nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

This is the tenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread, so Ive copied ACDs comments from the last thread to here. Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mrbrianj

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Landed plenty of times (Shannon and Dublin), including a flight from US, with the gardai waving people on he seen with irish passport cover, not even stopping to look inside.

Dont think the Guards do that any longer in Dublin, Border management unit or something- I might be wrong though, never paid much attention on the race to the car park!

Quin_Dub

brickster69 wrote: »

Good point. Every company in the world has to make good that conform to the market they are sending goods to. That is globally not just the EU.

The onus is on the importer that the goods conform to those standards, if they don't they send them back.

Take Airbus for example. Airbus UK make wings for Airbus planes, do you think they will suddenly start making wings that do not conform to EU standards. Considering Airbus have a five year order backlog it would halt production of all Airbus planes. Late completion penalties which those contracts would have would bankrupt them in a year.

Do you think UK carmakers will not make cars that do not conform to EU standards and likewise EU companies will make cars that do not conform to UK standards.

But this is where the issue starts to arise for the UK - You are right , orders in flight are grand , but outside the EU they will now have to do extra/different paperwork for certification/re-certification going forward.

The other issue that they'll have is that as they sign all these wonderful new trade deals theey have to decide who's standards they'll align with.

For things like Aircraft , there's probably a global standard , but for a lot of other stuff , who do they choose?

EU or US?

And unlike the EU or the US they are not even close to being big enough to get the other side to change to meet their standards.

EU can tell the US - "Comply with our rules or you're not getting in" , and the US can reciprocate.

UK will have to do what they are told and that forces them to choose..Which is a Big problem for the UK.

CelticRambler

brickster69 wrote: »

If you were a company selling weedkiller for example. You would make a production run of that ( batch ) and test it and send a report to the importer that it conforms to standards.

Indeed you would, and you would make sure that the lab you used was EU certified, because otherwise the report wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. As of Brexit-day, every UK lab loses its EU certification, so your weedkiller manufacturer will have to send their sample to a different lab.

Some UK-based laboratories have already opened satellite facilities in EU countries, to be able to maintain relationships with their customers, but it's not cheap. The EU has also indicated that it will (unilaterally) retrospectively recognise certain certifying institutions provided that they put in a formal request for EU approval as third-country agencies - on the grounds that the guys and gals in "Brussels" know perfectly well that after 40 years of good work, a British lab isn't going to suddenly go rogue on Brexit-Day +2d

But that kind of friendly cooperation depends on Britain's political leadership also showing good will; and the EU has reserved the right to pull the plug on any or all such unilateral concessions if/when it feels the need to do so. Think that's an idle threat? Exhibit S: Switzerland.

Quin_Dub

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Landed plenty of times (Shannon and Dublin), including a flight from US, with the gardai waving people on he seen with irish passport cover, not even stopping to look inside.

To be fair , that used to be the case , but they've stopped doing that and every passport gets a scan now..

They do barely look at the Irish ones , but they do scan them all now...

VinLieger

brickster69 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that every single item that come into the EU is taken away to some lab and taken apart and tested that it conforms to stands.

If you were a company selling weedkiller for example. You would make a production run of that ( batch ) and test it and send a report to the importer that it conforms to standards.

Then the importer will check that batch that it does conform to those standards.If they match which they will off you go. Trade is carried out by businesses not some cronies sat in Brussels you know.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and making this up as you go along because i suspect you well know your argument has zero sense behind it but like many brexiteers you've nailed your colours to the mast and cannot admit to being wrong about anything.

If the item is produced within the EU then it is subject to EU regulations and checks, every item is of course not individually checked however if even one item is reported to fall outside regulations they can be reported and potentially fines issued as punishment to ensure it doesn't happen going forward. If the UK is outside the EU what incentive is there for them to adhere to regulations if their companies are not subject to the regluation oversight and potential fines? This is why anything coming from the UK in the case of no deal needs to be checked more thoroughly.

brickster69

Enzokk wrote: »

Does it matter? There will need to be extra work to confirm that goods are up to regulation if the UK leaves the regulatory agencies of the EU, do you agree with that?

Do you honestly believe that every single item that come into the EU is taken away to some lab and taken apart and tested that it conforms to stands.

If you were a company selling weedkiller for example. You would make a production run of that ( batch ) and test it and send a report to the importer that it conforms to standards.

Then the importer will check that batch that it does conform to those standards.If they match which they will off you go. Trade is carried out by businesses not some cronies sat in Brussels you know.

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

Which way, UK to EU or EU to UK ?

Does it matter? There will need to be extra work to confirm that goods are up to regulation if the UK leaves the regulatory agencies of the EU, do you agree with that?

brickster69

Enzokk wrote: »

How do you know they conform to those standards?

Which way, UK to EU or EU to UK ?

brickster69

trellheim wrote: »

So are you personally guaranteeing EASA certification of those wings ? Luckily for you EU gave the UK a nine-month exemption to get its house in order but "Do not waste this time" seems to have been ignored

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0494&from=EN

Tell them to cancel it if they want. Set up a new factory, employ and train new staff and everything should be ok in 5 years. Meanwhile there will be a bit of a jam at the assembly plants for planes awaiting some wings to arrive.

trellheim

brickster69 wrote: »

Good point. Every company in the world has to make good that conform to the market they are sending goods to. That is globally not just the EU.

The onus is on the importer that the goods conform to those standards, if they don't they send them back.

Take Airbus for example. Airbus UK make wings for Airbus planes, do you think they will suddenly start making wings that do not conform to EU standards. Considering Airbus have a five year order backlog it would halt production of all Airbus planes. Late completion penalties which those contracts would have would bankrupt them in a year.

Do you think UK carmakers will not make cars that do not conform to EU standards and likewise EU companies will make cars that do not conform to UK standards.

So are you personally guaranteeing EASA certification of those wings ? Luckily for you EU gave the UK a nine-month exemption to get its house in order but "Do not waste this time" seems to have been ignored

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0494&from=EN

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

They do not have to make concessions. They have the standards which they have now. If anyone want's to carry on trading with EU companies they have to conform to those standards. Same the other way for example if the UK said a certain percentage of parts in a car has to be made in the UK then car importers have to abide by that regulation.

How do you know they conform to those standards?

brickster69

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The problem with crashing out is that nothing is agreed. Either the EU adheres to its regulations or it doesn't. If it makes an exception for the UK then it will be seen as weak and it can't afford to be seen as weak. So it must rigorously enforce its regulations. This means that British manufacturing will essentially grind to a halt as there will no longer be regulatory alignment. Maybe the EU will make some concessions - who knows?

They do not have to make concessions. They have the standards which they have now. If anyone want's to carry on trading with EU companies they have to conform to those standards. Same the other way for example if the UK said a certain percentage of parts in a car has to be made in the UK then car importers have to abide by that regulation.

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

Good point. Every company in the world has to make good that conform to the market they are sending goods to. That is globally not just the EU.

The onus is on the importer that the goods conform to those standards, if they don't they send them back.

Take Airbus for example. Airbus UK make wings for Airbus planes, do you think they will suddenly start making wings that do not conform to EU standards. Considering Airbus have a five year order backlog it would halt production of all Airbus planes. Late completion penalties which those contracts would have would bankrupt them in a year.

Do you think UK carmakers will not make cars that do not conform to EU standards and likewise EU companies will make cars that do not conform to UK standards.

Production will not stop immediately, but taking Airbus as an example. If they are suddenly incurring extra cost for documentation or tariffs for wings from the UK they will start making plans to open a new wing factory in a EU country. This will take years to set up, but once that ball starts rolling then investment in the UK slows down and will eventually stop.

Airbus has margins of 5% or so (doesn't sound great but if you get a 5% margin on a aircraft that cost 125m euro then it is a lot). It may even be less than that so if you add extra cost to their manufacturing you are playing with fire. They will look for alternatives and they will ask people to move to other EU countries from Wales if it is in the interest of the company.

Professor Moriarty

brickster69 wrote: »

Good point. Every company in the world has to make good that conform to the market they are sending goods to. That is globally not just the EU.

The onus is on the importer that the goods conform to those standards, if they don't they send them back.

Take Airbus for example. Airbus UK make wings for Airbus planes, do you think they will suddenly start making wings that do not conform to EU standards. Considering Airbus have a five year order backlog it would halt production of all Airbus planes. Late completion penalties which those contracts would have would bankrupt them in a year.

Do you think UK carmakers will not make cars that do not conform to EU standards and likewise EU companies will make cars that do not conform to UK standards.

The problem with crashing out is that nothing is agreed. Either the EU adheres to its regulations or it doesn't. If it makes an exception for the UK then it will be seen as weak and it can't afford to be seen as weak. So it must rigorously enforce its regulations. This means that British manufacturing will essentially grind to a halt as there will no longer be regulatory alignment. Maybe the EU will make some concessions - who knows?

Enzokk

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I can't understand why the Labour party hasn't turfed Corbyn out on his ear. He's worse than useless. Deliberately refusing to score an open goal. A perfect moment where service to the nation and political desires are coalescing and he's likely to squander the opportunity and condemn the country to ruin.

Madness.

The problem is if the Labour PLP calls a vote again against Corbyn but they cannot remove him he is immune from any challenge. That is what happened with the last vote for leadership and another would cement him in the party, no matter what.

So the only way to get rid of Corbyn is to show Labour members how unelectable he is during a general election. It worked against him the last time as May was even worse and her policies were terrible so he was able to do very well. But in the next election? The same way that some of us are of the opinion that the UK must leave without a deal to know their place in the world, with Labour they need to be lose a lot of seats due to the incompetence of Corbyn before they can get rid of him. It's the same principle and it does seem to be trending that way and in a new election they will have to contend with the Lib Dems.

At the previous election they were a non-entity, but in the next one they will stand a good chance of taking seats from Labour. This will in turn make them more electable for the next election (if they don't go into coalition again that is) which should reinforce they could replace Labour for a lot of people. That is why after the EU elections you saw a rise of attacks against them from the Labour cheerleaders. They recognize what a threat they are to Corbyn.

brickster69

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If the UK doesn't have regulatory alignment with the EU, what will happen Airbus? What will happen car manufacturing? What will happen to food production?

Good point. Every company in the world has to make good that conform to the market they are sending goods to. That is globally not just the EU.

The onus is on the importer that the goods conform to those standards, if they don't they send them back.

Take Airbus for example. Airbus UK make wings for Airbus planes, do you think they will suddenly start making wings that do not conform to EU standards. Considering Airbus have a five year order backlog it would halt production of all Airbus planes. Late completion penalties which those contracts would have would bankrupt them in a year.

Do you think UK carmakers will not make cars that do not conform to EU standards and likewise EU companies will make cars that do not conform to UK standards.

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

Read it here or is it something they've said? Because if the former, it's just somebody's wish list and has no basis in fact. If the latter, have you a source?

Edit: If you've read it here, would you mind quoting the post? It at least gives the person who posted it the chance to defend their position and stops the rest of us running around the internet looking for the story.

Sorry, i didnt phrase that post way i should. I meant i had read the odd comment on twitter and elsewhere that they should be targetting Corbyns seat, not that they actually were, so my bad on that. Pretty sure i did read something to that nature in one of the papers over last couple of weeks, but should have noted it down because i cant recall where exactly. Not that i'd think it's a position that would have to be defended. Any party or alliance is open to target Corbyns seat if they desire, but i dont think they'd have much chance of success. Could cause him some stress and embarrassment though perhaps.

Edit: actually, couldnt get it out of my head, just knew i'd come across the suggestion somewhere and then it came back to me: Nick Cohen in the spectator where it's discussed towards end of the blog. Have to say, i wouldnt be taking it seriously, as much as i have respect for Cohen.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/the-remain-alliance-that-could-spoil-boris-johnsons-party/

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There will be zero swing from the Tories so.

Probably very little you'd think. Though with Johnsons openly offensive comments in the past, it might give some tory moderate voters something to think about. I would think, as with 2017, the labour strategy will revolve around mobilising new voters. Whether it works or not, no real clue.

Professor Moriarty

brickster69 wrote: »

Not really, you just do not know what you are talking about.

Are you saying that every EU country will not be able to sell goods to the UK because they need to have a trade agreement in place, which could take ten years.

It's the interconnectedness of Britain's economy. Look at the border in Ireland. There are foods whose constituent parts cross the border seven times before they are made. If the UK doesn't have regulatory alignment with the EU, what will happen Airbus? What will happen car manufacturing? What will happen to food production?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I've issued a ban for an uncivil and non-constructive post. Serious discussion only, please.

brickster69

SNIP.

Are you saying that every EU country will not be able to sell goods to the UK because they need to have a trade agreement in place, which could take ten years.

brickster69

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Pretty sure every other country in the world that has access to EU markets overcome those easily enough.

Yes. Through trade negotiations. Which can take up to a decade to conclude to agreement.[/QUOTE]

Every Nation on the planet can sell products to another without discrimination. It has nothing to do with trade negotiations.

Stop moaning ffs

brickster69 wrote: »

Tariffs won't be the UK's biggest problem, it will be regulations.

Pretty sure every other country in the world that has access to EU markets overcome those easily enough.[/quote]

Yes. Through trade negotiations. Which can take up to a decade to conclude to agreement.

Laois_Man

Peregrinus wrote: »

But looking at the UK's goods exports:

- 48% will be unaffected by Brexit (because they don't go to the EU)

This appears to fail to take account of the Trade Agreements ("Free" or otherwise) with non EU markets but which the EU have negotiated and which the UK loses access to on October 31st!

brickster69

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

could you share the source for the numbers you posted ?
cheers

Tariffs won't be the UK's biggest problem, it will be regulations.[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure every other country in the world that has access to EU markets overcome those easily enough.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I have read about the remain alliance targetting Corbyns seat. What a waste of energy and resources. Corbyn had over 70% of the vote in 2017 and has previously got by on 40%. I would imagine it's more to do with getting as much an anti-Corbyn message out there as possible as with any serious electoral strategy in mind.

Read it here or is it something they've said? Because if the former, it's just somebody's wish list and has no basis in fact. If the latter, have you a source?

Edit: If you've read it here, would you mind quoting the post? It at least gives the person who posted it the chance to defend their position and stops the rest of us running around the internet looking for the story.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I have read about the remain alliance targetting Corbyns seat. What a waste of energy and resources. Corbyn had over 70% of the vote in 2017 and has previously got by on 40%. I would imagine it's more to do with getting as much an anti-Corbyn message out there as possible as with any serious electoral strategy in mind.

Johnson is a more interesting scenario i think. Had his majority halved in 2017 and interestingly, Labour are fielding a young Muslim immigrant against him who will be targeting a somewhat dormant big student population in the constituency to help close the gap. The heathrow issue could be another complication. Voting pacts are the other potential dealbreaker, but hard to know how they might work. Uxbridge & Sth Ruislip was a 57% leave constituency in 2016 referendum, but many polls suggest the pendulum has swung slightly back to remain in the meantime.

There will be zero swing from the Tories so.

Joe_ Public

I have read about the remain alliance targetting Corbyns seat. What a waste of energy and resources. Corbyn had over 70% of the vote in 2017 and has previously got by on 40%. I would imagine it's more to do with getting as much an anti-Corbyn message out there as possible as with any serious electoral strategy in mind.

Johnson is a more interesting scenario i think. Had his majority halved in 2017 and interestingly, Labour are fielding a young Muslim immigrant against him who will be targeting a somewhat dormant big student population in the constituency to help close the gap. The heathrow issue could be another complication. Voting pacts are the other potential dealbreaker, but hard to know how they might work. Uxbridge & Sth Ruislip was a 57% leave constituency in 2016 referendum, but many polls suggest the pendulum has swung slightly back to remain in the meantime.

McGiver

prawnsambo wrote: »

I wonder will Johnson have the nerve to come out with this guff when he meets Macron and Merkel:

I suspect Macron will have just two words for him; the second being 'off'. Merkel may be a bit more restrained, but the undemocratic backstop stuff would be enough to try a saint.

Somehow I don't think he will have the nerve. I'd love to be a fly on the wall though.

I think they will all democratically (i.e. in consensus

) tell him to bugger off at the G7 and the EU summit.

ancapailldorcha

trellheim wrote: »

That's the Morning Star, Corbyn's favourite newspaper ( voice of the hard left ) .... the real point to draw here is that it will be very hard for Corbyn's base -for that's what this is - to stand against Brexit

Whoever is doing this is doing everything possible to stop interference with Out-by-31st-October. It will be read at the highest levels of Labour, and feeds into why Labour's less-than-wonderful opposition to Brexit.

Well, Momentum had a Brexit consultation and found:

92% of members want all Labour MPs to vote down Theresa May’s Brexit deal
89% believe a no-deal Brexit should be rejected as a viable option
82% believe Brexit is likely to make things worse for their friends, family and community.
While 41% of members support a public vote in all circumstances a total of 57% either prioritise a General Election over a public vote or do not want any public vote
97% of respondents signed a petition calling on Theresa May to immediately end the uncertainty around the rights and status of EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU.

https://peoplesmomentum.com/2018/11/06/brexit-consultation/

The Labour party is now in a politically perverse place where it is derided by remainers and rightly so for enabling Brexit while Leavers are convinced that it is a remain party and it's all down to Corbyn's policy of constructive ambiguity.