Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)
Comments
-
Silent Running wrote: »I think we should have a healthy fear of the English given all that has happened in the last 4 years.
With us in the 'blast zone' and no telling what they will do in the next 4 years, showing no regard for other countries, I believe fear is justified.
To take one example, given the Windrush precedent (and the multitude of similar documentary-based failings), their steadfast and enduring refusal to issue any form of static documentation to the EU27inUK who have received settled status, looks politically-calculated to facilitate transitioning those EU27inUK under a (more-) hostile environment from 2021 onwards, at the whim of English popular opinion...and/or liability-shirking when the latest Serco/Crapita immigration status-determining algorithm comes under fire.0 -
As regards the customs and regulatory border (and its relationship to a militarised border)- yes, I know that, you know that - and everyone with a basic understanding knows that - however RobMc refuses to acknowledge it and instead parroted and continues to parrot the frankly dishonest and insulting Brexiter assertion that UK wouldn't have installed any border infrastructure in NI at all (and wouldn't have been responsible for the necessity for same) - even had the UK left the single market and customs Union. Assuming his statement were accurate, the question then arises, if true, why didn't the UK do so?
Nevertheless, I take your point.
If the UK brexited and did not enter into replacement arrangements to avoid a fiscal/regulatory border, I myself doubt that they would have failed to apply fiscal and regulatory controls at the NI/RoI border. Certain Brexiters claimed that the UK would not apply controls to the border but (a) the UK governnment never said that they would not and (b) not doing so would have created huge legal, practical and political problems for the UK. So I think those Brexiters were a bit dim, to be honest.
We'll now never know for sure, since the UK has signed up to arrangements to avoid the need for controls on the Irish border. Determined as ever to bring themselves and their country into ridicule and contempt, certain Brexiters are calling for those arrangements to be unilaterally repudiated by the UK, but I don't think the country has fallen to quite the level where it might do that.
But, hypothetically, even if the UK had not entered into the WA, and had decided not to control its border with RoI, the RoI would have controlled the border. In that situation the UK would, by its intentional and unilateral choice, have created the need for the RoI to do so, so the UK would still have been wholly responsible for the erection of the hard border, on the principle that countries, like adults, are responsible for the forseeable inevitable consequences of their actions. Again, Brexiters who don't regard the UK as a grown-up country will quibble about this, but most can grasp the point well enough.0 -
Not so much fear, as healthy scepticism about the implementation in good faith, and effective, of any measures, undertakings and assorted other positions which the UK takes over the short- to medium-term ; given their style of governance in recent times, and never less so than since last year.
To take one example, given the Windrush precedent (and the multitude of similar documentary-based failings), their steadfast and enduring refusal to issue any form of static documentation to the EU27inUK who have received settled status, looks politically-calculated to facilitate transitioning those EU27inUK under a (more-) hostile environment from 2021 onwards, at the whim of English popular opinion...and/or liability-shirking when the latest Serco/Crapita immigration status-determining algorithm comes under fire.
Doesn't the CTA between the UK and Ireland override the requirement of EU citizens to apply for settled status?0 -
0
-
Doesn't the CTA between the UK and Ireland override the requirement of EU citizens to apply for settled status?
So the (e.g.) Spanish wife of an Irish man needs to apply for Settled Status, so do their (e.g.) Polish adopted kid.0 -
Beside Peregrinus' answer, the benefit of the CTA does not extend to non-Irish and non-British family members of Irish citizens, who reside with their Irish relative in the UK under EU FoM (House of Commons Library, Research Briefing, Oct.2019).
So the (e.g.) Spanish wife of an Irish man needs to apply for Settled Status, so do their (e.g.) Polish adopted kid.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Nitpick: if the adoption was done in Ireland, or was done abroad but has been registered in Ireland, the Polish adopted child is an Irish citizen.
And that is exactly how, and why, Joe Average int'UK, whether British or not, is going to eventually experience Brexit at the coalface: when the unavoidable changes (brought about by <actual> Brexit) in the multifarious legal compact(s) underpinning his life until 1.1.21, by and large unnoticed until then, brutally collide with that life from that point forward, in so many diverse respects (personal, professional, etc).
I was following a Twitter thread about PDOs and GIs (was recently discussed in here, as I recall; think Scotch Whisky made in Spain post 1.1.21) and looked into the issue in a bit more depth, out of professional curiosity (I practice very little trademark law these days, more patents & designs; done a few collective & certification TMs in my time, but never got opportunity to act on PDO/GI). Talk about a mess, in case of no-deal!
UK's creation of a UK GI registry is typical/symptomatic of their need to replace commercially-indispensible legal systems (like so many other regulating bodies re. nuclear tech, medication, airframes, etc), but notional effectiveness remains up in the air since no garantee of EU reciprocity post 1.1.21 in case of no deal...so how are Scottish Whisky Association members supposed to plan business continuity?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »We've already discussed this. They militarised the border because the political/security situation required it.
And, Brexit or no brexit, Single Market or no Single Market, if things went pear-shaped in NI again and the political/security deteriorated to a point where military control of the border was required, the UK could have erected a security border again.
The Custom Union guarantees that there will be no customs border. The Single Market guarantees that there will be no fiscal border, and no regulatory border. But neither the Customs Union nor the Single Market ever guaranteed that there would be no security border. And even if the UK remained in the Customs Union and the Single Market, that would not guarantee that a security border could not be erected again.
Conversely, the UK leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market does not mean that a security border will arise. What it does mean, if nothing else happens, is that a fiscal and regulatory border will arise. And if the UK Brexited, and failed or refused to enter into agreed replacement arrangements with the EU to avoid the need for a fiscal and regulatory border, then the UK would be choosing to erect a fiscal and regulatory border and would be responsible for doing so, and Brexiters who claimed otherwise were either fools or knaves. But dragging in questions about militarised borders and security borders and so forth simply obscures this key point. If I were you I'd drop it. You're on a hiding to nothing.
Are there many of examples of fiscal and regulatory land borders that don't have a high level of a visible military/police presence? I'd have thought it inevitable that the latter follows the former.0 -
ArmaniJeanss wrote: »Are there many of examples of fiscal and regulatory land borders that don't have a high level of a visible military/police presence? I'd have thought it inevitable that the latter follows the former.
But, yeah, there are lots of examples. Land borders between friendly countries (who aren't in a Customs Union, etc) are staffed mainly by customs agents or revenue officials. The police may be there if, in the country concerned, the police are the agency which operates passport/migration controls, but often there is a specialist border or migration department which does that. (There is such an agency in the UK - Border Force.) If the police aren't needed for migration controls, any police presence will be very light. And there would typically be no military presence at all.0 -
Advertisement
-
ArmaniJeanss wrote: »Are there many of examples of fiscal and regulatory land borders that don't have a high level of a visible military/police presence? I'd have thought it inevitable that the latter follows the former.
I was commuting regularly from France into Germany or Luxembourg in those days, customs/border forces were always present, but pretty light (think a couple of guys with an Alsatian, at the smaller crossings), and controls/searches were fairly infrequent, unless you 'stuck out' (passing same border back 'too soon', car reg indicating not local, etc.)
Same with Switzerland before it embarked on its european 'semi-integration'.
Only time I've seen military at a border in recent times, was at Coquelles waiting to board the Eurotunnel, with French paratroops in full gear patrolling car queues between FR & UK booths. Last year or the year before. I expect that it was terrorism alert-related (had seen them patrolling cities aplenty, but never seen them there before, in years and years of using Eurotunnel), they must have been on the lookout for someone/something.0 -
If you go back in time, just about all EEC borders pre-Lisbon. Members weren't as fiscally- and regulatorily-aligned then, as they are now.
I was commuting regularly from France into Germany or Luxembourg in those days, customs/border forces were always present, but pretty light (think a couple of guys with an Alsatian, at the smaller crossings), and controls/searches were fairly infrequent, unless you 'stuck out' (passing same border back 'too soon', car reg indicating not local, etc.)
Same with Switzerland before it embarked on its european 'semi-integration'.
Only time I've seen military at a border in recent times, was at Coquelles waiting to board the Eurotunnel, with French paratroops in full gear patrolling car queues between FR & UK booths. Last year or the year before. I expect that it was terrorism alert-related (had seen them patrolling cities aplenty, but never seen them there before, in years and years of using Eurotunnel), they must have been on the lookout for someone/something.
I've always had a sneaky idea that the 'man with Alsatian' had the backup of 'men with machine-guns in a hut 500 metres away'. But I may have watched too many spy films.
I'm dubious that the relatively light-touch you (and Peregrinus) describe for customs is possible at an NI/ROI border. I reckon it's all or nothing. I don't think there'll be too many volunteering to be the man with Alsatian unless there's hefty backup close by.0 -
ArmaniJeanss wrote: »I've always had a sneaky idea that the 'man with Alsatian' had the backup of 'men with machine-guns in a hut 500 metres away'. But I may have watched too many spy films.
The border Alsatian is very cliché'd, sure...and yet there was that one instance when my wire dachs, weaned on wild boar hunts and proudly afflicted with the massive 'big dog' complex traditional of the breed (LOL!) launched from my car and attacked it, that landed me in a small spot of bother at the time (no machine guns raised, just strong words with a small vet bill in the end)I'm dubious that the relatively light-touch you (and Peregrinus) describe for customs is possible at an NI/ROI border. I reckon it's all or nothing. I don't think there'll be too many volunteering to be the man with Alsatian unless there's hefty backup close by.
I'd expect cross-border criminal interests and activity to justify a stronger-than-normal presence (subject to scale/evolution over time), long before nationalist tensions could cause such a state of affairs.
Practical and longstanding experience on the Continent (within the Schengen area indeed) shows that this can be managed by highly-mobile cross-border flying squad-like forces ("Douane Volante" in France, with powers of pursuit and arrest into neighbouring DE, BE, LU countries through bilateral and/or EU agreements) backed by decent intelligence, long before miradors and machine gun nests would become required.0 -
The US whisky tariff dates from October 2019, and was imposed as part of a suite of tariffs intended to retaliate for what the US regards as unfair or improper subsidies provided to Airbus. The tariffs are mostly directed at individual EU countries (Irish whiskey is not subject to the tariff, for example). The UK is, of course, a major beneficiary of the Airbus project, so it's no surprise it is hit with quite a few tarifss.
The UK tariffs are mostly directed at what are perceived to be luxury products - single malt whisky (but not blended whiskey), knitwear, men's tailoring, cheeses. That kind of thing. Other tariffs are directed at Germany - machine tools, machinery, optical lenses. Still others affect most or all EU countries.
At the time the tariffs were imposed, the UK was due to leave the EU in about 8 weeks time. That was later extended (at the UK's request) but the UK did leave about 3 months after the tariffs were imposed.
Obviously, in those circumstances the EU was unlikely to expend much of its negotiating capital on securing an abatement of tariffs that only affected the UK; it would be much more concerned with the tariffs which, from an EU perspective, would have an impact for more than a few weeks.
The UK has, of course, now taken back control, and is free to pursue an abatement of the whiskey and other tariffs as part of its negotiations with the US. Obviously, any request for this is likely to be met with the response that, as long as the UK benefits from subsidies provided to Airbus, so providing what the US takes to be unfair competition with Boeing and other US manufacturers of civil aircraft, the tariffs will remain.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
Nitpick to your heart's content: the Brexit devil is in the legal detail
And that is exactly how, and why, Joe Average int'UK, whether British or not, is going to eventually experience Brexit at the coalface: when the unavoidable changes (brought about by <actual> Brexit) in the multifarious legal compact(s) underpinning his life until 1.1.21, by and large unnoticed until then, brutally collide with that life from that point forward, in so many diverse respects (personal, professional, etc).
I was following a Twitter thread about PDOs and GIs (was recently discussed in here, as I recall; think Scotch Whisky made in Spain post 1.1.21) and looked into the issue in a bit more depth, out of professional curiosity (I practice very little trademark law these days, more patents & designs; done a few collective & certification TMs in my time, but never got opportunity to act on PDO/GI). Talk about a mess, in case of no-deal!
UK's creation of a UK GI registry is typical/symptomatic of their need to replace commercially-indispensible legal systems (like so many other regulating bodies re. nuclear tech, medication, airframes, etc), but notional effectiveness remains up in the air since no garantee of EU reciprocity post 1.1.21 in case of no deal...so how are Scottish Whisky Association members supposed to plan business continuity?
I think that, if 'Scotch' whiskey is going to be made in Spain, it will be by a Scotch distillery moving to lower cost production, just as Waterford Glass moved to Bohemia to produce a lower cost cut glass product, but still maintained the Waterford brand. It was quite successful until the whole brand folded.
Remember, the 'Scotch' GI will be watered down by 'Bold Jock* Scotch Whiskey' branded Scotch if it is distilled in Spain,(will still be 'Bold Jock Whiskey'), and whether they include the word 'Scotch' will not be noticed if all the other brand identities and cues are still included. If it is successful, then the value of the 'Scotch' GI will be devalued.
A good example of this is in the beer industry. Carlsburg, Heinekin, Peroni, Budweiser and other brands are brewed under licence in other territories than that associated with the brand.
So, I would think, the UK specific GIs will lose their value if not protected within the EU, particularly if any brands that currently rely on them find it viable, due to cost pressures, to move outside the geographical areas with impunity, and produce their product abroad, but maintain their brand cues. It is current users that will see value in cutting costs by moving production out of the GI but maintaining the pretence of the GI. Look at cheddar cheese - it could be a GI but is not.
*Bold JockTM is a possible brand and if it is, I am sure it is a very good whiskey. Otherwise, it is fictitious.:)0 -
Talks have stalled over GB truck access, which obviously would have a tit-for-tat impact on us if there's retaliation:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-free-trade-talks-stalled-over-uk-truckers-access-to-eu/ar-BB188JOA?ocid=msedgntp0 -
Advertisement
-
It's their asking for British haulage to be allowed operate inside the EU as if they were still part of the EU that is the problem. Transiting which affects Ireland is different I suppose.0
-
Sam Russell wrote: »I think that, if 'Scotch' whiskey is going to be made in Spain, it will be by a Scotch distillery moving to lower cost production . . .0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »There's a variety of ways in which regional/geographical/specialty indicators can be protected in the EU. The default position is that Brexit does not affect the protection of "Scotch Whisky" in the EU at all; EU law will still require "Scotch Whisky" to have been produced in Scotland, just as it does today. This could be changed at any time - in theory, it could have been changed at any time while the UK was still a member, since it could have been done by majority decision - but nobody expects it to change. The truth is that consumers in the EU expect Scotch whisky to come from Scotland, and would consider it misleading and deceptive to label Spanish whisky as "Scotch whisky". There is no appetite to change this state of affairs. The UK doesn't need to be a member state of the EU in order to sustain this protection, any more than it needs to be a state of the US to maintain the protection which US federal law confers on the designation "Scotch Whisky".
Tell me about the EU. Is the EU done in it's intentions. That's it. EU done.
Or is it an ever evolving 'thing' where we don't know where it's going.0 -
Obama is now doing his worldview thing. As if the most important concern in life is about racism in the middle of a pandemic.
So many people have a view that brings about all these racism issues, when there is no necessity for it whatsoever.
We are living in a time where there are so many people who wish to divide, and it's not the people who we're told are doing in, but the people who are telling us who's doing it are doing it.0 -
Obama is now doing his worldview thing. As if the most important concern in life is about racism in the middle of a pandemic.
So many people have a view that brings about all these racism issues, when there is no necessity for it whatsoever.
We are living in a time where there are so many people who wish to divide, and it's not the people who we're told are doing in, but the people who are telling us who's doing it are doing it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »I think you may have posted this in the wrong thread.
I think you answered the wrong post of mine.0 -
Tell me about the EU. Is the EU done in it's intentions. That's it. EU done.
Or is it an ever evolving 'thing' where we don't know where it's going.
That doesn't mean, though, that we don't know where it's going. It has a definite and explicit direction, a set of values and principles to guide it, etc. These will shape the way that it develops.
It also doesn't mean that its development is uncontrollsed. Signficant developments require treaty change, which requires unanimous agreement between all the member states. This protects member states against developments theuy consider unacceptable in a way that, eg.,the countries of the UK are not protected.0 -
-
Peregrinus wrote: »It's like any political structure that isn't actually dead. It's always capable of development and progress.
That doesn't mean, though, that we don't know where it's going. It has a definite and explicit direction, a set of values and principles to guide it, etc. These will shape the way that it develops.
It also doesn't mean that its development is uncontrollsed. Signficant developments require treaty change, which requires unanimous agreement between all the member states. This protects member states against developments theuy consider unacceptable in a way that, eg.,the countries of the UK are not protected.
Hmm. Well, what are the guiding values and principles, and who decides what they are. You talk as if those values and principles are set in stone.0 -
Hmm. Well, what are the guiding values and principles, and who decides what they are. You talk as if those values and principles are set in stone.
That's like asking what are the guiding principles of a government, it depends on the government and what is going on at a particular time.
The EU is no different in that people are elected to the parliament, the heads of government of each member state to the European council and then people are appointed or nominated, by the above, to other bodies.
It's a democratic process.
Its motto is"United in diversity", the motto of the European Union, first came into use in 2000.
It signifies how Europeans have come together, in the form of the EU, to work for peace and prosperity, while at the same time being enriched by the continent's many different cultures, traditions and languages.0 -
Hmm. Well, what are the guiding values and principles, and who decides what they are. You talk as if those values and principles are set in stone.
As pointed out, they are much more set in stone than the values and principles that determine the direction the UK will take, and the countries of the UK have much less control over them than the countries of the EU have.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »They are set out in the Treaty of Rome and later treaties, esp Lisbon. What's in the treaties is decided by the member states; they have to decide these things, and any changes to these things, unanimously.
As pointed out, they are much more set in stone than the values and principles that determine the direction the UK will take, and the countries of the UK have much less control over them than the countries of the EU have.
Well, that doesn't look like a happy situation to me. Treaties agreed upon one year, but further down the line, you can't change anything, or if you try to, it's very difficult or impossible.
And I think this is the very problem with the EU. You are tied into things where further down the line, decades even, and want a total change of policy, there is no hope for it, except to leave altogether.
This is exactly why the UK left. Even if you think the reasons they left were trivial, the EU leaves every other EU state in a kind of political limbo.0 -
Well, that doesn't look like a happy situation to me. Treaties agreed upon one year, but further down the line, you can't change anything, or if you try to, it's very difficult or impossible.
And I think this is the very problem with the EU. You are tied into things where further down the line, decades even, and want a total change of policy, there is no hope for it, except to leave altogether.
This is exactly why the UK left. Even if you think the reasons they left were trivial, the EU leaves every other EU state in a kind of political limbo.
The point is that the member states control the change process.
You seem to have glided smoothly from complaining that the EU was "an ever evolving thing where we don't know where it's going" to complaining that "you can't change anything or if you try to it's very difficult". These views are the polar opposite of one another; about the only thing they have in common is that they are underpinned by a profound ignorance of what the EU is and how it works.
(Which is pretty much the predominant characteristic of Brexitry, come to think of it.)0 -
Well, that doesn't look like a happy situation to me. Treaties agreed upon one year, but further down the line, you can't change anything, or if you try to, it's very difficult or impossible.
And I think this is the very problem with the EU. You are tied into things where further down the line, decades even, and want a total change of policy, there is no hope for it, except to leave altogether.
This is exactly why the UK left. Even if you think the reasons they left were trivial, the EU leaves every other EU state in a kind of political limbo.
Yes, you're actually 100% correct. The UK left because it didn't want Freedom of Movement anymore. That can never and will never be changed so it's best they left.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »This is nonsense. The treaties not only can be changed but have been changed, numerous times. I struggle to believe that you don't know this.
What treaties have been changed and in what respect? How many states does it take to change a treatise. Can just one do it. I have never heard treaties can be changed just like that. That's news to me.The point is that the member states control the change process.
The point is you don't get the point. If a single member state wants something changed, and all other states don't, then a single member state does not get what they want. That is the definition of loosing sovereignty.You seem to have glided smoothly from complaining that the EU was "an ever evolving thing where we don't know where it's going" to complaining that "you can't change anything or if you try to it's very difficult". These views are the polar opposite of one another; about the only thing they have in common is that they are underpinned by a profound ignorance of what the EU is and how it works.
That's just dumb. I think you're rattled. They are two opinions that hold in isolation.
I didn't complain about the EU in where it's going, I just asked the question. It wasn't a complaint, it was an observation.
A second observation was what if a single state further down the line disagrees with a treaties they agreed to in the past. How can it be changed, how can you get out of it.
You say I don't know how it works, but please, enlighten us. Lets say a member state want's to stay in the EU but doesn't want any longer to engage in freedom of movement.
Please tell me oh wise one how that can happen?Which is pretty much the predominant characteristic of Brexitry, come to think of it.
I think you are rattled by my points. And I think the predominant characteristic of remainers is to resort to insults, come to think of it.0 -
Advertisement
-
What treaties have been changed and in what respect? How many states does it take to change a treatise. Can just one do it. I have never heard treaties can be changed just like that. That's news to me.
Maybe you live in the UK. The UK has also negotiated, signed and ratified all of the various treaties which have amended the EU treaties over the years - the same ones we held referendums on. You might not have noticed that because, in the UK, ordinary voters get no say on this; these things are decided for them by their betters and unless you take an interest in such matters you may not notice what your country is doing. But your country was doing it just the same; the UK, just like Ireland, agreed to all the amendments to the EU treaties that have been made over the years and, if this comes as news to you, no offence, but that may say more about you than it says about the EU.The point is you don't get the point. If a single member state wants something changed, and all other states don't, then a single member state does not get what they want. That is the definition of loosing sovereignty.That's just dumb. I think you're rattled. They are two opinions that hold in isolation.A second observation was what if a single state further down the line disagrees with a treaties they agreed to in the past. How can it be changed, how can you get out of it.
But one of the things about binding obligations is that they are, well, binding. So a sovereign state is not one that can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants; it’s one that can accept obligations and be held to them, and in return can hold other states to the obligations they have accepted.
An analogy: a four-year old cannot enter into a loan agreement and cannot be compelled to repay money because he’s a toddler; he cannot form a contract. But an adult can enter into a loan agreement and the agreement can be enforced against him. Do we imagine the adult has less independence than the toddler? We do not; the capacity to enter into adult relationships, even legally binding, enforceable ones, is empowering, not diminishing.
Brexiters who think that being bound by treaty obligations diminishes sovereignty have simply failed to understand what sovereignty is. They want the UK to be a toddler state, with no obligations to other countries. But a toddler state is not a sovereign state. A sovereign state must be a grown-up country, able to do grown-up things like enter into agreements, enforce the agreements it has entered into, and have those agreements enforced against it.
Which means, before you enter into a treaty that contains no exit mechanism, think in a grown-up way about whether it is to your advantage to do that. But do not assume that the fact that it has no exit mechanism automatically means that it is not to your advantage; that is thinking like a toddler.You say I don't know how it works, but please, enlighten us. Lets say a member state want's to stay in the EU but doesn't want any longer to engage in freedom of movement.
Please tell me oh wise one how that can happen?
But - no offence - the question is a bit dim. It’s like asking how someone can get married but with no expectation of mutual affection, support or fidelity; that’s the point of the whole thing. Freedom of movement is fundamental; it has been explicitly front and centre of the EU project since 1957. It’s literally right there on the first page of the Treaty of Rome, which set up what was then the EEC in 1957. A state which says that it wants to be in the EU but not to have freedom of movement actually doesn’t want to be in the EU at all; it wants to be in an imaginary union which has never existed and which never will exist unless that state can find other states which want the same thing, and who are prepared to set up that union with them. And since that would be done by entering into - gasp! -treaties, and those treaties would be -gasp!- binding, the state would still have to surrender what you fondly imagine to be its sovereignty in order to get what it wants.I think you are rattled by my points. And I think the predominant characteristic of remainers is to resort to insults, come to think of it.0 -
Peregrinus you have the patience of a saint.0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Which kind of underlines the point that you are ignorant about the EU. Do you live in Ireland? Have you participated in any of the many referendums we have had in which we voted to approve (or not approve) treaties amending the EU treaties?
Maybe you live in the UK. The UK has also negotiated, signed and ratified all of the various treaties which have amended the EU treaties over the years - the same ones we held referendums on. You might not have noticed that because, in the UK, ordinary voters get no say on this; these things are decided for them by their betters and unless you take an interest in such matters you may not notice what your country is doing. But your country was doing it just the same; the UK, just like Ireland, agreed to all the amendments to the EU treaties that have been made over the years and, if this comes as news to you, no offence, but that may say more about you than it says about the EU.
This is the definition of pooling sovereignty, so as to exercise it collaboratively with other countries and so make it more effective. Observe how Ireland, by exercising its sovereignty collectively with other EU member states, was able to ensure that the UK had to accommodate itself to Irish views on the border in a way that, in 50 years of acting alone, Ireland was never able to acheive. Observe how Scotland voted against Brexit but is being forced not only to Brexit but to hard-Brexit because, basically, the UK doesn’t care what Scotland thinks. Now understand that Scotland has lost its sovereignty and so doesn't get what it wants, but Ireland has pooled its sovereignty and so does.
You don’t hold them in isolation; you hold them simultaneously. And they contradict one another.
See, that’s the thing about sovereignty. One of the characteristics of a sovereign state is that it can enter into binding international obligations; it can make treaties. Nobody will make a treaty with Scotland because Scotland is not a sovereign state. But people will make treaties with the UK because the UK is a sovereign state. With me so far?
But one of the things about binding obligations is that they are, well, binding. So a sovereign state is not one that can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants; it’s one that can accept obligations and be held to them, and in return can hold other states to the obligations they have accepted.
An analogy: a four-year old cannot enter into a loan agreement and cannot be compelled to repay money because he’s a toddler; he cannot form a contract. But an adult can enter into a loan agreement and the agreement can be enforced against him. Do we imagine the adult has less independence than the toddler? We do not; the capacity to enter into adult relationships, even legally binding, enforceable ones, is empowering, not diminishing.
Brexiters who think that being bound by treaty obligations diminishes sovereignty have simply failed to understand what sovereignty is. They want the UK to be a toddler state, with no obligations to other countries. But a toddler state is not a sovereign state. A sovereign state must be a grown-up country, able to do grown-up things like enter into agreements, enforce the agreements it has entered into, and have those agreements enforced against it.
Which means, before you enter into a treaty that contains no exit mechanism, think in a grown-up way about whether it is to your advantage to do that. But do not assume that the fact that it has no exit mechanism automatically means that it is not to your advantage; that is thinking like a toddler.
It can’t, unless it can persuade all the other member states that they, too, want an EU without freedom of movement, which is - ahem - unlikely.
But - no offence - the question is a bit dim. It’s like asking how someone can get married but with no expectation of mutual affection, support or fidelity; that’s the point of the whole thing. Freedom of movement is fundamental; it has been explicitly front and centre of the EU project since 1957. It’s literally right there on the first page of the Treaty of Rome, which set up what was then the EEC in 1957. A state which says that it wants to be in the EU but not to have freedom of movement actually doesn’t want to be in the EU at all; it wants to be in an imaginary union which has never existed and which never will exist unless that state can find other states which want the same thing, and who are prepared to set up that union with them. And since that would be done by entering into - gasp! -treaties, and those treaties would be -gasp!- binding, the state would still have to surrender what you fondly imagine to be its sovereignty in order to get what it wants.
“Rattled” is not really the word. The only thing that rattles me is that you seem to expect people to take these points seriously.
I've never read such rubbish in all my life.
Your spin on things to distract from the question I asked is truly remarkable.
My question wasn't in the slightest bit dim, your failure to answer it, as elaborate a spin an answer you gave, was unique in it's long windfullness, but bereft of any even remotely intelligent answer. You'r analogy to marriage was pitiful as well, the strawman analogy that it was.
What you are really good at Peregrinus is being sarcastic, wrapped up in verbal diarrhoea, to cover up your flawed arguments. I'm sure your fans will enjoy sucking it up.0 -
Well, that doesn't look like a happy situation to me. Treaties agreed upon one year, but further down the line, you can't change anything, or if you try to, it's very difficult or impossible.
And I think this is the very problem with the EU. You are tied into things where further down the line, decades even, and want a total change of policy, there is no hope for it, except to leave altogether.
This is exactly why the UK left. Even if you think the reasons they left were trivial, the EU leaves every other EU state in a kind of political limbo.
No offence meant, but you have an abject lack of understanding of why the UK left. But il give you a swift synopsis.
Decades of jingoistic lies from a press only ever interested in creating sensationalist trash to sell papers and their very small coven of owners only ever interested in driving policies to protect their own personal fortunes .
I'd urge you to read up on it because you might actually find some interesting analysis.0 -
I've never read such rubbish in all my life.
Your spin on things to distract from the question I asked is truly remarkable.
My question wasn't in the slightest bit dim, your failure to answer it, as elaborate a spin an answer you gave, was unique in it's long windfullness, but bereft of any even remotely intelligent answer. You'r analogy to marriage was pitiful as well, the strawman analogy that it was.
What you are really good at Peregrinus is being sarcastic, wrapped up in verbal diarrhoea, to cover up your flawed arguments. I'm sure your fans will enjoy sucking it up.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,588 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 37387
I've never read such rubbish in all my life.
Your spin on things to distract from the question I asked is truly remarkable.
My question wasn't in the slightest bit dim, your failure to answer it, as elaborate a spin an answer you gave, was unique in it's long windfullness, but bereft of any even remotely intelligent answer. You'r analogy to marriage was pitiful as well, the strawman analogy that it was.
What you are really good at Peregrinus is being sarcastic, wrapped up in verbal diarrhoea, to cover up your flawed arguments. I'm sure your fans will enjoy sucking it up.
Either post constructively or not at all please. The petty sniping is not welcome here.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
You say I don't know how it works, but please, enlighten us. Lets say a member state want's to stay in the EU but doesn't want any longer to engage in freedom of movement.
Please tell me oh wise one how that can happen?
For your example, all this member state would have to do is to formulate the new requirements in the form of an amendment to the existing treaties and then ensure this set of amendments is passed using the appropriate mechanism. For example if the changes required unanimous agreement from all member states, then all you do is convince each of them that it's worthwhile to pass this new agreement and you're done. If you only need 60% then it's even easier!
The only question I'd have is how this member state would convince the remaining member states that this is a mutually beneficial goal. It's not impossible, but I could imagine it being very difficult. However, that doesn't take away from the fact it is absolutely possible as all treaties can be amended or replaced0 -
AllForIt wrote:My question wasn't in the slightest bit dim, your failure to answer it, as elaborate a spin an answer you gave, was unique in it's long windfullness, but bereft of any even remotely intelligent answer. You'r analogy to marriage was pitiful as well, the strawman analogy that it was.
Personally I thought it was a remarkably accurate analogy. But put plainly. When the UK leaves as you say the UK will be 100% sovereign, but the first trade deal it does it will "tie" a part of that up with its trading partner. It has now chipped away a part of its sovereignty, and every other deal it does more will be lost. By the time the UK gets any level of meaningful trade deals agreed it will find itself in the same boat it was in prior to leaving.
How is that any different to being in the EU, firstly the UK decided at every junction inside the EEC and EU all the treaties, in fact it secured the most opt outs of any member, it then decided to leave when it wanted. This suggests the UK has always been in full control of its sovereignty.
One difference being, striking deals as the UK alone will mean the terms of the deal will be far less than if the UK had remained as part of a very large block.
Another difference is the UK will no longer share the pooled resources that the EU does, such as Eurathom and all the other regulatory bodies, the UK will have to setup all of these for itself. For example how many Additional customs officials are the UK looking to employ and at what cost ?
There are many reasons that a country would leave the EU and the EU would never try to stop any state from leaving, but sovereignty is not one of them, thats just clever cummings pulling on the WW2 heart strings of a nation fed on EU lies for decades. There was no logical or fiscal reason for brexit, the only argument was lets go back to being the empire.0 -
Personally I thought it was a remarkably accurate analogy. But put plainly. When the UK leaves as you say the UK will be 100% sovereign . . .
The "sovereignty" that consists of a nation being free to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants does not exist. It never has. It is a fiction peddled by the snake-oil salesmen of Brexit to their more slow-witted followers.
Actual real-world sovereignty is not negated by entering into, and being bound by, treaties; on the contrary it's the status that allows you to enter into treaties.
Basically, sovereignty is the status of being a grown-up state. And Brexiters have a toddler's view of what it is to be a grown-up. Toddlers think that being a grown up means you can eat all the sweets you want, can go to bet when you like, always have money in your pocket for whatever you decide to buy and nobody ever tells you off. Most of us learn when we grow up that, sadly, adulthood is not like that at all. People who do not or will not learn this are to be pitied; they tend to have disfunctional and miserable lives. And this is, basically, the fate that the more loony Brexiters are wishing on their country.0 -
Advertisement
-
correct horse battery staple wrote: »Speaking of fundamental lack of understanding of sovereignty and how to function as a state on an international stage that has to make agreement for itself.
https://institute.global/policy/uk-falls-elephant-trap-its-own-making-brexit
The EU is playing chess while the UK is attempting to learn how to put square pegs in round holes
As summer comes to a close I have the comfort of knowing the darker nights ahead will provide endless entertainment in the form of all the fundamentalist Brexiteers (ERG, Farage etc) crawling back out onto the stage to do two things:-
1. Initially protest that the EU is negotiating for it's own advantage not the UK's which of course only proves once again that the EU is an evil empire which only plucky Blighty has had the courage to stick two Churchillian fingers up to.
2. Declare whatever the outcome is, whether a thin FTA on EU terms with no allowance for services or mutual recognition of qualifications etc or a WTO "Australia type" (no) deal, to be a huge victory for GREAT Britain and time to get the bunting out, have a street party, drink some better than Champagne English sparkling wine, watch a fly over by a Lancaster bomber accompanied by two Spitfires and listen to Dame Vera Lynn singing We'll Meet Again......again and again.
That should keep me entertained until mid January after which time the stark realities of the cliff BoJo and Co have led the UK off will come home to roost and the real fallout will begin which won't be pleasant for a lot of people who will see unprecedented Covid job losses compounded by a completely avoidable set of self inflicted circumstances which will lead to even more job losses, increased cost of living, reduced value of savings and pensions, restrictions on movement etc etc.
And all for what?0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 90788
There's spin - even the article suggests the UK will have to agree to lots of stuff to get a deal.
Brexit: UK hopeful of EU trade deal next month, says No 10
And reality.
EU rejects British plan for post-Brexit return of asylum seekers
Or you could point out the UK wasn't using the existing rules. In 2018 they sent 209 people back to the EU. There were 44,250 asylum applications in 2019.
But it's one more area where the UK won't be able to keep the existing rules. Unless they get really good at negotiating, real soon.0 -
Well, that doesn't look like a happy situation to me. Treaties agreed upon one year, but further down the line, you can't change anything, or if you try to, it's very difficult or impossible.
And I think this is the very problem with the EU. You are tied into things where further down the line, decades even, and want a total change of policy, there is no hope for it, except to leave altogether.
This is exactly why the UK left. Even if you think the reasons they left were trivial, the EU leaves every other EU state in a kind of political limbo.0 -
ancapailldorcha wrote: »Either post constructively or not at all please. The petty sniping is not welcome here.
I knew you'd chip in. I don't take a word back from my comments, and if you weren't so bloody biased, you will have noticed it was not I that started the petty snipping.
So, in other words, get lost.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 15386
-
That should keep me entertained until mid January after which time the stark realities of the cliff BoJo and Co have led the UK off will come home to roost and the real fallout will begin which won't be pleasant for a lot of people who will see unprecedented Covid job losses compounded by a completely avoidable set of self inflicted circumstances which will lead to even more job losses, increased cost of living, reduced value of savings and pensions, restrictions on movement etc etc.
Actually (and this is my Economic's training talking here), initially I expect Brexit to surprise on the upside. Cheap imports will improve purchasing power and the illusion of prosperity. We saw a similar uptick in Ireland in the 1930's after start of the trade war and in Argentina in the 1950's when Peron came on board.
Brexit is about long term growth and law of compounding math. Factories won't automatically close on Jan 1 2020, owners will try to recoup as much of their original investment as they can, when that is done they will close. That may be a slower but also a more remorseless and irreversible process than imagined.
It's that 0.5% per year that puts you on a lower growth trajectory, which compounded over time can can yield stark results. NZ opted out of the Australian Commonwealth when it had a higher standard of living, a century later and it's GDP per capita is roughly 66% of Australia's with a persistent outflow to Australia every year.
This' what Brexit looks like: long and slow.0 -
Advertisement
-
sandbelter wrote: »Actually (and this is my Economic's training talking here), initially I expect Brexit to surprise on the upside. Cheap imports will improve purchasing power and the illusion of prosperity. We saw a similar uptick in Ireland in the 1930's after start of the trade war and in Argentina in the 1950's when Peron came on board.
Brexit is about long term growth and law of compounding math. Factories won't automatically close on Jan 1 2020, owners will try to recoup as much of their original investment as they can, when that is done they will close. That may be a slower but also a more remorseless and irreversible process than imagined.
It's that 0.5% per year that puts you on a lower growth trajectory, which compounded over time can can yield stark results. NZ opted out of the Australian Commonwealth when it had a higher standard of living, a century later and it's GDP per capita is roughly 66% of Australia's with a persistent outflow to Australia every year.
This' what Brexit looks like: long and slow.
Brexiters' best hope is that the immediate effects of this will be masked by the Covid recession, and so they may avoid some blame. But that's not really a "surprise on the upside".0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I'm more pessimistic. I agree with you about the persistent long-term drag, but I'm not seeing much scope for the short-term uptick. Where are the cheap imports coming from? Brexiter propaganda notwithstanding, by and large the EU actually has pretty low tariff barriers, and the UK intends to maintain most of them. There might be a few headline tariff reductions and some specific goods might become cheaper but even in the short term the effects of that will be more than offset by the extensive non-tariff barriers that the UK will be introducing, and by the effect on UK exports to the EU and to countries with whom it trades under an EU trade deal.
Brexiters' best hope is that the immediate effects of this will be masked by the Covid recession, and so they may avoid some blame. But that's not really a "surprise on the upside".0 -
I imagine some bread and circuses for the plebs: reduce duty on wine and beer and say this is all thanks to finally leaving the EU. It doesn't need to be true - (as we can see) the plebs will lap it up
(Plus, I'm not sure that there is any tariff on beer in the first place.)
They could reduce the tariff on wine. UK wine producers would squeal, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference. The brewers would squeal, since it means wine prices would fall while beer would not, and that might encourage a switch in consumption towards wine. And of course it would be easy for critics to point out the boon that that confers on EU wine producers who export to the UK. So this is quite a complex exercise.
The idea tariff reductions for Brexity crowd-pleasing purposes would be on consumer goods that (a) do not compete with goods produced in the UK to any signficant extent, and (b) are predominantly imported from beyond the EU, and (c) are currently subject to high tariffs (so that the effect of the tariff reduction will be felt). But the problem with reducing those tariffs is that you are giving away what might otherwise be a bargaining counter that you could have deployed in trade deal negotiations with the producing countries.
The UK has in fact already announced its intended post-Brexit tariff schedule. Consumer products which will see tariff reductions include white goods, women's sanitary products, screwdrivers and Christmas trees. (Although, obviously, consumers are unlikely to notice a fall in the price of Christmas trees in January.)0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The problem with reducing tariffs on beer is that UK brewers will then have to compete with cheaper imports (including tariff-free imports from the EU!).
(Plus, I'm not sure that there is any tariff on beer in the first place.)
They could reduce the tariff on wine. UK wine producers would squeal, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference. The brewers would squeal, since it means wine prices would fall while beer would not, and that might encourage a switch in consumption towards wine. And of course it would be easy for critics to point out the boon that that confers on EU wine producers who export to the UK. So this is quite a complex exercise.
The idea tariff reductions for Brexity crowd-pleasing purposes would be on consumer goods that (a) do not compete with goods produced in the UK to any signficant extent, and (b) are predominantly imported from beyond the EU, and (c) are currently subject to high tariffs (so that the effect of the tariff reduction will be felt). But the problem with reducing those tariffs is that you are giving away what might otherwise be a bargaining counter that you could have deployed in trade deal negotiations with the producing countries.
The UK has in fact already announced its intended post-Brexit tariff schedule. Consumer products which will see tariff reductions include white goods, women's sanitary products, screwdrivers and Christmas trees. (Although, obviously, consumers are unlikely to notice a fall in the price of Christmas trees in January.)
It wouldn't take too much to convince the average brexiter.0 -
Apologies for lack of clarity: since the tariffs on wine are in reality tiny (a few cent on Chilean wine etc) and isn't meaningful to change, if I were a cynical UK government, I might reduce the (relatively massive) UK excise duty/VAT on wine (and preferably do it in a way that could hand waving-ly be connected back to EU tariffs) - and trumpet it as a brexit win.
It wouldn't take too much to convince the average brexiter.
But, either way, somebody would point out that the Tories could have reduced excise on alcohol (or anything else) at any time since coming into office in 2010, if they cared to. While some brexiters might for a short time choose to believe that the excise reduction was made possible by Brexit, this isn't a claim that will hold water for very long. For the most part trying to claim it as a beneficial consequence of Brexit risks reinforcing the damaging impression that the government can't point to any real beneficial consequences of Brexit.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement