Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

ambro25 wrote: »

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.

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.

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=msedgntp

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 . . .

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".

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.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you may have posted this in the wrong thread.

I think you answered the wrong post of mine.

AllForIt wrote: »

I think you answered the wrong post of mine.

I've answered both your posts. One of them seems to have nothing to do with the topic of thread, however. I think you meant to post it somewhere else.

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

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.

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

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.

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

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.

AllForIt wrote: »

That's just dumb. I think you're rattled. They are two opinions that hold in isolation.

You don’t hold them in isolation; you hold them simultaneously. And they contradict one another.

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

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.

AllForIt wrote: »

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?

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.

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

“Rattled” is not really the word. The only thing that rattles me is that you seem to expect people to take these points seriously.

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.

AllForIt wrote: »

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.

I have answered your question. Your question was "how can a member state stay in the EU but not engage in freedom of movement any more?" and the answer is "by persuading all the other member states to agree to turn the EU into a union that doesn't include freedom of movement".

AllForIt wrote: »

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?

Actually, it is 100% possible and the UK could have gone down this route. It is common for countries to get exemptions from different parts of EU treaties. The UK used to the beneficiary of a significant number of exemptions and special cases which it negotiated for itself.

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 replaced

Gerry T wrote: »

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 . . .

Not as Brexiters understand sovereignty, it won't be. Although the UK has left the EU, it is still party to many other treaties that it nas negotiated, signed and ratified, and it will still be bound by those treaties and will not be free to act in violation of them.

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.