Shake it all about: Brexit thread II

134689101

Comments

  • Russ wrote:
    Border-free and tariff-free trade between the UK and Ireland looks like a win-win from where I sit.

    See everything around regulations, standards, the bodies that draw those up, verify them and so on and all the other discussion around that conducted ad-naseaum in the other thread on the old site.

    Trade is built on all of those - the more comprehensive the one, the more comprehensive the other. The UK has rejected the two most comprehensive arrangements facilitating trade. The EU then has a choice of what it wants to spend its legislative time doing.

    Any argument failing to acknowledge all of this is fairly dishonest,
  • With Britain out of the EU a free Irish mainland border will last right until farmers on one side or the other see that production costs or market prices are different in the "North" and the "South". If the Republic continues to get the benefit of cheap East European labour that won't take long.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Border-free and tariff-free trade between the UK and Ireland looks like a win-win from where I sit.

    ...

    A mutual-benefit agreement that should be easy to draft because it's very like how the group already trade between themselves.
    The only really easy way to have border & tariff free trade between the UK and Ireland is for that to exist between the UK and the rest of the EU.

    Not only that, you'd need to get the UK and EU to agree to apply the same tariffs to all external nations as well. Otherwise you get a de facto "tariff war" where other nations will decide whether to dock their container ships in Dublin or Belfast based on which side has the lower tariffs. Exactly why this kind of race to the bottom counts as a "win" is unclear to me. Also unclear is why the UK agreeing to follow the EU tariff system while giving up its voice in setting those tariffs would count as a "win".
  • AFAICS there is no scenario where the UK leaves the EU which could be considered a "win" for the UK. But, I guess that's why I'm a member of one of the few UK political parties committed to trying to stop Brexit, or failing that regaining EU membership as soon as possible.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    AFAICS there is no scenario where the UK leaves the EU which could be considered a "win" for the UK. But, I guess that's why I'm a member of one of the few UK political parties committed to trying to stop Brexit, or failing that regaining EU membership as soon as possible.
    AFAICS there is no scenario where the UK leaves the EU which could be considered a "win" for the UK. But, I guess that's why I'm a member of one of the few UK political parties committed to trying to stop Brexit, or failing that regaining EU membership as soon as possible.

    If you believe in the European project of ever-closer union and you want to see Britain governed from Brussels, that makes perfect sense.

    I guess those who think like that greatly outnumber those on the opposite side who want isolationism and barriers to trade and protection for indigenous industry, who actively want a no-deal Brexit.

    But I'm guessing - and it is only a guess - that the majority position is in between - wanting trade & co-operation with Europe but not rule from Europe. A voluntary association of sovereign states.
  • Russ wrote: »
    But I'm guessing - and it is only a guess - that the majority position is in between - wanting trade & co-operation with Europe but not rule from Europe. A voluntary association of sovereign states.
    Which is exactly what 52% voted against, as that's the current situation. A few look towards greater integration, a dream some have held since the 1950s (including such British heros as Winston Churchill, who's presumably turning in his grave each time his image is invoked by the anti-European idiots). But, it's never been the plan for the majority, and as we know even things like a common currency as an aid to trade and co-operation can be opted out of.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    If you believe in the European project of ever-closer union and you want to see Britain governed from Brussels, that makes perfect sense.

    I'm guessing you're one of those, since your proposal requires the UK to mirror the EU's tariff structure (or the EU to mirror the UK's which seems a lot less likely).
  • Good article from a small business owner who is currently staring down the barrel of Brexit. Essentially, The additional red tape caused by leaving the single market will kill them for sure:

    http://the.48andbeyond.co.uk/2018/02/why-brexit-will-devastate-uk.html?m=1

    There must be 10, 000 such stories in Britain at the moment. If anyone's got Liam Fox's email, please forward it!
  • Russ wrote: »
    AFAICS there is no scenario where the UK leaves the EU which could be considered a "win" for the UK. But, I guess that's why I'm a member of one of the few UK political parties committed to trying to stop Brexit, or failing that regaining EU membership as soon as possible.

    If you believe in the European project of ever-closer union and you want to see Britain governed from Brussels, that makes perfect sense.

    I guess those who think like that greatly outnumber those on the opposite side who want isolationism and barriers to trade and protection for indigenous industry, who actively want a no-deal Brexit.

    But I'm guessing - and it is only a guess - that the majority position is in between - wanting trade & co-operation with Europe but not rule from Europe. A voluntary association of sovereign states.

    At the moment we're governed by a totally "pro-business, fuck the workers and kill the poor and disabled" cabal, based in the Square Mile, with their pals in Smith Square (Tory Party HQ) and the former Fleet Street. Yes, I'd rather the EU had more, rather than less say here, because it actually takes the interests of people into account to a far greater extent than any British government has done over the last forty years.

  • Rocinante wrote: »
    Good article from a small business owner who is currently staring down the barrel of Brexit. Essentially, The additional red tape caused by leaving the single market will kill them for sure:

    http://the.48andbeyond.co.uk/2018/02/why-brexit-will-devastate-uk.html?m=1

    There must be 10, 000 such stories in Britain at the moment. If anyone's got Liam Fox's email, please forward it!

    Which was entirely inevitable. The "cut red-tape" mantra of the Brexiteers was always another piece of their repeated mis-information. As anyone who has ever exported outside the EU would know, without maintaining the common market there would be increased paper work even if there were no formal tariff. And, even those who don't export to the EU will feel the pinch as we replace EU legislation with UK equivalent - start with the bureaucratic overhead of changing the forms. Then add in the penchant for UK government to require more paperwork than our EU partners* and there was bound to be more red tape.

    * As an example, when we were leading EU Framework projects the bureaucracy of the UK system was looked on with mild amusement by our partners, until it was pointed out that they needed to keep their lunch receipts if they wanted to claim it on expenses at which point it became a point of considerable annoyance.
  • I think this last is epitomised by the farce over getting blue British passports and having them (for now) made in France because it's cheaper there, and somehow managing to be outraged about this.
  • The whole thing is a mix of farce and tragedy,
  • And such a mixture of incoherent ideas, protectionism, free trade, take back control, and so on. I suppose few politicians care about the incoherence, and few of the media.
  • If the Remainer dream occurred and the May government fell, a multiparty progressive coalition including Tory defectors came to power, and Corbyn did an about face and decided to try to stop Brexit altogether, is there any provision in EU treaties to allow such a reversal at this stage - or to make a rapid reapplication for membership possible?

    Would the different countries of the EU be likely to allow the UK to backtrack on Brexit or to quickly get back in the EU after leaving? Or would they be too afraid of setting a precedent of allowing countries to use Article 50 as a bargaining chip - even if an unsuccessful one this time around - or a domestic political tool?

    I think the treaties require a readmitted UK to have to commit to eventually adopting the Euro. Would the EU countries be willing to amend the treaties to let the UK not have to do this? Or would they be willing to basically let the UK put the Euro effectively on hold indefinitely as Sweden has done and as much of Central-Eastern Europe appears to be doing? I know some remainders may want the UK to have the Euro. But it seems much less popular in the UK than an all out reversal of Brexit, which itself is less popular than an as-soft-as possible Brexit.

  • From what I've seen reported regarding the provisions of Article 50 I get the impression that no one drafting the treaty considered that no nation would be insane enough to actually want to leave the EU, and therefore didn't spend a lot of time addressing such questions. In the absence of a definitive statement that once we've said we're leaving the EU there's no reversing that decision it stands that the decision can be reversed.

    Though, as repeatedly said it can't be to take us back to exactly the same relationship between the 28 nations of the EU as existed two years ago. We can stay in (or rejoin) the EU, we can't turn the clock back.
  • From what I've seen reported regarding the provisions of Article 50 I get the impression that no one drafting the treaty considered that no nation would be insane enough to actually want to leave the EU, and therefore didn't spend a lot of time addressing such questions. In the absence of a definitive statement that once we've said we're leaving the EU there's no reversing that decision it stands that the decision can be reversed.

    Though, as repeatedly said it can't be to take us back to exactly the same relationship between the 28 nations of the EU as existed two years ago. We can stay in (or rejoin) the EU, we can't turn the clock back.

    But, as I asked, would the countries of the EU want to let the UK back in quickly and easily and thereby incentivize any other counties to think about jumping off ship for a little swim for domestic political reasons or in hopes of getting some concessions from the EU, only to jump back on later?

    Also, do you think pro-Europeans like Macron might want to keep the UK away from the negotiating table on European integration for the time being, in hopes that having one less anti-Euro, touchy-about-sovereignty country major power in the club for the time being might make his reforms more likely to happen. (They aren't likely to happen anyway, given the weaker state Merkel is in, the basketcase currently going on in Italy, Spain's distraction with Catalonia, Euroskepticism and nationalism having become the mainstream in Central-Eastern Europe (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, etc.) - and increasingly even in the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, etc.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    But, as I asked, would the countries of the EU want to let the UK back in quickly and easily and thereby incentivize any other counties to think about jumping off ship for a little swim for domestic political reasons or in hopes of getting some concessions from the EU, only to jump back on later?

    That's only a problem if there are concessions to be gained. Has anything that could be considered a "concession" been offered to the UK to abandon Brexit?
  • I said in a
    Crœsos wrote: »
    But, as I asked, would the countries of the EU want to let the UK back in quickly and easily and thereby incentivize any other counties to think about jumping off ship for a little swim for domestic political reasons or in hopes of getting some concessions from the EU, only to jump back on later?

    That's only a problem if there are concessions to be gained. Has anything that could be considered a "concession" been offered to the UK to abandon Brexit?

    I said in an earlier post that the Brexit hasn't gained the UK it the concessions it wanted. However, if the UK was let back in relatively unscathed, we may see more countries flirt with article 50. If a whole bunch of countries made an ultimatum about migration, say, threatening Article 50 if they didn't get their way, the EU might be more likely to cave in rather than be threatened with nonexistence.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    But, as I asked, would the countries of the EU want to let the UK back in quickly and easily and thereby incentivize any other counties to think about jumping off ship for a little swim for domestic political reasons or in hopes of getting some concessions from the EU, only to jump back on later?

    That's only a problem if there are concessions to be gained. Has anything that could be considered a "concession" been offered to the UK to abandon Brexit?

    I said in an earlier post that the Brexit hasn't gained the UK it the concessions it wanted. However, if the UK was let back in relatively unscathed, we may see more countries flirt with article 50. If a whole bunch of countries made an ultimatum about migration, say, threatening Article 50 if they didn't get their way, the EU might be more likely to cave in rather than be threatened with nonexistence.

    Why would the failure of the UK to get concessions be a lure to other countries to think that they could succeed where the UK failed? The UK is better positioned than most other EU members for withdrawal (still has its own currency, very few land borders with EU countries, large and populous enough to have significant internal markets) so I'm not seeing the logic where a coalition of Finland, Luxembourg, and Slovakia (to pick three random EU members) comes to the reasoned conclusion that they'll be able to succeed in forcing concessions where the UK failed.

    (I'm assuming that by "a whole bunch of countries" you mean not quite enough to form a qualified majority and change the EU's rules from within.)
  • Well now Trump is apparently talking about rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership so perhaps the Rejoiners can learn from him how doing so can be a win-win solution.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Well now Trump is apparently talking about rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership so perhaps the Rejoiners can learn from him how doing so can be a win-win solution.

    Yes, but what exactly should they be learning?
    However, the revised agreement dropped about 20 of the original provisions (mostly those insisted on by the US), suggesting a US re-entry would require some intense negotiation.

    Best case: the U.S. has to work very hard to duplicate a lot of effort to re-instate a deal it could have had earlier.

    Most likely case: the TPP signatories have little to no interest in re-instating the provisions they all agreed to drop and the U.S. either joins on less favorable terms than were available earlier or doesn't join at all.

    To me the lesson seems to be that quitting membership (or in this case potential membership) to force concessions usually just means getting a less favorable deal later on.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Why would the failure of the UK to get concessions be a lure to other countries to think that they could succeed where the UK failed? The UK is better positioned than most other EU members for withdrawal (still has its own currency, very few land borders with EU countries, large and populous enough to have significant internal markets) so I'm not seeing the logic where a coalition of Finland, Luxembourg, and Slovakia (to pick three random EU members) comes to the reasoned conclusion that they'll be able to succeed in forcing concessions where the UK failed.

    (I'm assuming that by "a whole bunch of countries" you mean not quite enough to form a qualified majority and change the EU's rules from within.)

    Brexiteers wanted to be able to restrict migration of EU citizens into the UK. Nationalist parties in continental Europe seem more concerned in fighting the EU over quotas of refugees from outside the EU and in some cases want to be able to have a migration policy for non-EU migrants into their countries that discriminates on the basis of religion (or, in Trumpian fashion, on the basis of national origin, with Muslim-majority fashion being coincedentally singled out).

    I could imagine Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia, maybe others - and, depending on the coalition negotiations going on in Italy, possibly them as well - going on disregarding refugee quotas, building fences on their borders with Schengen zone countries, instituting border checks as an "emergency" measure, etc. (even though most refugees want to make their way to Germany, Sweden, etc., and at least not to Eastern European countries, but this has not stopped local nationalist parties from using the idea of an "invasion" of refugees to drum up support).

    If the EU steps up its pressure to enforce migrant quotas and stop border checks, and if governments in these countries continue their drift ever further to the right (even if some are nominally still social democratic), they might come to the EU with an ultimatum - knowing full well that that leaving the EU would be much more disastrous for them than it is for the UK - but betting that, since the loss of 5 or more members at one time might threaten to set in motion the collapse of the union, they could get away with a bluff like that and scare the EU into letting them get away with ignoring migrant quotas, etc., with little more than a slap on the wrist. This policy may be risky and idiotic, and it may only be talked about to score domestic political points rather than actually implemented.

    I acknowledge that actually going through with Article 50 is not likely to help any country in the end. But if the UK manages to get thrown a life preserver and towed back on board quickly after jumping off the EU boat, it increases that chance that, if a Nationalist party more radical and Euroskeptic than any currently in power manages to form a government in the rest of the EU, that talk of playing all kinds of chicken with the EU might become standard political discourse.

    That's as much as I can hash out that line of thought. I'm an outsider with not much in-depth knowledge of the workings of the EU or of the domestic politics of any EU member, so all this speculation may be nonsense. My whole point is that I'm worried about the future of the EU, even if the UK caves in and Brexit manages to just be a temporary folly. It took a Civil War to put the issue of secession (and of nullification of federal laws) to rest in the US. The EU is not a United States of Europe and the issues driving Brexit are nothing like slavery, but I'm still very worried about the long term viability of the EU. I think the world needs the EU and I want it to get stronger and thrive. I'm just very pessimistic about that happening.

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    To me the lesson seems to be that quitting membership (or in this case potential membership) to force concessions usually just means getting a less favorable deal later on.
    That was kind of my point.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I acknowledge that actually going through with Article 50 is not likely to help any country in the end.

    Which is why I'm skeptical that taking themselves hostage would ever be an effective negotiating tactic. I'm picturing something like the hostage scene from Blazing Saddles [content warning: racial epithets]. The EU is premised on the idea that the benefits of membership outweigh the costs and given their positions in the Brexit negotiations so far they seem to realize that doing special favors to countries in order to retain members, or granting the benefits of membership without requiring the costs, is unsustainable in the long-term.
  • The EU has, in the past, done special favours to retain members (or, at least, stop them raising too big a stink). So, treaties negotiated after joining include opt-outs for existing members (eg: opt-outs from adopting the Euro and joining Schengen). And, of course the UK did negotiate a fairly substantial rebate deal. If (hopefully when) the UK decides that it's best to stay in the EU then the path back in is likely to include a renegotiation of those special favours, and the result isn't going to be as favourable to the UK (though, opting out of Schengen always seemed unfavourable to the UK from my perspective ... so maybe needing to join the Schengen zone would result in a more favourable deal for the UK on that point).
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    you'd need to get the UK and EU to agree to apply the same tariffs to all external nations as well. Otherwise you get a de facto "tariff war" where other nations will decide whether to dock their container ships in Dublin or Belfast based on which side has the lower tariffs. Exactly why this kind of race to the bottom counts as a "win" is unclear to me. Also unclear is why the UK agreeing to follow the EU tariff system while giving up its voice in setting those tariffs would count as a "win".

    To the extent that tariffs are essentially arbitrary taxes, a race towards zero tariffs could be an excellent thing. But it seems pretty clear that there are areas - food safety, perhaps - where a race to lower standards would be a bad thing.

    Seems to me that there are three types of option for frictionless UK/EU trade post-Brexit:

    A) both jurisdictions applying the same standards because the UK remains part of the EU institutions and procedures that agree those standards (whilst not being subject to EU rules, procedures, institutions in any other respect).

    B) both jurisdictions applying the same standards by a bilateral agreement (one doesn't change the rules without the agreement of the other).

    C) both jurisdictions operate a common system with two sets of standards. Britain can make & import goods that don't meet EU standards, but they have to be labelled as "Not for sale in the EU". And vice versa.

    Three models of Brexit. A negotiated agreement on any one of those three bases would be possible. And would be to the economic advantage of the countries on both sides (relative to a no-deal Brexit).

    Because trade is good.

    Do the Eurocrats want any of those outcomes ? Politically, no.

    Do the British Govt want any of those outcomes ? Hard to tell from here what they want. There doesn't seem to be a clear vision...
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    I'm assuming the UK will remain a member of CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation - European Standardisation Committee), as it is not an EU body.


    MMM
  • EURATOM isn't an EU body either, didn't stop the government ditching that international structure relating to something as petty as safety in nuclear industries. I'm sure there's a bunch of idiots who consider British Standards to be superior to European ones and want to get out of that body with the word "European" in it as well. And, probably ban the use of sensible units of measurement like grams, meters and litres forcing us to learn some obsolete systems of measurement.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 2018
    A quick glance at the CEN website and statutes reveal it is registered in Belgium. Article 7.1 of the Statutes says that
    The national Members are the recognised national standards bodies in their respective countries, who are members of the European Union or EFTA, or likely to become members of European Union or EFTA.
    It is governed by Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 which I suspect means that as with EURATOM, the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter of any disputes about it.

    But I'm sure all this was thought about prior to the Brexit referendum...
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    Certification (including self assessment) is done to the relevant (vaguely worded and general) directive or regulation though. So the relationship is complicated.
    Standard harmonization without directive harmonization would mean once tested under the appropriate standard you could be pretty sure the same product passed in both jurisdictions. In this semi-worst case, even recycle a lot of the paperwork though, so that's still good.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    But I'm sure all this was thought about prior to the Brexit referendum...
    It was, I know I though about it. I'm pretty sure Alan had (though unlike him I hadn't thought about EurAtom), and about 52% of the UK.
    I suspect Junker and Merkel and ... also thought about it.
    It's just Davies, Cameron and MAy I'm not so sure about.
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    In my sector, the old British Standards are actually better in some respects and are still sometimes used. It's not a case of either or but both and.

    MMM

  • jay_emm wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Alan had (though unlike him I hadn't thought about EurAtom)
    I don't think anyone thought much about EURATOM beyond putting it in the same category as things like ECHR as not being an EU institution and not included within the EU treaties we were voting on whether or not to remain a signatory of.
    I suspect Junker and Merkel and ... also thought about it.
    It's just Davies, Cameron and MAy I'm not so sure about.
    I wonder at times whether they thought about much at all. Though, probably more thought than BoJo. And, even he put in more thought than Farage.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 2018
    I don't think anyone thought much about EURATOM beyond putting it in the same category as things like ECHR as not being an EU institution and not included within the EU treaties we were voting on whether or not to remain a signatory of.
    Though very much the popular perception inasmuch as people perceive these institutions at all, that's wrong, though, isn't it? EURATOM is subject to an EU institution - the ECJ - but unless I'm very much mistaken, the ECHR is not, it's an emanation of the Council of Europe.

    (I did not realise this until I visited it. Even then it's confusing, as it is mere yards from the European Parliament in Strasbourg - although the Council of Europe is slightly closer, being directly across the street*).

    Despite many Brexiteer's aspirations, Brexit in and of itself does not change the UK's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ECHR. I'm glad most people don't realise this, and would find rejection of the ECHR an order of magnitude more alarming than Brexit, which is alarming enough as it is.

    ==
    *I strongly recommend visiting the "European district" in Strasbourg. It puts a tangible reality on the EU and what it means, especially given the symbolic location on the border of France and Germany, and the institutional buildings are far nicer than the ones in Brussels.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Seems to me that there are three types of option for frictionless UK/EU trade post-Brexit:

    A ) both jurisdictions applying the same standards because the UK remains part of the EU institutions and procedures that agree those standards (whilst not being subject to EU rules, procedures, institutions in any other respect).

    B ) both jurisdictions applying the same standards by a bilateral agreement (one doesn't change the rules without the agreement of the other).

    C ) both jurisdictions operate a common system with two sets of standards. Britain can make & import goods that don't meet EU standards, but they have to be labelled as "Not for sale in the EU". And vice versa.

    Three models of Brexit. A negotiated agreement on any one of those three bases would be possible. And would be to the economic advantage of the countries on both sides (relative to a no-deal Brexit).

    To summarize your three suggestions, they boil down to:

    A ) UK trade standards are "dictated" by Eurocrats in Brussels, except the UK gives up its voice in setting those standards.

    B ) the EU gives an external nation, the UK, an effective veto over any changes in trade policy or any future trade agreements the EU may want to enter into.

    C ) Everything imported into the both the UK and the EU has to undergo a customs check not only to make sure the product meets the standard of their own jurisdiction but the other jurisdiction as well, and then makes sure it's labeled appropriately depending on jurisdictional compatibility. This not only doubles the customs bureaucracy of both the UK and EU, it adds an extra burden on every other country that wants to export to either.

    Again, I'm not seeing the "everyone wins" in any of these, even relative to trading under WTO rules.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Three models of Brexit. A negotiated agreement on any one of those three bases would be possible. And would be to the economic advantage of the countries on both sides (relative to a no-deal Brexit).

    Because trade is good.
    I think you would lessen the impression of reinventing the wheel if you'd compared your models to things like the Customs Union and the Single Market.
    Do the Eurocrats want any of those outcomes ? Politically, no.
    It is an article of faith among right-wing Brexiters that the Eurocrats don't politically want any of those outcomes. Largely because they want a scapegoat for all failures of reality and logic to match their opinions.
    Those of us who aren't looking for a scapegoat aren't aware of any sign that the eurocrats are politically blocking your option A. If the UK wants to stay in the customs union or the single market they're happy with that.
    Do the British Govt want any of those outcomes ? Hard to tell from here what they want. There doesn't seem to be a clear vision...
    That's an understatement.
    There are some of them - e.g. Fox - who would disagree with you that a race to abolish food standards would be a bad thing. Johnson on the other hand has explicitly said that he wants to have his cake and eat it. The UK government's overall position seems to be that it wants friction-free trade without any means of harmonising regulations. Eurocrats are not to blame for the logical contradiction there.
  • One interesting aspect of Brexit ideology is that the UK is being punished by the EU. An example right now concerns aviation, where there is a complex array of EU legislation. However, it seems that the UK will be outside these measures, and will somehow have to replace it. I think there are similar measures in other areas, e.g. pharmaceuticals.

    But we are not being punished, are we? We have declared a wish to take back control, and that we don't want the EU to be arranging our legislation. It's odd then to start complaining. It's like leaving home, and complaining because mum isn't doing your washing.
  • On the Powell thread the topic of former British Commonwealth Citizens facing deportation because the Home Office lost/never created paper work regarding their indefinite leave to remain and the current regime wants to create a 'hostile environment'

    It occurs to me that things of this nature are being conducted as if the EU couldn't possibly be watching what's going on inside the UK and drawing lessons from it - for instance that any agreement on the rights of EU residents in the UK are worth very little unless they are safeguarded by treaty which is ultimately presided over by a body outside the UKs control (for the EU this would be the ECJ).
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I see that the House of Lords has rebuffed PM May's proposal to leave the EU's custom's union. Sounds like her plans are crumbling

    What does this all mean?
  • What it means is that (if voted through by the Lords) that the government will either have to spend time considering a customs union (even if they then reject it) or try to get it struck off again in the Commons. Which option is taken probably depends on how many other amendments the Lords vote through - spending Commons time on just this may not be considered worth it, but if there are other amendments the Lords vote through that the government objects to then they may try to force the whole lot through the Commons. The Lords are then highly unlikely to trigger the constitutional mess that voting down a bill that's gone through the Commons twice would cause.

    In the bigger picture, this is one more example of how poorly thought through the Brexit legislation is, it's been rushed out by a government in array when it should have been carefully considered and discussed before a referendum on it, certainly before setting the clock running by triggering Article 50.

    Also, it's sweet irony for those of who want the Lords reformed to include more directly elected members that they're standing for democracy when the Commons has collapsed to reject normal democratic procedures under pressure from fascists.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    Seems to me that there are three types of option for frictionless UK/EU trade post-Brexit:

    A ) both jurisdictions applying the same standards because the UK remains part of the EU institutions and procedures that agree those standards (whilst not being subject to EU rules, procedures, institutions in any other respect).

    B ) both jurisdictions applying the same standards by a bilateral agreement (one doesn't change the rules without the agreement of the other).

    C ) both jurisdictions operate a common system with two sets of standards. Britain can make & import goods that don't meet EU standards, but they have to be labelled as "Not for sale in the EU". And vice versa.

    Three models of Brexit.

    To summarize your three suggestions, they boil down to:

    A ) UK trade standards are "dictated" by Eurocrats in Brussels, except the UK gives up its voice in setting those standards.

    No - option A is the UK retaining a full voice in those EU processes concerned with trade, and no others. Something like a Customs Union. But with no add-ons.

    (? Just wondering - what would the US federal govt look like if it literally did nothing but regulate commerce between the states ?)
    B ) the EU gives an external nation, the UK, an effective veto over any changes in trade policy or any future trade agreements the EU may want to enter into.

    Yes, and Britain gives the EU an effective veto over any changes in British trade policy.

    Popular on neither side maybe. But one way of getting border-free trade.
    C ) This not only doubles the customs bureaucracy of both the UK and EU, it adds an extra burden on every other country that wants to export to either

    Doubles the bureaucracy associated with changes; no extra costs while things stay the same.

    Yes there are downsides to each option. Both sides say they want frictionless trade. Are they willing to pay the price ? I'm suggesting it's economically rational to do so.

  • Russ, you better get on to Mrs May. It seems she is being told all her options are nothing worth.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    To summarize your three suggestions, they boil down to:

    A ) UK trade standards are "dictated" by Eurocrats in Brussels, except the UK gives up its voice in setting those standards.

    No - option A is the UK retaining a full voice in those EU processes concerned with trade, and no others. Something like a Customs Union. But with no add-ons.

    I'm not sure why letting ostensible non-members have a voice in setting policy counts as a win from the EU perspective. It also gets a bit dicey to determine what is "concerned with trade" and what isn't. One of the EU's main policy choices is that labor be able to cross borders as easily as goods and money, yet immigration and foreign labor seems to have been a perennial bee in the bonnet of the pro-Brexit faction. Does someone wanting to trade their skill as an accountant or electrician count as something "concerned with trade"?
    Russ wrote: »
    (? Just wondering - what would the US federal govt look like if it literally did nothing but regulate commerce between the states ?)

    So radically different, even in purely economic terms, as to render the question meaningless. The U.S. federal government is essentially an insurance company with an army. Most of its expenditures are on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid (an insurance company) or the military (with an army). If you posit a federal government that no longer does any of those things you've changed it beyond recognition.
    Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    B ) the EU gives an external nation, the UK, an effective veto over any changes in trade policy or any future trade agreements the EU may want to enter into.

    Yes, and Britain gives the EU an effective veto over any changes in British trade policy.

    Popular on neither side maybe. But one way of getting border-free trade.

    So if the EU wanted to negotiate a trade agreement with a group of North African nations (call it a free trade zone of the Mediterranean), the UK would be able to prevent this? Or if the UK wanted to impose tariffs on Brazilian beef (another pure hypothetical) they'd have to convince the EU to do so as well? Again, I'm having trouble seeing the advantage to either, and how this counts as leaving the EU.
    Russ wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    C ) This not only doubles the customs bureaucracy of both the UK and EU, it adds an extra burden on every other country that wants to export to either

    Doubles the bureaucracy associated with changes; no extra costs while things stay the same.

    How do you double bureaucracy with "no extra costs"?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The U.S. federal government is essentially an insurance company with an army. Most of its expenditures are on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid (an insurance company) or the military (with an army). If you posit a federal government that no longer does any of those things you've changed it beyond recognition.

    It is? Then why don't we have single payer health insurance?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The U.S. federal government is essentially an insurance company with an army. Most of its expenditures are on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid (an insurance company) or the military (with an army). If you posit a federal government that no longer does any of those things you've changed it beyond recognition.

    It is? Then why don't we have single payer health insurance?

    I didn't say it was a good insurance company.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »

    I didn't say it was a good insurance company.

    Point taken.
  • I just had an interesting conversation in the corridor with a colleague (as you do) who has recently returned from India where he has a long term research collaboration. While there he noted, and was informed by his colleagues there, that there has been a substantial increase in French (quasi-)government activity in India, which is the result of the creation of a Brexit vacuum - with the UK (traditionally a major player in international relations with India through the Commonwealth etc) taking a lesser role in international terms by leaving the EU the French are stepping in to fill that gap and create formal arrangements between India and France, so that France benefits from Brexit while the UK struggles as a lesser player on the international scene. Apparently, there are similar initiatives in other nations - in Africa (both former French colonies and Commonwealth nations), Australia, I've seen similar in Japan ....

    It doesn't bode well for the Brexiteers claims that the UK will strike lots of good trade deals from outside the EU when as a result of the idiocy that is Brexit that countries still in the EU are seen as a better bet to be working with than the UK even by Commonwealth nations. Plus, of course, the ability for France to strike such deals as a member of the EU does put the claims that the UK isn't able to do so from within the EU or some other relationship that maintains the customs union and single market in doubt.
  • Stories going around that there could be food shortages with a hard Brexit, as border inspection posts begin to operate. But in any case, nobody is building them, are they?

    I suppose there is also mass boredom and indifference on the subject, plus the politicians not saying very much, and the usual Tory civil war.
  • Stories going around that there could be food shortages with a hard Brexit, as border inspection posts begin to operate.

    There's not a huge amount of give in food supply chains - there are staples where there is about 3 days of supply within the system.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    On the Good News front, the prime movers behind Brexit, to whit UKIP have been all but wiped out at these local elections. Like the BNP (a completely undisguised and unapologetically racist party), they have been found to be nasty and useless and the People have Spoken.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    On the Good News front, the prime movers behind Brexit, to whit UKIP have been all but wiped out at these local elections.

    Or alternatively, now that the Tory party agenda has been taken over by the ERG, the UKIP voters (who were majority Tory originally) have returned to the fold.
This discussion has been closed.