Cable Forum
Page 13 of 34 « First 39101112 13 1415161723 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Brexit discussion (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33705369)

Damien 09-12-2017 13:07
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928150)
Theresa May has not moved on the customs union issue and she would not be able to get Cabinet agreement on that. If there is a trade deal, there will be no need for a hard border. If there's not, the government has alternative plans to deal with that.
A trade deal does not mean no hard border. The EU has a trade deals with several nations and there are still bordered. America has borders despite being in NAFTA. That’s not what a trade deal means.

The government clearly does not have alternative plans because if they did we would know them by know. There is either a border or there isn’t and irrespective of your personal faith that May has not moved on the Customs Union it’s there in black and white that the fallback option should the border not be sorted that the U.K. will not put one up.

If you want goods to move freely between nations without custom checks then you need to be in the Customs Union. If we say we’re simply not going to put up a border in the special case of Ireland the WTO says the same applies to other nations.

You’re entitled to believe whatever you want and overall I think May has down well by Brexiters but even the most loyal hardcore Brexit people can see there has been movement on the issue of the border.

I am not even sure if you’re serious because it seems every item of the agreement was a fantastic win for May to the point of parody.

1andrew1 09-12-2017 14:08
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928160)
A trade deal does not mean no hard border. The EU has a trade deals with several nations and there are still bordered. America has borders despite being in NAFTA. That’s not what a trade deal means.

The government clearly does not have alternative plans because if they did we would know them by know. There is either a border or there isn’t and irrespective of your personal faith that May has not moved on the Customs Union it’s there in black and white that the fallback option should the border not be sorted that the U.K. will not put one up.

If you want goods to move freely between nations without custom checks then you need to be in the Customs Union. If we say we’re simply not going to put up a border in the special case of Ireland the WTO says the same applies to other nations.

You’re entitled to believe whatever you want and overall I think May has down well by Brexiters but even the most loyal hardcore Brexit people can see there has been movement on the issue of the border.

I am not even sure if you’re serious because it seems every item of the agreement was a fantastic win for May to the point of parody.
I'm hoping it's parody and not naivety. Interesting article in the FT about how Switzerland still has a hard border.
Quote:
Border infrastructure and customs declarations are necessary, however, because Switzerland is not part of the EU’s customs union or value added tax regime, which are separate from the single market. This difference requires both sides to build and staff a hard border with sometimes significant delays...
For trading companies, each load requires a customs declaration, multiple forms and stamps by the tax authorities to ensure that the formalities are closed on each side before goods cross the tax border. Within the Union none of this applies because complete regulatory alignment is married to an EU VAT regime, all within the customs union. This VAT system has its problems, but ensures that goods can flow across borders with no formalities...
Regulatory alignment would remove only some of Brexit’s border barriers in Ireland. The UK and Ireland should take note.
https://www.ft.com/content/2d30482c-...9-c64b1c09b482

Gavin78 09-12-2017 14:58
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Thing is trade has already being setup through being a member. the EU doesn't have the task of setting one up from scratch.

We know and they know how it works. So we go in with the same trades we already have we don't have to talk about chloride in chicken or anything like that. The only difference is in the future when we have left and future trade deals may need talks depending on where the EU wants to take themselves.

We know for one thing it's not as stable as it would like to be. 40bn won't prop up the EU for long, it will be interesting to see who they actually trade with now they don't have the financial support of the UK where they wouldn't have given them a second thought

OLD BOY 09-12-2017 15:48
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928160)
A trade deal does not mean no hard border. The EU has a trade deals with several nations and there are still bordered. America has borders despite being in NAFTA. That’s not what a trade deal means.

The government clearly does not have alternative plans because if they did we would know them by know. There is either a border or there isn’t and irrespective of your personal faith that May has not moved on the Customs Union it’s there in black and white that the fallback option should the border not be sorted that the U.K. will not put one up.

If you want goods to move freely between nations without custom checks then you need to be in the Customs Union. If we say we’re simply not going to put up a border in the special case of Ireland the WTO says the same applies to other nations.

You’re entitled to believe whatever you want and overall I think May has down well by Brexiters but even the most loyal hardcore Brexit people can see there has been movement on the issue of the border.

I am not even sure if you’re serious because it seems every item of the agreement was a fantastic win for May to the point of parody.
Pessimism reigns on this thread!

We already have the same regulatory regime with the EU, and in terms of our trade with the EU, this will remain the same in key areas. The government is being very clear that there are alternatives to having a hard border and this will be the subject, or one of the subjects, to be discussed in detail during Phase II. Watch this space.

There has been no movement in relation to the border - you are letting your imagination run away with you. Do you really think those prickly Northern Irish politicians would allow that? They interrupted TM's celebratory dinner to clarify that very point.

I am well aware that a trade deal does not automatically mean no border controls, and you have rightly pointed to examples where borders still exist. However, ours is a special case, and all parties - the UK (and in particular, Northern Ireland) and the EU (including the Republic of Ireland) - want there to be no border. It makes sense, therefore, to ensure that any trade deal covers this aspect for the benefit of all.

Once again, I have to remind you that we cannot both be in the customs union and forge our own trade deals. That is certainly not what the government has in mind when it talks about not having a hard border with the EU on the island of Ireland. What I think the government is aiming at is having each country carrying out border checks on behalf of the other.

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928169)
I'm hoping it's parody and not naivety. Interesting article in the FT about how Switzerland still has a hard border.

https://www.ft.com/content/2d30482c-...9-c64b1c09b482
That doesn't mean we can't have one!

TM has made it clear that she intends to negotiate a unique deal for Britain. You don't always have to follow what others have done. A bit of imagination is required in this game.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35928174)
Thing is trade has already being setup through being a member. the EU doesn't have the task of setting one up from scratch.

We know and they know how it works. So we go in with the same trades we already have we don't have to talk about chloride in chicken or anything like that. The only difference is in the future when we have left and future trade deals may need talks depending on where the EU wants to take themselves.

We know for one thing it's not as stable as it would like to be. 40bn won't prop up the EU for long, it will be interesting to see who they actually trade with now they don't have the financial support of the UK where they wouldn't have given them a second thought
Quite agree.

1andrew1 09-12-2017 17:31
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928169)
I'm hoping it's parody and not naivety. Interesting article in the FT about how Switzerland still has a hard border.

https://www.ft.com/content/2d30482c-...9-c64b1c09b482
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928181)
That doesn't mean we can't have one!

TM has made it clear that she intends to negotiate a unique deal for Britain. You don't always have to follow what others have done. A bit of imagination is required in this game.
We've signed up to having no hard border between NI and Ireland. So we can't have one.

OLD BOY 09-12-2017 17:50
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928191)
We've signed up to having no hard border between NI and Ireland. So we can't have one.
That's what I meant, Andrew - an agreement that doesn't require a hard border.

1andrew1 09-12-2017 18:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928192)
That's what I meant, Andrew - an agreement that doesn't require a hard border.
However, technology won't remove a hard border, only being part of or mirroring the customs union and single market will.
Quote:
The truth is that, if it were that easy to invisibly police customs borders, countries would have done it by now. The fact that even the most technologically advanced countries with the most friendly and co-operative relationships with their neighbours still need to carry out customs checks shows that we are unlikely to be able to eliminate the border in Ireland with satellites, flying machines or any other gizmos.
Which leaves us back where we started. The UK government can’t leave the Single Market and the Customs Union and, at the same time, avoid a physical border in Ireland. Perhaps some form of words will be found next week to allow us to fudge our way to the next stage of the Brexit talks but, if it does, the issue will just come up again when we start to discuss trade terms. All this talk of technological solutions reminds me of those corporate bosses who have no idea how to get out of the mess they are in but assure their staff that everything will be OK once the new system is implemented. Technology is never enough on its own though. It certainly won’t dig our government out of the corner into which it has painted itself.
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpres...der-disappear/

OLD BOY 09-12-2017 19:01
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928194)
However, technology won't remove a hard border, only being part of or mirroring the customs union and single market will.

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpres...der-disappear/
Not true. If the Republic of Ireland take account of UK requirements at its ports and NI does the same for the Republic, the way to fully resolve this problem becomes clear.

1andrew1 09-12-2017 19:06
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928197)
Not true. If the Republic of Ireland take account of UK requirements at its ports and NI does the same for the Republic, the way to fully resolve this problem becomes clear.
I'm not sure you understand what a hard border is. Stopping lorries going from one country to another with an inspection be it every lorry or every one in a thousand lorries is a hard border. The article I quoted from explains the issue in full.

jonbxx 09-12-2017 19:33
Re: Brexit discussion
 
The company I work exports from our warehouse in Sweden all over Europe. The difference in paperwork between exporting to an EU country and a non-EU one is huge. EU exports are simp,y logged in EUROSTAT while non-EU shipments need full tariff declarations, certificates of origin, etc. For goods not made in Sweden but in the USA or China for example, decisions need to be made whether to import in to Sweden or to hold in bonded status and ship if from the manufacturing country. This only touches my work slightly but shows the complexity of non-tariff barriers to trade...

By the way, here’s an article on the past weeks shenanigans from an Irish perspective - https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and...-negotiations/

OLD BOY 09-12-2017 19:57
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928199)
I'm not sure you understand what a hard border is. Stopping lorries going from one country to another with an inspection be it every lorry or every one in a thousand lorries is a hard border. The article I quoted from explains the issue in full.
Except that this isn't what is being proposed! Checks at ports, but not between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, is the idea, although there's a lot of thinking to be done to iron out details.

Damien 09-12-2017 20:48
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928203)
Except that this isn't what is being proposed! Checks at ports, but not between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, is the idea, although there's a lot of thinking to be done to iron out details.
You can’t have a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. either. The agreement says so and so do the DUP.

RichardCoulter 09-12-2017 22:51
Re: Brexit discussion
 
I can see us still ending up still being in the EU in all but name, but no longer having a say ie worse than the current arrangement and paying a shed load of money for the privilege.

1andrew1 09-12-2017 23:16
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35928218)
I can see us still ending up still being in the EU in all but name, but no longer having a say ie worse than the current arrangement and paying a shed load of money for the privilege.
It will obviously be a worse deal as the EU's aim is to attract member states not make it better for them to leave. And many of the trade deals the EU has signed with third countries have revision clauses in them meaning that those deals can be revised in the third country's favour if the EU signs a more favourable deal with another third country eg the UK.

OLD BOY 10-12-2017 02:19
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35928218)
I can see us still ending up still being in the EU in all but name, but no longer having a say ie worse than the current arrangement and paying a shed load of money for the privilege.
And why exactly would the government agree to that? Crazy logic, and that is not going to happen!

---------- Post added at 01:19 ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928222)
It will obviously be a worse deal as the EU's aim is to attract member states not make it better for them to leave. And many of the trade deals the EU has signed with third countries have revision clauses in them meaning that those deals can be revised in the third country's favour if the EU signs a more favourable deal with another third country eg the UK.
So in your view, Andrew, what the EU want is what the EU gets. We will see about that!

We are perfectly capable of signing our own trade deals, and a lot more quickly than the EU does. A decade in negotiation with the US and still no deal!

Why do you and other remainers have such faith in these guys?

:shrug:

Mr K 10-12-2017 08:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928225)
We are perfectly capable of signing our own trade deals, and a lot more quickly than the EU does.
Looks like to the rest of the world doesn't want us to have a good trade deal with the EU, who will still be our main trading partner.. The promised land might not be so sweet.

Quote:
Global powers lobby to stop special Brexit deal for UK

hopes of securing a unique post-Brexit trade deal with the EU were under threat on Saturday night as Brussels said it was coming under international pressure to deny Britain special treatment.

After a week that saw May reach a deal with the EU that will allow Brexit talks to move forward on to future trade relations, EU officials insisted a bespoke deal more favourable to the UK than other non-EU nations was out of the question.

One EU source close to the talks said: “We have been approached by a number of [non-member] countries expressing concerns and making it clear that it would constitute a major problem for them if suddenly the UK were to get better terms than they get.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y_to_clipboard

OLD BOY 10-12-2017 12:12
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928207)
You can’t have a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. either. The agreement says so and so do the DUP.
There won't be for EU goods and citizens. But non EU entry will have to go through normal customs checks from all ports.

Damien 10-12-2017 12:14
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928248)
There won't be for EU goods and citizens. But non EU entry will have to go through normzl customs checks from all ports.
How is that not being in a custom unions with the EU? In fact that's even further than a custom's union as citizens won't be checked either....:erm:

OLD BOY 10-12-2017 12:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928237)
Looks like to the rest of the world doesn't want us to have a good trade deal with the EU, who will still be our main trading partner.. The promised land might not be so sweet.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y_to_clipboard
You seem to be happiest when posting negative stories about our leaving the EU, Mr K.

Given that the electorate voted to leave, why are you seemingly willing us to fail? Whatever happens to the negotiations, we are still leaving, one way or the other.

1andrew1 10-12-2017 12:53
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928225)
So in your view, Andrew, what the EU want is what the EU gets. We will see about that!
I've never said that but as the bigger negotiator it clearly holds the upper hand. That's how these things work I'm afraid.
But, as others and I have tried to explain, even if the EU had theoretically wanted to sign some amazing deals with the UK, its previous trade deals with third countries won't allow it to sign a more advantageous deal with a third country. So the UK has to decide upon an existing deal based upon the constraints that the Irish border issue imposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928225)
We are perfectly capable of signing our own trade deals, and a lot more quickly than the EU does. A decade in negotiation with the US and still no deal!
Why do you and other remainers have such faith in these guys?
:shrug:
Your clear anti-EU bias comes through when you mention the US. Did it never occur to you, even for a minute, that it might be the US that's the difficult country? If you had been more open-minded and conducted some basic research you would see the US's problems with free trade and the EU's success at it. Trump scrapped the trade deal with the EU, a decision ironically popular with the left in Britain concerned about "backdoor" privatisation of the NHS.

Let's examine the facts. Here's a list of EU trade deals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/po...de-agreements/
Deals with 35 countries signed and in force.
Deals with a further 27 countries provisionally applied
Deals with a further 23 countries agreed but not signed
Above data excludes Japan recently signed!

The US has free trade deals with 20 countries including the countries in NAFTA.

Let's hone in on the US:
1. List of free trade deals
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

Two completed negotiations are mentioned at the foot of the list:
TPP - the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The US has now left this partnership.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.5562ef0a4bc0
T-TIP - the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership, mentioned at the foot of the document. Following Trump's election, the US quit this too. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7543706.html

2. Despite Canada and the US being in the NAFTA free trade area, Canada has just stopped buying some Boeing planes from the US in a trade dispute.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1DZ2W2

In conclusion, I'm not asking you to agree with me. My ask is that you do a little research first.

pip08456 10-12-2017 13:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
I'm glad the US quit T-TIP . It is a terrible agreement.

Mick 10-12-2017 15:02
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35928260)
I'm glad the US quit T-TIP . It is a terrible agreement.
Yes and just look at the US economy since Trump’s election win. It’s booming. Trump has killed a lot of job killing regulations. When ABC misreported the Michael Flynn story, they said Candidate Trump told Flynn to make contact with the Russians, in their eyes, this Fake News they had just told, seemed collusion was confirmed, the US stock market went in to free fall. When it was corrected that it was in fact President-elect Trump who had told Flynn to make contact with the Russians in order to reach out to them and be more diplomatic than the Obama Administration was, the markets recovered.

OLD BOY 10-12-2017 17:32
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928257)
I've never said that but as the bigger negotiator it clearly holds the upper hand. That's how these things work I'm afraid.
But, as others and I have tried to explain, even if the EU had theoretically wanted to sign some amazing deals with the UK, its previous trade deals with third countries won't allow it to sign a more advantageous deal with a third country. So the UK has to decide upon an existing deal based upon the constraints that the Irish border issue imposes.



Your clear anti-EU bias comes through when you mention the US. Did it never occur to you, even for a minute, that it might be the US that's the difficult country? If you had been more open-minded and conducted some basic research you would see the US's problems with free trade and the EU's success at it. Trump scrapped the trade deal with the EU, a decision ironically popular with the left in Britain concerned about "backdoor" privatisation of the NHS.

Let's examine the facts. Here's a list of EU trade deals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/po...de-agreements/
Deals with 35 countries signed and in force.
Deals with a further 27 countries provisionally applied
Deals with a further 23 countries agreed but not signed
Above data excludes Japan recently signed!

The US has free trade deals with 20 countries including the countries in NAFTA.

Let's hone in on the US:
1. List of free trade deals
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

Two completed negotiations are mentioned at the foot of the list:
TPP - the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The US has now left this partnership.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.5562ef0a4bc0
T-TIP - the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership, mentioned at the foot of the document. Following Trump's election, the US quit this too. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7543706.html

2. Despite Canada and the US being in the NAFTA free trade area, Canada has just stopped buying some Boeing planes from the US in a trade dispute.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1DZ2W2

In conclusion, I'm not asking you to agree with me. My ask is that you do a little research first.
A fair point about the present state of affairs in relation to the US, but I don't agree with you that the EU holds the upper hand in these negotiations. They need us more than we need them, to be honest.

Mr K 10-12-2017 21:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928250)
You seem to be happiest when posting negative stories about our leaving the EU, Mr K.

Given that the electorate voted to leave, why are you seemingly willing us to fail? Whatever happens to the negotiations, we are still leaving, one way or the other.
Yes, I know we're leaving OB, but there is still a lot to be decided. We need to know that negotiating trade deals might not be as easy or as good as if we were part of the EU block. We need to take this into account when deciding what sort of Brexit we end up with

Not a fan of TM or her divided party but think she's played a blinder, and has started to direct us towards the least damaging 'soft Brexit'. It's not so much done 'one over' on the EU, but totally wrong footed her own swivel eyed loonies that don't represent the majority of leave voters, they just represent their own narrow interests and political ambitions. They initially said what a wonderful deal she'd done, but are now backtracking now they've read the small print ! Too late ;)

Hugh 10-12-2017 22:26
Re: Brexit discussion
 
A reminder of the first post in this thread.

Guidelines

The constant baiting, belittling of either side of the vote needs to end. The new thread must be a reasonable and a frank debate, it's impossible to agree on this topic but none of this "he/she is thick" or "you're a snowflake".

Further use of language like ‘traitors’, ‘swivel eyed loonies’, etc, will be rewarded by prompt use of the Sanity Clause.

1andrew1 10-12-2017 23:09
Re: Brexit discussion
 
It's time the Government started to think about jobs and investment and not keeping people like BoJo and Rees-Mogg happy. Here's two industries that think this.
Quote:
Britain’s chemical and pharmaceutical industries have called on the government to allow them to remain within EU rules to avoid endangering investment and supply chains, even as Eurosceptic ministers step up a campaign to break away from the bloc’s regulations.
The issue of regulatory divergence has moved centre stage in the Brexit debate since Friday’s divorce deal with Brussels, in which prime minister Theresa May agreed that Northern Ireland would not stray far from EU rules in order to ensure there would be no hard border with the Republic of Ireland.
In a letter to Michael Gove, environment secretary and the UK cabinet’s leading champion of regulatory divergence, the Chemical Industries Association urges the government “to do all it can to remain within or as close as possible” to the EU’s rulebook for the sector.
Steve Elliott, the association’s chief executive, said leaving the EU framework “would seriously bring into question 10 years of investment, as registrations and authorisations that permit access to the EU single market would suddenly become “non-existent” on exit day”.
Referring to Reach, the framework legislation for the sector, he said the EU regulation was “far from perfect” but added that it was still the best way of “ensuring that cars continue to run, planes continue to fly and medicines continue to work”.
But the European Chemicals Agency, which determines EU standard-setting for the safety of chemicals and access to the single market, comes under the legal framework of the European Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction Brexiters are determined to end.
https://www.ft.com/content/8a9d05ce-...4-0a1e63a52f9c

OLD BOY 11-12-2017 14:35
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928249)
How is that not being in a custom unions with the EU? In fact that's even further than a custom's union as citizens won't be checked either....:erm:
We are not staying in the customs union because this means we cannot secure our own trade deals. However, that doesn't mean that we cannot benefit from some aspects of it.

If we are and remain in line with the EU's regulatory rules, I see no reason why this can't work.

OLD BOY 11-12-2017 18:56
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Nice to have some good news!

Well done, Theresa.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42303059

1andrew1 11-12-2017 20:36
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928367)
We are not staying in the customs union because this means we cannot secure our own trade deals. However, that doesn't mean that we cannot benefit from some aspects of it.

If we are and remain in line with the EU's regulatory rules, I see no reason why this can't work.
We could well mirror the customs union and not sign our own trade deals; it's an unknown.
An interesting article in today's FT "The UK has tied its Brexit hands" by Martin Sandbu predicts how things could well end up:
Quote:
Fourth and finally, this would not actually be such a bad deal for Brexit Britain. Unless Northern Ireland has a special status, “full alignment” as a way to avoid border checks on the island of Ireland will also suffice to avoid border checks between Britain and continental Europe. That would rule out independent free-trade agreements, but would safeguard the UK’s participation in manufacturing supply chains such as car production. Not a bad prize. It would not do anything for services, of course, but on the other hand the British obsession with ending the free movement of people would be satisfied.
https://www.ft.com/content/ac8fc340-...4-0a1e63a52f9c

pip08456 11-12-2017 21:49
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928317)
It's time the Government started to think about jobs and investment and not keeping people like BoJo and Rees-Mogg happy. Here's two industries that think this.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a9d05ce-...4-0a1e63a52f9c
What complete and utter bull! Why would any company need the government's guidance or permission to comply with the requirements of any country or trading bloc they wish to deal with?

1andrew1 11-12-2017 21:54
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35928419)
What complete and utter bull! Why would any company need the government's guidance or permission to comply with the requirements of any country or trading bloc they wish to deal with?
I doubt the industries would make this up, Pip.

pip08456 11-12-2017 23:16
Re: Brexit discussion
 
The FT might though.

1andrew1 11-12-2017 23:44
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35928436)
The FT might though.
Lol, are you joking? The FT has a strong journalistic reputation and would lose considerable advertising and subscribers if it did such a thing. Three parties - Michael Gove and the two industry associations would have have challenged the paper and got the article removed if it was wrong. And it appears in a range of publications too. Maybe they're all in on the conspiracy too?

It's a deeply uncomfortable truth for many Brexiters, but most industries in the UK want to adhere to EU legislation. https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views...rexit-11166179

pip08456 12-12-2017 00:08
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928442)

It's a deeply uncomfortable truth for many Brexiters, but most industries in the UK want to adhere to EU legislation.
Anyone with any sense knows that a company who wishes to trade with any country or trading block must meet the legislation requirements of that country or bloc.

It's hardly rocket science.

1andrew1 12-12-2017 00:32
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35928447)
Anyone with any sense knows that a company who wishes to trade with any country or trading block must meet the legislation requirements of that country or bloc.

It's hardly rocket science.
No one has said otherwise.

Mr K 12-12-2017 07:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Even the Americans think we're crazy....

Quote:
Fears grow across the Atlantic over Brexit fallout

Nearly all the possible trading relationships between Britain and the European Union following Brexit would be less favourable than staying in the European Union, according to an influential US think tank.

The Rand Corporation study said the worst option would be a "no deal". That would leave the UK economy 4.9% poorer by 2029. "No deal" would also have a negative effect on the EU economy, but it would be "relatively minor".

The report said that even a "soft Brexit" involving staying in the free market would not be as positive economically as staying in the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42315280

jonbxx 12-12-2017 10:28
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35928447)
Anyone with any sense knows that a company who wishes to trade with any country or trading block must meet the legislation requirements of that country or bloc.

It's hardly rocket science.
REACH was massive for the chemical industry. Registration and compliance has taken years and a hell of a lot of money and is a significant investment. If the UK leaves the REACH Framework, there is concern that there will be divergence from the REACH rules over time. There therefore needs to be a system of mutual recognition between any new UK regulations and REACH if no extra regulatory costs are to be incurred.

According the the Chemical Industries Association, of the industries exports, 60% go to the EU and 75% of its' imports come from the EU. Noncompliance or divergence from REACH would be a massive deal.

For the UK, post Brexit, I see the options are;
  • Stay in REACH with a cost to the tax payer and having ECJ arbitration
  • Go it alone with our own regulations and force the industry to adopt a new set of regulations
  • Develop a mutual recognition system with REACH so we mirror REACH regulations but have no say in those regulations - would the UK regulator de facto recognise exisiting REACH paperwork?

The only option with zero additional cost to the industry is staying in REACH

See also the EMA for medicines...

Here's a factsheet from the Chemical Industries Association on their Brexit position - https://www.cia.org.uk/LinkClick.asp...%3d&portalid=0

Mick 12-12-2017 12:13
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928464)
Even the Americans think we're crazy....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42315280
You suddenly care what Americans think, history recalls you saying you thought they are crazy. ;)

Damien 12-12-2017 12:32
Re: Brexit discussion
 
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-t...vis-interview/

Quote:
The remaining EU27 countries have “hardened” the language of a proposed Brexit resolution for this week’s European Council summit in response to U.K. Brexit Secretary David Davis’ comments on Sunday that last Friday’s Brexit deal with the EU was “more a statement of intent than a legally enforceable thing,” according to three EU diplomats.

At a Monday meeting of sherpas ahead of the summit, at which EU leaders must formally sign off on the agreement with the U.K. that Brexit talks move on to phase 2, diplomats redrafted a summit declaration on Brexit.
Does David Davies understand that Europeans can watch British news programs and papers? Doing the deal then coming back and boasting how you did 'em over and we don't have to follow it wasn't going to go down well.

heero_yuy 12-12-2017 12:36
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Theresa May last night warned EU leaders her £39billion divorce cheque is off unless they agree a transition deal by March.

The PM began to unveil her key demands for the next stage of negotiations yesterday.

She told MPs an agreement on a two-year transition period that starts on exit day in 2019 should be sealed as early as possible.

Mrs May added that meant within “the first quarter” of next year.

Her timetable to reassure worried businesses comes six months earlier than EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier’s original plan of September.
Source

This is a bit more like it. Start pushing.

Quote:
Spelling out exactly what she meant by her Brexit talks motto, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” the PM added: “This offer is on the table in the context of us agreeing the partnership for the future.

“If we don’t agree that partnership, then this offer is off the table.”
:clap:

1andrew1 12-12-2017 12:54
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928486)
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-t...vis-interview/
Does David Davies understand that Europeans can watch British news programs and papers? Doing the deal then coming back and boasting how you did 'em over and we don't have to follow it wasn't going to go down well.
He's just a daydreaming Brexit fantasist who is happy to let Theresa May do the heavy lifting. Just as well, for every time he opens his mouth, our potential deal with the EU worsens. Here's what the idiot told us in July 2016:
Quote:
So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.
https://www.conservativehome.com/pla...r-britain.html

Damien 12-12-2017 12:59
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35928488)
Source

This is a bit more like it. Start pushing.



:clap:
The transition deal will be sorted soon anyway. The EU themselves have said it's there as long as we remain within the EU rules during it.

Mick 12-12-2017 13:09
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928489)
He's just a daydreaming Brexit fantasist who is happy to let Theresa May do the heavy lifting. Just as well, for every time he opens his mouth, our potential deal with the EU worsens.
I hope it does fail, it is a dreadful and one sided deal, concocted and not in the interests of the decision that people voted for, which is a clean and total break from the corrupted EU.

When people cast their vote to leave the EU, they did so because that is exactly what they wanted to do and that means every part of it, not keep one foot in one aspect of it or be aligned with it in some way. Leave meant leave on the ballot paper.

Time for the government or those in government, to stand up and show some backbone to those corrupted and bent soles in the EU. Verhofstadt and Juncker being just those kind of bent soles. If this means folk like David sabotaging the totally crap deal, then so be it.

1andrew1 12-12-2017 13:10
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928490)
The transition deal will be sorted soon anyway. The EU themselves have said it's there as long as we remain within the EU rules during it.
In English, it's carry on paying the same as now but don't participate in decisions.

pip08456 12-12-2017 14:10
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928492)
In English, it's carry on paying the same as now but don't participate in decisions.
Not what was voted for.

OLD BOY 12-12-2017 16:53
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928464)
Even the Americans think we're crazy....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42315280
Well, they put Trump in as president, so who's the crazy party?:p:

You're getting desperate now we've got to Phase II, aren't you?

---------- Post added at 15:50 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928491)
I hope it does fail, it is a dreadful and one sided deal, concocted and not in the interests of the decision that people voted for, which is a clean and total break from the corrupted EU.

When people cast their vote to leave the EU, they did so because that is exactly what they wanted to do and that means every part of it, not keep one foot in one aspect of it or be aligned with it in some way. Leave meant leave on the ballot paper.

Time for the government or those in government, to stand up and show some backbone to those corrupted and bent soles in the EU. Verhofstadt and Juncker being just those kind of bent soles. If this means folk like David sabotaging the totally crap deal, then so be it.
Well, I wouldn't go that far!

Whoever we export to, the goods and services must meet the requirements of the importing country.

---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928405)
We could well mirror the customs union and not sign our own trade deals; it's an unknown.
An interesting article in today's FT "The UK has tied its Brexit hands" by Martin Sandbu predicts how things could well end up:

https://www.ft.com/content/ac8fc340-...4-0a1e63a52f9c
I think the government have made it abundantly clear that we will be signing our own trade deals!

jonbxx 12-12-2017 17:52
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928491)
I hope it does fail, it is a dreadful and one sided deal, concocted and not in the interests of the decision that people voted for, which is a clean and total break from the corrupted EU.

When people cast their vote to leave the EU, they did so because that is exactly what they wanted to do and that means every part of it, not keep one foot in one aspect of it or be aligned with it in some way. Leave meant leave on the ballot paper.

Time for the government or those in government, to stand up and show some backbone to those corrupted and bent soles in the EU. Verhofstadt and Juncker being just those kind of bent soles. If this means folk like David sabotaging the totally crap deal, then so be it.
What would be your desired end point 5-10 years down the line? I understand that you want no part of the UK to be aligned with the EU but what would you call a successful end to trade negotiations? Would you favour a free trade deal for everything, some sectors or a straight WTO MFN relationship?

Outside of trade, how would you see our interactions with organisations such as EASA, Europol, EMA develop? Again, nothing to do with them, an alignment partnership or membership?

Do you see the man on the street being financially better or worse off in 5-10 years time or are there other benefits joe public will see?

This isn't a challenge, I am genuinely curious to understand why you are so strongly in favour of Brexit

OLD BOY 13-12-2017 08:38
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35928526)
What would be your desired end point 5-10 years down the line? I understand that you want no part of the UK to be aligned with the EU but what would you call a successful end to trade negotiations? Would you favour a free trade deal for everything, some sectors or a straight WTO MFN relationship?

Outside of trade, how would you see our interactions with organisations such as EASA, Europol, EMA develop? Again, nothing to do with them, an alignment partnership or membership?

Do you see the man on the street being financially better or worse off in 5-10 years time or are there other benefits joe public will see?

This isn't a challenge, I am genuinely curious to understand why you are so strongly in favour of Brexit
To be fair, Mick has already answered your question. 'A clean and total break from a corrupted EU'.

So called 'hard Brexiteers' do not share your view that the sky will fall in if we leave this bureaucracy. Other countries can manage to trade with the EU without being a member of it, and so can we - and we will be able to trade with the rest of the world, which is developing faster than the EU, by the way.

Personally, I would be happy with that, but I also see the sense in trying to get our own trade deal with the EU in the same way as we want with other countries. There is no reason why this should not be a good deal for us as well as the EU because our rules and regulations are already fully aligned with theirs.

What we don't want, however, is to get drawn bank in by any trade agreement with the EU. We do not want an unreasonable price to be levied on us out of spite and nor do we want to be members of the EU, the Common Market or the Customs Union.

Those who think this will result in everyone being poorer are focussing on the possibility that we will be trading less with the EU without taking into account the enormous opportunities that exist elsewhere. It is a very blinkered and negative view to take.

jonbxx 13-12-2017 10:16
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928610)
To be fair, Mick has already answered your question. 'A clean and total break from a corrupted EU'.

So called 'hard Brexiteers' do not share your view that the sky will fall in if we leave this bureaucracy. Other countries can manage to trade with the EU without being a member of it, and so can we - and we will be able to trade with the rest of the world, which is developing faster than the EU, by the way.

Personally, I would be happy with that, but I also see the sense in trying to get our own trade deal with the EU in the same way as we want with other countries. There is no reason why this should not be a good deal for us as well as the EU because our rules and regulations are already fully aligned with theirs.

What we don't want, however, is to get drawn bank in by any trade agreement with the EU. We do not want an unreasonable price to be levied on us out of spite and nor do we want to be members of the EU, the Common Market or the Customs Union.

Those who think this will result in everyone being poorer are focussing on the possibility that we will be trading less with the EU without taking into account the enormous opportunities that exist elsewhere. It is a very blinkered and negative view to take.
Hi don't want to put words in to Micks mouth but a complete break with no trade deal, regulatory alignment or membership of EU led organisations is what you are suggesting here?

What sort of WTO tariff schedule would you like us to have? An economists for Brexit zero tariff schedule or something else? The EU is very protectionist of agriculture with 15-40% import tariffs under the WTO MFN schedule. Automotive is up around 9%. Should the UK do something similar to protect domestic industry?

Damien 13-12-2017 10:21
Re: Brexit discussion
 
It's worth considering that for the most part trading partners will want us to have regulatory alignment with Europe anyway as it allows their companies to meet one standard to trade with both the UK and the EU.

TheDaddy 13-12-2017 10:48
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928610)
To be fair, Mick has already answered your question. 'A clean and total break from a corrupted EU'.

So called 'hard Brexiteers' do not share your view that the sky will fall in if we leave this bureaucracy. Other countries can manage to trade with the EU without being a member of it, and so can we - and we will be able to trade with the rest of the world, which is developing faster than the EU, by the way.

Personally, I would be happy with that, but I also see the sense in trying to get our own trade deal with the EU in the same way as we want with other countries. There is no reason why this should not be a good deal for us as well as the EU because our rules and regulations are already fully aligned with theirs.

What we don't want, however, is to get drawn bank in by any trade agreement with the EU. We do not want an unreasonable price to be levied on us out of spite and nor do we want to be members of the EU, the Common Market or the Customs Union.

Those who think this will result in everyone being poorer are focussing on the possibility that we will be trading less with the EU without taking into account the enormous opportunities that exist elsewhere. It is a very blinkered and negative view to take.
What will we be trading with the rest of the world that we don't currently?

Damien 13-12-2017 10:51
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35928625)
What will we be trading with the rest of the world that we don't currently?
British Flags

heero_yuy 13-12-2017 11:04
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928623)
It's worth considering that for the most part trading partners will want us to have regulatory alignment with Europe anyway as it allows their companies to meet one standard to trade with both the UK and the EU.
For companies that trade world wide they have to have product conforming to the regulations of the destination country, not just the EU. So for example selling into the the USA UL approval is needed on a range of products. Some UL tests exceed the EU requirements particularly fire risks. Think fridge/freezers that go up like in Grenfell tower. They all conformed to CE but that's not good enough for the states.

If you look at say the power brick for your laptop you'll see all the different markings of the worlds regulatory bodies showing the product has been tested and conforms. Keeping alignment with the EU isn't really a big deal IMO.

jonbxx 13-12-2017 11:45
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Interestingly, UL certification is not mandatory in the US unlike CE marking in the EU However, UL testing is done because the market likes it. Some regulations are stricter in the US than the EU and vice versa Food and chemical regulations in the EU are much stricter in the EU than the US for example (see the chlorinated chicken as an example)

In my field, pharmaceutical regulation is six of one and half a dozen of the other. The FDA in the US is very much YOU MUST and YOU MUST NOT. The EMA for the Europe is more about risk assessment and proving something is safe under all circumstances. There is a lot of work to harmonise standards through a group called the ICH along with MLHW/PDMA in Japan and more countries are joining all the time. The ultimate aim is to have a global medicines registration but we're a long way off yet!

ianch99 13-12-2017 11:57
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928626)
British Flags
Giving them away for free is not really trading is it? ;) I mean, who would buy them ...

heero_yuy 13-12-2017 12:25
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Yes, In my sector: Industrial electronics we're pretty well world harmonised both for electrical safety (EN61010) and Electromagnetic compatability (EN61000). The regulatory bodies have all agreed the standards so although there are a number of certification markings, such as the "CE" mark, they all are to the same set of standards.

USA Customers demand the UL certification as it's almost impossible to get insurance otherwise. UL (Underwiters Laboratories) was set up after a rash of fires sent insurance claims rocketing in the early part of the 1900's and covers a range of products, not just electrical.

OLD BOY 13-12-2017 12:35
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35928621)
Hi don't want to put words in to Micks mouth but a complete break with no trade deal, regulatory alignment or membership of EU led organisations is what you are suggesting here?

What sort of WTO tariff schedule would you like us to have? An economists for Brexit zero tariff schedule or something else? The EU is very protectionist of agriculture with 15-40% import tariffs under the WTO MFN schedule. Automotive is up around 9%. Should the UK do something similar to protect domestic industry?
I would prefer a trade deal, but not continuing membership of the Common Market or Customs Union, and not at any price.

If I read Mick correctly, he would just like to pull out with no deal. I, however, would only support that if the deal being offered was unreasonable. A cost of £50bn is the absolute maximum I would wish to go to, and then only if it could be justified.

As far as WTO tariffs are concerned, you do know that tariffs are only applied if the importing country wants them to apply, right? The EU is a declining market for our exports, whereas our imports from the EU are increasing, so guess who will be more affected by the imposition of tariffs?

It's strange that you would want to use agriculture as part of your argument. The Common Agricultural Policy is a disgrace and benefits French farmers in particular. This country has long campaigned to get rid of it. The fisheries policy in particular gets my goat - our fishing industry is a pale shadow of what it used to be, and all those fish that are thrown back - dead - into the sea is unforgivable.

Basically, we can import and export agricultual products without the EU if necessary. I really wouldn't lose any sleep over that. It would be good to trade with our Commonwealth partners again, as we used to before the EEC.

As for the automotive industry, do you really think that Germany would welcome us applying tariffs on their exports to us? We buy an awful lot of cars from Germany, but we don't have to.

I certainly agree that Brexit will make a big difference to GB, but most of the important changes are positives; the negatives can be handled without major implications. Most of the panic comes from people who can't get to grips with how this will work, but over the next year or so, this will become clear.

Interesting to see how things have quietened down since we got to Phase II, which many remainers thought would never happen.

jonbxx 13-12-2017 16:51
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928637)
I would prefer a trade deal, but not continuing membership of the Common Market or Customs Union, and not at any price.

If I read Mick correctly, he would just like to pull out with no deal. I, however, would only support that if the deal being offered was unreasonable. A cost of £50bn is the absolute maximum I would wish to go to, and then only if it could be justified.

As far as WTO tariffs are concerned, you do know that tariffs are only applied if the importing country wants them to apply, right? The EU is a declining market for our exports, whereas our imports from the EU are increasing, so guess who will be more affected by the imposition of tariffs?

It's strange that you would want to use agriculture as part of your argument. The Common Agricultural Policy is a disgrace and benefits French farmers in particular. This country has long campaigned to get rid of it. The fisheries policy in particular gets my goat - our fishing industry is a pale shadow of what it used to be, and all those fish that are thrown back - dead - into the sea is unforgivable.

Basically, we can import and export agricultual products without the EU if necessary. I really wouldn't lose any sleep over that. It would be good to trade with our Commonwealth partners again, as we used to before the EEC.

As for the automotive industry, do you really think that Germany would welcome us applying tariffs on their exports to us? We buy an awful lot of cars from Germany, but we don't have to.

I certainly agree that Brexit will make a big difference to GB, but most of the important changes are positives; the negatives can be handled without major implications. Most of the panic comes from people who can't get to grips with how this will work, but over the next year or so, this will become clear.

Interesting to see how things have quietened down since we got to Phase II, which many remainers thought would never happen.
Oh yes, I was aware that we can set our own tariffs, hence the question - protectionism with high tariffs or free trade with low ones? Without a trade deal with the EU, we would have to fall back on our WTO MFN tariffs and it will be interesting to see what the government decides they want them to be. Under the WTO, everyone pays the same tariffs for import unless there's a deal so the German car industry would have the same leverage as Mini, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall/Opel, etc. in the UK with exports i.e, none.

The EU by its nature is protectionist, hence the high tariffs on agricultural products which protect farmers not just in France but across the EU. In 2015, the EU tried to increase tariffs on steel to protect the European steel industry, including South Wales but the UK Government vetoed it.

As Mick isn't answering, you said the GB will be better off out of the EU. How will the person on the street be better off?

OLD BOY 13-12-2017 19:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35928688)
Oh yes, I was aware that we can set our own tariffs, hence the question - protectionism with high tariffs or free trade with low ones? Without a trade deal with the EU, we would have to fall back on our WTO MFN tariffs and it will be interesting to see what the government decides they want them to be. Under the WTO, everyone pays the same tariffs for import unless there's a deal so the German car industry would have the same leverage as Mini, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall/Opel, etc. in the UK with exports i.e, none.

The EU by its nature is protectionist, hence the high tariffs on agricultural products which protect farmers not just in France but across the EU. In 2015, the EU tried to increase tariffs on steel to protect the European steel industry, including South Wales but the UK Government vetoed it.

As Mick isn't answering, you said the GB will be better off out of the EU. How will the person on the street be better off?
You are making a lot of assumptions on tariffs. But in any case, if we have to accept tariffs by the EU, the government has already said that this is covered by the fall in the value of the pound.

In answer to your question, assuming the economy improves with our ability to increase exports to the rest of the world, the person in the street should benefit from that. Trade will continue with the EU, of course, we're not pulling up the drawbridge!

rogerdraig 13-12-2017 20:27
Re: Brexit discussion
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192

1andrew1 13-12-2017 20:41
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Great result for parliamentry democracy.
Quote:
Government loses key Brexit bill vote after Tory rebellion
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerdraig (Post 35928704)

jonbxx 13-12-2017 21:17
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928698)
You are making a lot of assumptions on tariffs. But in any case, if we have to accept tariffs by the EU, the government has already said that this is covered by the fall in the value of the pound.

In answer to your question, assuming the economy improves with our ability to increase exports to the rest of the world, the person in the street should benefit from that. Trade will continue with the EU, of course, we're not pulling up the drawbridge!
If there’s no trade deal, we will have to accept EU MFN tariffs for exports to the EU. I would have thought that an uplift in pricing due to tariffs would make UK exports less competitive, especially with agriculture and fishing for example. How this reconciles with no hard border in Ireland, I don’t know.

Mr K 13-12-2017 21:58
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928705)
Great result for parliamentry democracy.
Yes it is refreshing and hopeful for our democracy that there are some MPs that are not prepared to be bullied and herded like sheep, and will vote for what they know is right and in the best interests of the country. Another coffin nail for the hard Brexiters.

Mick 13-12-2017 22:18
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928717)
Yes it is refreshing and hopeful for our democracy that there are some MPs that are not prepared to be bullied and herded like sheep, and will vote for what they know is right and in the best interests of the country. Another coffin nail for the hard Brexiters.
There is no such things as a hard or soft brexit. Terms made up by hard Remainers.

We are still leaving, Brexit is still happening, as it should do, you know that bit about democracy, that you persistently disrespect. :rolleyes:

1andrew1 13-12-2017 22:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928717)
Yes it is refreshing and hopeful for our democracy that there are some MPs that are not prepared to be bullied and herded like sheep, and will vote for what they know is right and in the best interests of the country. Another coffin nail for the hard Brexiters.
Agreed. Great to see MPs putting their country and constituents first. David Davis should take note.

Mick 13-12-2017 22:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928705)
Great result for parliamentry democracy.
But not really because Parliament already had a say on Brexit, when it decided to give the the people the choice to decide, well, the people decided to leave in overwhelming numbers, not thousands, not hundreds of thousands but over a million, that is a huge majority.

That leave decision meant leave, not doing back door deals or staying connected with one foot in the door, these people have had enough of 40 years of corruption with these EU *******s.

We are still leaving, it will just get dragged out by pathetic remainer MPs who will try their best to thwart it, delay it, like they have from day one, the same ones who think we cannot manage without the corrupt EU, we can and we should and we are going to, millions of people who voted to leave are not going to let this get shoved under the carpet, especially since I and many of these leavers do not want to be associated or connected to any corrupt entity trying to form a United States of Europe. Yuck, no thank you!

In other news, Electoral Commission has found that Russia spent less than one dollar on adverts in the EU Referendum. Hardly pushing a narrative of their interference, so evidence of the meddling is a bit like CNN, Very Fake News. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:45 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928720)
Agreed. Great to see MPs putting their country and constituents first. David Davis should take note.
They have done no such thing!

1andrew1 13-12-2017 23:03
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928721)
In other news, Electoral Commission has found that Russia spent less than one dollar on adverts in the EU Referendum. Hardly pushing a narrative of their interference, so evidence of the meddling is a bit like CNN, Very Fake News. :rolleyes:
Facebook wrote to the Electoral Commission about paid advertising only.
Quote:
The British politician leading an inquiry into Russian disinformation in the UK has attacked Facebook for failing to provide enough information after the social media company admitted Russian accounts had bought ads in the run-up to the Brexit vote...
Damian Collins, chair of the committee, said Facebook had not answered its questions: “Facebook’s statement to the electoral commission does not answer the questions that I put to [Facebook CEO] Mark Zuckerberg,” he said.
“It would appear that no work has been done by Facebook to look for Russian activity around the EU referendum, other than from funded advertisements from those accounts that had already been identified as part of the US Senate’s investigation,” he added.
Facebook has sidestepped questions for months from MPs and journalists about Russian interference through its platform in the UK.
https://www.ft.com/content/3bc945a2-...4-0a1e63a52f9c

Damien 13-12-2017 23:06
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928719)
There is no such things as a hard or soft brexit. Terms made up by hard Remainers.
Hard Brexit = Canada style trade deal or less
Soft Brexit = Canada-style deal including services (David Davies called it Canada++) or more.

It does have a difference. The terms are used to define how close a relationship with the EU we'll have.

Also all these 'leave means leave, we'll have nothing to do with them' is a nonsense. They are our largest trading partner and right on our doorstep. I am not sure what fantasy exists where they'll cease to be an entity we have to deal with.

1andrew1 13-12-2017 23:19
Re: Brexit discussion
 
For anyone wondering why British business wants to continue to be governed by EU rules, I recommend they Google the following FT article "Why British businesses are calling to stay under EU rules"
https://www.ft.com/content/1a6e3294-...4-0a1e63a52f9c

Mick 13-12-2017 23:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928724)
Facebook wrote to the Electoral Commission about paid advertising only.

https://www.ft.com/content/3bc945a2-...4-0a1e63a52f9c
It is still completely rubbish. I did not need any help by any Russian, Australian or Canadian to vote for Brexit, the corruption of the EU itself over 40 years, helped me decide on my own merit, I would say that was the same reason for 17.4 Million people.

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928727)
For anyone wondering why British business wants to continue to be governed by EU rules, I recommend they Google the following FT article "Why British businesses are calling to stay under EU rules"
https://www.ft.com/content/1a6e3294-...4-0a1e63a52f9c
It does not matter what British Businesses wants, a democratic process took place. People voted to leave.

1andrew1 13-12-2017 23:33
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928728)
It is still completely rubbish. I did not need any help by any Russian, Australian or Canadian to vote for Brexit, the corruption of the EU itself over 40 years, helped me decide on my own merit, I would say that was the same reason for 17.4 Million people.
Which bit is rubbish? Facebook is still being investigated, that's the issue. How manipulated you were by social media is not the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928728)
It does not matter what British Businesses wants, a democratic process took place. People voted to leave.
This is not about not leaving it's about understanding how we can maximise employment and tax revenue for public services like the NHS and armed forces.

Damien 13-12-2017 23:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928728)
It is still completely rubbish. I did not need any help by any Russian, Australian or Canadian to vote for Brexit, the corruption of the EU itself over 40 years, helped me decide on my own merit, I would say that was the same reason for 17.4 Million people.
I don't know what, if anything, Russia did with Brexit and I agree they wouldn't have caused it. There is a long history of Euroscepticism in the UK. How fever the accusation levelled about Russia's involvement in the UK is to stir up division, hatred and anger with the idea a divided country is a harder on to govern. So using trolls/bots to amplify divisive messages, boost the perceived numbers of what are actually of a small minority of people and so.

That to flood the internet with actual fake news so that nothing is true. There is a good amount of evidence that stories of migrants attacking people originate on Russian sites or twitter accounts. RT took a photo of ballots to be counted in the Scottish Referendum to suggest the vote might have been rigged.

Mick 13-12-2017 23:41
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928731)
Which bit is rubbish? Facebook is still being investigated, that's the issue. How manipulated you were by social media is not the question.
That's just it, I and many others weren't, if at all.

1andrew1 13-12-2017 23:46
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928733)
That's just it, I and many others weren't, if at all.
The issue at the moment is that the social media companies have supplied insufficient information to the enquiry. It's not about how much or how little people were influenced by it or even which side the accounts took.

OLD BOY 14-12-2017 00:13
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35928711)
If there’s no trade deal, we will have to accept EU MFN tariffs for exports to the EU. I would have thought that an uplift in pricing due to tariffs would make UK exports less competitive, especially with agriculture and fishing for example. How this reconciles with no hard border in Ireland, I don’t know.
I think the real objective should be to find solutions, not just keep putting problems in the way.

1andrew1 14-12-2017 01:08
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928725)
Hard Brexit = Canada style trade deal or less
Soft Brexit = Canada-style deal including services (David Davies called it Canada++) or more.

It does have a difference. The terms are used to define how close a relationship with the EU we'll have.

Also all these 'leave means leave, we'll have nothing to do with them' is a nonsense. They are our largest trading partner and right on our doorstep. I am not sure what fantasy exists where they'll cease to be an entity we have to deal with.
Great post. Heck, even Brexiter tabloid The Sun acknowledges the two types of Brexit.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/378670...iations-talks/

denphone 14-12-2017 06:24
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928717)
Yes it is refreshing and hopeful for our democracy that there are some MPs that are not prepared to be bullied and herded like sheep, and will vote for what they know is right and in the best interests of the country. Another coffin nail for the hard Brexiters.
l get very fed up with these labels Mr K as they have been used far too much for my liking as politicians and the public have to go by what they believe in and as such we should respect that.

---------- Post added at 05:24 ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928719)
There is no such things as a hard or soft brexit. Terms made up by hard Remainers.

We are still leaving, Brexit is still happening, as it should do, you know that bit about democracy, that you persistently disrespect. :rolleyes:
Of course its still happening as you say it should but you did not seem too happy the other day with the PM after the first deal was concluded.

OLD BOY 14-12-2017 08:37
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928717)
Yes it is refreshing and hopeful for our democracy that there are some MPs that are not prepared to be bullied and herded like sheep, and will vote for what they know is right and in the best interests of the country. Another coffin nail for the hard Brexiters.
Which would be a disgrace, and a punch in the eye for the electorate. The remainers aren't good losers, are they?

---------- Post added at 07:37 ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35928711)
If there’s no trade deal, we will have to accept EU MFN tariffs for exports to the EU. I would have thought that an uplift in pricing due to tariffs would make UK exports less competitive, especially with agriculture and fishing for example. How this reconciles with no hard border in Ireland, I don’t know.
As the EU has no wish for a hard border in Ireland, maybe you've answered your own question.

The biggest non-secret is that the EU actually DO want a deal!

Hugh 14-12-2017 08:53
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Can someone explain why it’s wrong for MPs to have a vote on the actual legislation that will be produced after negotiations on leaving the EU, and why it’s right for MPs to have a vote on the laws and statutes produced when the Government (of any party) tries to introduce/change any other legislation?

In both cases, a majority of voters (whether it’s a General Election or a Referendum) have indicated they want something to happen - either to Leave the EU or in support of a Party Manifesto.

1andrew1 14-12-2017 09:37
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35928761)
Can someone explain why it’s wrong for MPs to have a vote on the actual legislation that will be produced after negotiations on leaving the EU, and why it’s right for MPs to have a vote on the laws and statutes produced when the Government (of any party) tries to introduce/change any other legislation?

In both cases, a majority of voters (whether it’s a General Election or a Referendum) have indicated they want something to happen - either to Leave the EU or in support of a Party Manifesto.
I think some of the extreme Brexiters fear Parliamentary scrutiny will reduce the chances of a hard Brexit. It's not a philosophical question for them.

jonbxx 14-12-2017 10:06
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928758)
Which would be a disgrace, and a punch in the eye for the electorate. The remainers aren't good losers, are they?

---------- Post added at 07:37 ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 ----------


As the EU has no wish for a hard border in Ireland, maybe you've answered your own question.

The biggest non-secret is that the EU actually DO want a deal!
Most people in Northern Ireland don't want a hard border either, even hardcore unionists.

Of course the EU wants a deal. With a few exceptions, the UK wants a deal too.

On the vote last night, can we just quote from the Vote Leave website;

Quote:
Our laws should be made by people we can elect and kick out -
it's more democratic
Is there too much parliamentary sovereignty now?

OLD BOY 14-12-2017 12:20
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928764)
I think some of the extreme Brexiters fear Parliamentary scrutiny will reduce the chances of a hard Brexit. It's not a philosophical question for them.
No, it's not that. The fear is that if the EU knows that we have to take the deal that's on the table back to Parliament, who could then tell the Government to go back for further negotiations, this will put the UK on the back foot, and the EU could exploit the position. It could result in the UK getting a worse deal because our negotiating hand is weakened.

Mick 14-12-2017 12:34
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928764)
I think some of the extreme Brexiters fear Parliamentary scrutiny will reduce the chances of a hard Brexit. It's not a philosophical question for them.
No such thing as a hard/soft Brexit. I have already said that. Leave means leave, no middle ground. No foot in the bloody doors.

Leave means you exit, depart, walk out of. If I leave my house or car, it means I’m no longer in or connected to it’s surroundings.

Leave on the ballot paper meant leaving the EU and that meant completely!

Damien 14-12-2017 12:39
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Unfortunately the government have to consider what's next after leaving. Leave means Leave isn't a policy proposal.

Mick 14-12-2017 12:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35928761)
Can someone explain why it’s wrong for MPs to have a vote on the actual legislation that will be produced after negotiations on leaving the EU, and why it’s right for MPs to have a vote on the laws and statutes produced when the Government (of any party) tries to introduce/change any other legislation?

In both cases, a majority of voters (whether it’s a General Election or a Referendum) have indicated they want something to happen - either to Leave the EU or in support of a Party Manifesto.
It’s wrong because Parliament has already given the Democratic power to the people, us, they decided back in 2015, to give the people back the sovereign democratic decision to leave the EU and now they wanted that power back to stop the process because they cannot believe leave won.

Those rebel MPs are talking complete bollocks when they say they care about giving Parliament the sovereign power to decide, they did not give a toss about that for 40 years, while Brussels was deciding our laws.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928791)
Unfortunately the government have to consider what's next after leaving. Leave means Leave isn't a policy proposal.
I disagree. Because a £9 Million leaflet that the government sent to every household in Britain, said they will act on what people decide, and the people decided they wanted to leave.

Damien 14-12-2017 13:14
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928792)
I disagree. Because a £9 Million leaflet that the government sent to every household in Britain, said they will act on what people decide, and the people decided they wanted to leave.
But we are leaving the EU. Leaving the institution doesn't mean not having any external relationship with them. It means: Out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ, out of the single market, 'control' over immigration and so on. However Leaving the EU is the same thing as not having close ties to the EU.

denphone 14-12-2017 13:15
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928758)
Which would be a disgrace, and a punch in the eye for the electorate. The remainers aren't good losers, are they?
What a load a claptrap as most have clearly accepted it.

Mick 14-12-2017 13:23
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35928805)
What a load a claptrap as most have clearly accepted it.
Clearly they have not.

11 of them and all of the Labour ******* MPs bar 2, that’s Feild and Hoey, clearly did not last night.

Parliament voted to have the Brexit referendum, then voted to trigger A50. How many more times do you want Parliament to have a say?

denphone 14-12-2017 13:25
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928808)
Clearly they have not.

11 of them and all of the Labour ******* MPs bar 2, that’s Feild and Hoey, clearly did not last night.

Parliament voted to have the Brexit referendum, then voted to trigger A50. How many more times do you want Parliament to have a say?
l am talking about the general public Mick as last nights vote is another matter in itself.

jonbxx 14-12-2017 13:38
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35928792)
Those rebel MPs are talking complete bollocks when they say they care about giving Parliament the sovereign power to decide, they did not give a toss about that for 40 years, while Brussels was deciding our laws.
You won, you voted for and got power restored to Parliament. Was it not clear on the voting form?

1andrew1 14-12-2017 14:26
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35928785)
No, it's not that. The fear is that if the EU knows that we have to take the deal that's on the table back to Parliament, who could then tell the Government to go back for further negotiations, this will put the UK on the back foot, and the EU could exploit the position. It could result in the UK getting a worse deal because our negotiating hand is weakened.
That's rather negative Old Boy. It could actually strengthen the UK's negotiating position. The negotiators could say "I'd love to agree to that so I can get home tonight but I can't because it won't get past Parliament. Give me a better offer."

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35928791)
Unfortunately the government have to consider what's next after leaving. Leave means Leave isn't a policy proposal.
Exactly. The worrying thing is that the Government hasn't decided due to cabinet divisions.
Quote:
Mrs May is facing pressure from her fellow leaders at the EU Council meeting to spell out what kind of future relationship Britain is looking for, as negotiators prepare to move on to the next phase of talks. But the prime minister has yet to find a consensus in her own cabinet between those who favour close alignment with the EU after Brexit and those who are keen to make a harder break. “We asked the European side to leave it open for now,” said one of Mrs May’s allies. “We didn’t want them setting down at this European Council what exactly the parameters of a deal might be.”
https://www.ft.com/content/2a7d62d2-...f-de1c2175f5ce

Kursk 14-12-2017 16:33
Re: Brexit discussion
 
David Davis deserves a knighthood for his skilful handling of the negotiations.

denphone 14-12-2017 17:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35928764)
I think some of the extreme Brexiters fear Parliamentary scrutiny will reduce the chances of a hard Brexit. It's not a philosophical question for them.
No excuses for this though as this goes beyond the pale.:(

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

1andrew1 14-12-2017 20:37
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35928852)
No excuses for this though as this goes beyond the pale.:(

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
I think you get people like this everywhere, it's not a Brexiter thing. I hope the Police catch them for their own good for they can't be of sane mind.

Damien 14-12-2017 20:42
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Yup, happens across politics. It's what happens when people have so vilified their opposition that they become evil, a caricature, and they don't seem them as a fellow human they can empathise with. It should be taken seriously too. Jo Cox was murdered by someone who viewed the world so simply and with so hate.

Mr K 14-12-2017 20:57
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35928838)
David Davis deserves a knighthood for his skilful handling of the negotiations.
Sarcasm doesn't suit you ! ;)

richard s 14-12-2017 21:40
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Good news democracy is working as it should... Give David Davis a knighthood what for I wonder... O of course Brexit I remember it well.

Kursk 14-12-2017 23:02
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928870)
Sarcasm doesn't suit you ! ;)
Nope, I genuinely feel he is running rings around Barny and Jean. The British always win.

Mr K 14-12-2017 23:07
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35928886)
Nope, I genuinely feel he is running rings around Barny and Jean. The British always win.
Yes he's definitely confounded them by giving them virtually everything they wanted. Hard as nails negotiator !

Kursk 14-12-2017 23:17
Re: Brexit discussion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35928887)
Yes he's definitely confounded them by giving them virtually everything they wanted. Hard as nails negotiator !
Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed - from David Davis himself.

So far, they have nothing.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55.
Page 13 of 34 « First 39101112 13 1415161723 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum