if it is cheaper as less has to be spent keeping the chooks in healthy condition. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.

solodeogloria · 01-12-2017 01:28PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK couldn't get these things you hope for when an equal partner within 28, as you seem to think that the EU was talking complete advantage of the UK. I would even argue that the UK was more than just an equal partner. As one of the big countries it carried more weight than just a single vote.

How are the UK going to stop the US from doing that when they are not even close to be equal partners?

I really can't understand you logic in thinking that UK can punch so above its weight against bigger countries when, according to you, they failed to when in the EU.

Good afternoon!

TTIP was shelved because it was controversial amongst some EU member states. CETA was nearly shelved for that reason.

Being outside of the European Union means that that Britain can progress with trade terms with the US.

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America. So there's no point comparing what Britain could get with what the EU has decided it won't try to get.

swampgas wrote: »

My guess - a UK free of onerous EU interference would have no problem at all gutting food labelling regulations. The consumer simply won't be given the information to tell whether it's chlorine washed or not.

Why do you think this?

I personally don't think that British politicians are all of a sudden going to stop representing their constituents in this regard. I also doubt that British food regulators are going to ease back just because Brexit has been passed.

I don't know why you assume that the UK all of a sudden can't be trusted to label things properly by its own people. From day 1 the law will be exactly the same. On day X when or if they decide to change the law that will be subject to parliamentary debate. I trust my MP to represent interests in my area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

01-12-2017 01:32PM

swampgas wrote: »

My guess - a UK free of onerous EU interference would have no problem at all gutting food labelling regulations. The consumer simply won't be given the information to tell whether it's chlorine washed or not.

In my view I dont think they will gut that many regulations either when it comes down to it.

Plenty of larger food companies will still want to be exporting into the EU and will still have to follow those regulations.

"Gutting" the regulations will only create a second set of "local regulations" just for the UK.
i.e. Even more "red tape" for the companies to follow

J Mysterio · 01-12-2017 01:33PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'll never understand the fear that some people have of the nasty American boogeyman. I've got no more reasons to be suspicious of America than I do of the European Union.

Chlorinated chicken is perfectly safe. I'd eat chicken without hesitation in America.

GM crops are also perfectly safe.

Having public private partnership is a rather different thing to privatisation. I have no issue at all with American firms being able to bid for public private partnership contracts on the basis of merit like any European company can do today.

I think it could be in Britain's interests to reach further across the Atlantic post-Brexit. I hope for a good partnership. I know that whatever the terms of this agreement are, they are not going to demand anywhere near the same type of terms as the EU demand of Britain today in terms of free movement, payments for access and restricting trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Haha, just wait and see how the negotiations with a Trump administration go. They already ficked over the Airplane manafacturers in NI. Trump has no conscience when it comes to trade negotiations, he's demonstrated it a number of times. Your naivety is galling.

01-12-2017 01:41PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

Haha, just wait and see how the negotiations with a Trump administration go. They already ficked over the Airplane manafacturers in NI. Trump has no conscience when it comes to trade negotiations, he's demonstrated it a number of times. Your naivety is galling.

I would not personally blame it on Trump here either.

America is a large capitalist superpower and the US system is fairly ruthless when it wants to get its way, be it Trump/Obama/Bush etc.

UK is a close ally with the US and with Ireland (we are supposed to be friends these days you know).

But USA will treat UK as ruthlessly as the UK is going to treat Ireland.

They are big and you are small, and you NEED the deal, they dont.

Samaris · 01-12-2017 01:44PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

TTIP was shelved because it was controversial amongst some EU member states. CETA was nearly shelved for that reason.

Being outside of the European Union means that that Britain can progress with trade terms with the US.

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America. So there's no point comparing what Britain could get with what the EU has decided it won't try to get.

You are aware that the EU and US have the biggest bilateral trade deal in the world in terms of scale, right? This isn't hidden or anything. EU countries negotiating as a block just had enough punch to not take on aspects of American goods production we dislike.

I personally don't think that British politicians are all of a sudden going to stop representing their constituents in this regard. I also doubt that British food regulators are going to ease back just because Brexit has been passed.

Where do you think all this bonfire of regs thing is coming from? Why do you think there is even a debate regarding chlorine in food preservation? The EU is big enough and powerful enough to be picky. The UK will be a rule-taker in bilateral talks with the US because yhe US isn't dependent on such a deal.

I don't know why you assume that the UK all of a sudden can't be trusted to label things properly by its own people. From day 1 the law will be exactly the same.

Because the UK PM doesn't actually know where thise rules are from for a start. Not confidence-inspiring.

On day X when or if they decide to change the law that will be subject to parliamentary debate. I trust my MP to represent interests in my area.

God help the UK's collective stomachs then.

Edit; No, it won't be subject to parlimentary debate. That is one of the points of the Great Repeal Bill. There's been an effort to assure oversight, but the madder Brexiteers are taking the "Why won't you just trust us, this is so unfair" approach to it that they've taken on the Irish border. And frankly, one would be barking to trust them.

Leroy42 · 01-12-2017 01:45PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

TTIP was shelved because it was controversial amongst some EU member states. CETA was nearly shelved for that reason.

Being outside of the European Union means that that Britain can progress with trade terms with the US.

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America. So there's no point comparing what Britain could get with what the EU has decided it won't try to get.

Why do you think this?

I personally don't think that British politicians are all of a sudden going to stop representing their constituents in this regard. I also doubt that British food regulators are going to ease back just because Brexit has been passed.

I don't know why you assume that the UK all of a sudden can't be trusted to label things properly by its own people. From day 1 the law will be exactly the same. On day X when or if they decide to change the law that will be subject to parliamentary debate. I trust my MP to represent interests in my area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo, do you deliberately miss the point or it it on purpose.

The point is that you seem to think the UK will be able to get wonderful trade deals with a range of other countries including the US, while at the same time complaining that the UK were totally railroaded by the EU.

An EU which they were an early member of, and a senior member of. What give you the confidence that were they have failed for the last 40 years they will suddenly not only start to perform, but actually overperform as they are now operating without the equal status.

VinLieger · 01-12-2017 01:50PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Being outside of the European Union means that that Britain can progress with trade terms with the US.

Yeah and the US being the larger market will walk all over them and likely push the more unsavory aspects of TTIP onto the UK like the ability for corporations to sue countries for any laws they enact that could negatively affect said company. So basically they would be losing aspects of their sovereignty.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America. So there's no point comparing what Britain could get with what the EU has decided it won't try to get.

Incorrect the EU do want a deal with the US, TTIP was just a very bad deal. There is also every point in comparing both as the EU is a far larger and therefore more desirable market than the UK so the US would be far more likely to make concessions for agreement than it would be with the UK.

You really dont seem to understand how international trade deals work, maybe you should watch this to get a better understanding

01-12-2017 01:58PM

Newsnight has another video there where Pascal Lamy says "Trade negotiations are not about love, they are about hard numbers, clout, bargaining capacity.

Zubeneschamali · 01-12-2017 02:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are very clear that they don't want a trade deal with America.

This is a flat lie.

Panrich · 01-12-2017 02:05PM

Looking at the point we're at today, there must be frantic negotiations to get a deal over the line for Mondays deadline. The UK seems to have moved very quickly and far, on the money issue over the past week. They have also moved but not decisively on the border. This shows that they are finally throwing a lot of energy into breaking out of phase 1.
Now the question that remains is whether they see this as the last throw of the dice to avoid a hard Brexit or whether they are prepared to get a deal done no matter what.
From EU/Irelands part we can't go to phase 2 without certainty on what form of border if any we need to prepare for. Absent a cast in stone guarantee from London that they will take any necessary steps in phase 2 to avoid border controls, we need to start preparing for that eventuality immediately. This time critical element has not been discussed much in the media recently that I've seen, and is a prime reason why we can't let the question drag on any closer to March 2019.

solodeogloria · 01-12-2017 02:07PM

Good afternoon!

Samaris wrote: »

You are aware that the EU and US have the biggest bilateral trade deal in the world in terms of scale, right? This isn't hidden or anything. EU countries negotiating as a block just had enough punch to not take on aspects of American goods production we dislike.

The US doesn't have a free trade deal with the EU. The discussions on TTIP collapsed. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Samaris wrote: »

Where do you think all this bonfire of regs thing is coming from? Why do you think there is even a debate regarding chlorine in food preservation? The EU is big enough and powerful enough to be picky. The UK will be a rule-taker in bilateral talks with the US because yhe US isn't dependent on such a deal.

A bonfire of regulations or not is a matter for parliament when sovereignty has been regained. The same is true of every policy area that the UK wants to regain control of.

I personally think that the objections to chlorinated chicken and GM crops are nonsense. But of course this is also a matter for parliament and the trade discussions with the US.

Samaris wrote: »

God help the UK's collective stomachs then.

If these products come into the UK they will be labelled. Consumers will make their choice and the market will determine how much get bought and sold. There's absolutely nothing unsafe about chlorination.

Samaris wrote: »

Edit; No, it won't be subject to parlimentary debate. That is one of the points of the Great Repeal Bill. There's been an effort to assure oversight, but the madder Brexiteers are taking the "Why won't you just trust us, this is so unfair" approach to it that they've taken on the Irish border. And frankly, one would be barking to trust them.

Every piece of legislation that has to do with changing the standards that are in place will be subject to parliament. The proposals for Henry VIII powers were intended for dealing with technical matters such as the names of bodies. They aren't intended for substantial changes.

The legislation hasn't passed through parliament. MPs on the government and opposition benches are proposing amendments to tighten scrutiny and that's before it reaches the Lords.

I trust parliament and parliamentary process. I trust my MP to represent our areas interests.

Democracy didn't and doesn't end at Brexit. The mass participation in democracy in the UK needs to continue.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Solo, do you deliberately miss the point or it it on purpose.

Not intentionally. I respond to what I read.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The point is that you seem to think the UK will be able to get wonderful trade deals with a range of other countries including the US, while at the same time complaining that the UK were totally railroaded by the EU.

The EU are overly protectionist. The failure of TTIP to pass is just an example. The UK will be able to move more nimbly in this regard. There's a difference in economic philosophy in Britain and mainland Europe. Britain has always been more free market minded.

Leroy42 wrote: »

An EU which they were an early member of, and a senior member of. What give you the confidence that were they have failed for the last 40 years they will suddenly not only start to perform, but actually overperform as they are now operating without the equal status.

I don't think the EU has "failed" to do this. I think it doesn't want to proceed with quite a few agreements that would be beneficial for the UK.

This is where you misunderstood my reply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments