Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[JPRouve]

My take is that at this stage of the Brexit process it's primary benefit would be to obviate leaving with a no deal.

Like all these things there are pluses and minuses to everything.
Labour has wanted us to have A Customs Union, as opposed to being in THE EU Customs Union for some time. In terms of the benefits, the BBC website lays these out.

The Brexiteers in the Tory party and some of the Labour party as well hate this idea primarily because it would prevent the UK from negotiating separate trading arrangements with other countries. Something the leavers see as the big prize of leaving.

Distinction without a difference.

 

[sun_tzu]

One of the many ironies of the baby boomer costa del sol living, leave voting feckwits is that they perceive themselves as a boon to the Spanish economy despite the vast majority of them paying zero income tax in Spain, while costing the Spanish health service a disproportionate amount of money in their old age. While simultaneously inisting that much younger immigrants to the UK are a drain on the British economy. Go figure.

And people still get annoyed when it’s suggested that a lot of people who voted Leave were idiots...

Pretty sure the NHS is backcharged for their treatment under EU rules... It's this that will stop with a hard brexit hence the advise is for them to take out private insurance... So the Spanish health service does not really have any cost (other than administrative to backcharge and even the admin expenses I believe are also backcharged)

So whilst most won't pay any income tax on their pensions (this will be done in the UK) they will be paying vat etc on purchases over there and of course any stamp duty etc if they buy a house as well as any regional taxes that are due (council tax equivalent etc)

On that basis they probably are tax positive for Spain... Though equally perhaps not as much as some of them think

 

[Buster15]

Distinction without a difference.

Isn't the difference that a number of non EU countries have A CU with the EU which gives them access to the EU but does not give them any voting rights or any say in EU business.

I agree it is subtle.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Pretty sure the NHS is backcharged for their treatment under EU rules... It's this that will stop with a hard brexit hence the advise is for them to take out private insurance... So the Spanish health service does not really have any cost (other than administrative to backcharge and even the admin expenses I believe are also backcharged)

So whilst most won't pay any income tax on their pensions (this will be done in the UK) they will be paying vat etc on purchases over there and of course any stamp duty etc if they buy a house as well as any regional taxes that are due (council tax equivalent etc)

On that basis they probably are tax positive for Spain... Though equally perhaps not as much as some of them think

Ah. Fair point.

Although this whole backcharge thing makes it even more ludicrous for Brexiteers to assume keeping EU migrants out will save the UK money.

 

[JPRouve]

Isn't the difference that a number of non EU countries have A CU with the EU which gives them access to the EU but does not give them any voting rights or any say in EU business.

I agree it is subtle.

No a custom union is about common custom procedures, it's about reducing the need for internal custom border checks. What you and May are talking about is an FTA, which concerns the actual barriers to entry.

 

[Penna]

One of the many ironies of the baby boomer costa del sol living, leave voting feckwits is that they perceive themselves as a boon to the Spanish economy despite the vast majority of them paying zero income tax in Spain, while costing the Spanish health service a disproportionate amount of money in their old age. While simultaneously inisting that much younger immigrants to the UK are a drain on the British economy. Go figure.

And people still get annoyed when it’s suggested that a lot of people who voted Leave were idiots...

Living in a sunny European country has been a good option for older Brits who have already reached UK state pension age (which as you know, is now getting pushed further and further back), because the S1 form gives you health care which is free at the point of delivery (with the NHS ultimately paying for it, as sun_tzu says).

We aren't old enough to qualify for the S1 and so we took a private policy here in Italy last year, just so that we could apply for residency - it excludes some of our existing health conditions and cost us nearly 2000 euro, with a 3000 euro excess on any claim! Needless to say, we won't be using it - it was purely an expensive paper exercise for us. Private healthcare is simply not affordable if you're older and have things wrong with you, hence there will be many returning to the UK from Spain and other warmer climes if/when the S1 arrangement is revoked.

We have also now paid into the Italian health service which was even more expensive (income-based contributions), but gives us the same level of comprehensive cover as an Italian citizen. However, you have to be a resident to do that, and many Brits who own properties abroad aren't.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

My take is that at this stage of the Brexit process it's primary benefit would be to obviate leaving with a no deal.

Like all these things there are pluses and minuses to everything.
Labour has wanted us to have A Customs Union, as opposed to being in THE EU Customs Union for some time. In terms of the benefits, the BBC website lays these out.

The Brexiteers in the Tory party and some of the Labour party as well hate this idea primarily because it would prevent the UK from negotiating separate trading arrangements with other countries. Something the leavers see as the big prize of leaving.

The answer to May's question is obvious: the EU has much more barganing power for trade deals than the UK on its own. Size matters.

That said, the UK might feel it can better "tailor" FTAs on its own. However the UK is still likely to get bent over a barrell by the US and China.

Ok thanks. So in summary, are these targets about right?

Labour: tariff free trade within EU and in customs union with a say in deals.

Conservative: tariff free trade within EU but able to negotiate our own deals with non EU countries. (Potentially worse deals than than the EU gets)

 

[GloryHunter07]

Ah. Fair point.

Although this whole backcharge thing makes it even more ludicrous for Brexiteers to assume keeping EU migrants out will save the UK money.

I read somewhere that in practise the "backcharge" doesnt really happen in practice as it is too dificult to administer. Not sure how true that is.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Ok thanks. So in summary, are these targets about right?

Labour: tariff free trade within EU and in customs union with a say in deals.

Conservative: tariff free trade within EU but able to negotiate our own deals with non EU countries. (Potentially worse deals than than the EU gets)

Labour's position is unworkable - not within the EU but wanting the benefits of being in the EU. Tory plus plus of 2016.

Conservative - free trade with (not within) the EU but having no solution to the Irish border.

46 days from Brexit and both parties on another planet to the rest of the world.

 

[Buster15]

No a custom union is about common custom procedures, it's about reducing the need for internal custom border checks. What you and May are talking about is an FTA, which concerns the actual barriers to entry.

Thank you for your clarification.
I note that my error was when I said that A CU gave the non EU countries access to the EU.

What I meant to say was that it gave these countries common tarrifs with the EU countries ( tariff free trading). In terms of the Irish boarder, this type of arrangement would overcome the contentious Backstop issue as I understand it.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Thank you for your clarification.
I note that my error was when I said that A CU gave the non EU countries access to the EU.

What I meant to say was that it gave these countries common tarrifs with the EU countries ( tariff free trading). In terms of the Irish boarder, this type of arrangement would overcome the contentious Backstop issue as I understand it.

Tariffs have nothing to do with the backstop.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Thank you for your clarification.
I note that my error was when I said that A CU gave the non EU countries access to the EU.

What I meant to say was that it gave these countries common tarrifs with the EU countries ( tariff free trading). In terms of the Irish boarder, this type of arrangement would overcome the contentious Backstop issue as I understand it.

you don't understand it.

 

[Buster15]

Tariffs have nothing to do with the backstop.

OK. So a CU or FTA with the EU would not overcome the Irish border issue?

You can see why people get confused because I have taken the time to check these things out and:
Corbyn is talking about A Permanent CU with the EU.
From what I have read, that would overcome the Irish border issue.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

OK. So a CU or FTA with the EU would not overcome the Irish border issue?

You can see why people get confused because I have taken the time to check these things out and:
Corbyn is talking about A Permanent CU with the EU.
From what I have read, that would overcome the Irish border issue.

A FTA does nothing to solve the border issue. For example FTA the EU has with Canada or Japan - there is still a border.

Being part of the EUCU and being in EFTA/EEA would solve the Irish border.
Two of the numerous problems with this, this isn't what Corbyn means, parliament wouldn't agree to it as it is Brexit in name only.

 

[Buster15]

A FTA does nothing to solve the border issue. For example FTA the EU has with Canada or Japan - there is still a border.

Being part of the EUCU and being in EFTA/EEA would solve the Irish border.
Two of the numerous problems with this, this isn't what Corbyn means, parliament wouldn't agree to it as it is Brexit in name only.

Understood (I think)....
I am going to stick with trying to understand how our Universe was formed. Far easier.

 

[Buster15]

Understood (I think)....
I am going to stick with trying to understand how our Universe was formed. Far easier.

And far more interesting by the way.

 

[Honest John]

I get confused when people cite the GFA with regard to the border.

The UK Government and the ROI signed up to an International Peace Treaty (as they did) making the contents therein enshrined in International Law.

If the UK (or the ROI) imposed a hard border would it not be a contravention of that?

Is that then not sufficient as a legal guarantee of no hard border?

If it is why do we need a backstop?

If it isn't then why keep citing the GFA?

 

[sullydnl]

I get confused when people cite the GFA with regard to the border.

The UK Government and the ROI signed up to an International Peace Treaty (as they did) making the contents therein enshrined in International Law.

If the UK (or the ROI) imposed a hard border would it not be a contravention of that?

Is that then not sufficient as a legal guarantee of no hard border?

If it is why do we need a backstop?

If it isn't then why keep citing the GFA?

There's nothing in the GFA that explicitly says there has to be an open border. However, several of points and principles within the GFA were made on the assumption of one (as nobody at the time anticipated Brexit and even if they had, accounting for it would have made agreement impossible) and as such would be undermined by a hard border.

Which is why even with all the difficulties the backstop is causing for the UK government currently, they haven't gone down the route of arguing that a hard border is actually compatible with the GFA. Even they understand that it's one or the other, which (along with the political difficulties of arguing against that point) is why they keep saying there will be no return to a hard border regardless.

 

[Sweet Square]

Living in a sunny European country has been a good option for older Brits who have already reached UK state pension age (which as you know, is now getting pushed further and further back).

Am I right in thinking this is due to older Brits constantly voting for the tories ? They really don't help themselves.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Understood (I think)....
I am going to stick with trying to understand how our Universe was formed. Far easier.

One thing that is guaranteed is that whoever thought Brexit was going to easy , not even the greatest expert on the planet realised how big this can of worms really is.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Am I right in thinking this is due to older Brits constantly voting for the tories ? They really don't help themselves.

Yep. And they'll get their just desserts when the NHS is destroyed and their grandchildren won't give them the time of day.

 

[Honest John]

There's nothing in the GFA that explicitly says there has to be an open border. However, several of points and principles within the GFA were made on the assumption of one (as nobody at the time anticipated Brexit and even if they had, accounting for it would have made agreement impossible) and as such would be undermined by a hard border.

Which is why even with all the difficulties the backstop is causing for the UK government currently, they haven't gone down the route of arguing that a hard border is actually compatible with the GFA. Even they understand that it's one or the other, which (along with the political difficulties of arguing against that point) is why they keep saying there will be no return to a hard border regardless.

UK - We won't put up a hard border
EU - We won't put up a hard border
ROI - We won't put up a hard border

There is the basis for a legally binding codicil that references the spirit of the GFA and does not have to be part of the WA.

Worse case if the FTA isn't finished? The EU will have an open border with a third country and the UK will have an open border with the EU.

That should be enough to focus minds to get an FTA sorted out.

 

[JPRouve]

Understood (I think)....
I am going to stick with trying to understand how our Universe was formed. Far easier.

It's easier if you ignore the union part. An FTA is a trade agreement that lowers barrier to entry between two countries/territories, the custom administration is the administration that makes sure that goods coming from an external territory abide to the rules and collects the financial barriers to entry.
From there it should be intuitive to understand that a custom union is the addition of more than one custom territories in which different custom administrations will follow common protocols and make internal checks redundant.

The reason why you need both to virtually have no need for internal checks is that any FTA can change the rules by altering quotas and the type of goods that are accepted from the outside, that's one of the reason why the EUCU negotiates trade as a block. If countries start negotiating individual FTAs they make the point of a CU disappear, every custom administration will have to make sure that goods abide to their own FTA package.

 

[Shinjch]

UK - We won't put up a hard border
EU - We won't put up a hard border
ROI - We won't put up a hard border

There is the basis for a legally binding codicil that references the spirit of the GFA and does not have to be part of the WA.

Worse case if the FTA isn't finished? The EU will have an open border with a third country and the UK will have an open border with the EU.

That should be enough to focus minds to get an FTA sorted out.

Surely most of the point of Brexit was because people wanted control over the borders though?

 

[Honest John]

Surely most of the point of Brexit was because people wanted control over the borders though?

They forgot about the one in Ireland

 

[Massive Spanner]

Surely most of the point of Brexit was because people wanted control over the borders though?

I doubt most people who voted for Brexit understood what it actually meant, especially when it came to the Irish border. I think that's more obvious than ever now. They were essentially promised an end to immigration and loads more money to go to the NHS, and neither of those are going to happen.

The border was barely ever even brought up during the referendum and most mainland UK people don't give a toss about NI anyway.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

UK - We won't put up a hard border
EU - We won't put up a hard border
ROI - We won't put up a hard border

There is the basis for a legally binding codicil that references the spirit of the GFA and does not have to be part of the WA.

Worse case if the FTA isn't finished? The EU will have an open border with a third country and the UK will have an open border with the EU.

That should be enough to focus minds to get an FTA sorted out.

A FTA is irrelevant (see above)

 

[Honest John]

A FTA is irrelevant (see above)

So what if Mays deal eventually passes. And the future relationship is this 'comprehensive' FTA. Are you saying that even that cannot solve the border problem?

 

[JPRouve]

So what if Mays deal eventually passes. And the future relationship is this 'comprehensive' FTA. Are you saying that even that cannot solve the border problem?

What will solve the problem is to have the same rules, same protocols within the same jurisdiction.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

So what if Mays deal eventually passes. And the future relationship is this 'comprehensive' FTA. Are you saying that even that cannot solve the border problem?

Yes that's what I'm saying.
The solution that the backstop is waiting for doesn't yet exist and until it does ...

 

[Reiver]

Brexit 'can enhance UK's lethality', says defence secretary

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/11/brexit-uk-military-defence-gavin-williamson

He specifically mentions this in relation to the threat posed by Russia and China. Also that our military influence will increase.

So, a heartwarming story of Brexit followed by war with Russia and/or China.

On a serious note, it's stories like these that really get me worried as you know our Government is filled with idiots that actually believe this.

 

[Honest John]

What will solve the problem is to have the same rules, same protocols within the same jurisdiction.

Which is a CU. And a CU forbids unilateral deals with third countries. A50 isn't fit for purpose.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Brexit 'can enhance UK's lethality', says defence secretary

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/11/brexit-uk-military-defence-gavin-williamson

He specifically mentions this in relation to the threat posed by Russia and China. Also that our military influence will increase.

So, a heartwarming story of Brexit followed by war with Russia and/or China.

On a serious note, it's stories like these that really get me worried as you know our Government is filled with idiots that actually believe this.

Williamson is a total weapon. He reminds me of a Coogan character. Sadly, with Grayling around, he’s not even the biggest fool in the Cabinet.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Which is a CU. And a CU forbids unilateral deals with third countries. A50 isn't fit for purpose.

Most EU countries don't have an Irish border problem and leaving the EU doesn't necessarily mean leave the CU.

 

[Sweet Square]

Yep. And they'll get their just desserts when the NHS is destroyed and their grandchildren won't give them the time of day.

I think they'll be long gone before facing the real consequences of their voting patterns and even if not there's also going to be someone else who looks different, sounds different or less well off for them to blame.

I not sure what to make of it, either I patronise older people and think well of course they feel this way because the world has rapidly change so much that unless you've grown up with this change, the effect must be like sticking your head in a microwave and turning the settings to 11. So of course a person with this experience is going to be terrified 99% of the time about imagery fears coming to get them. Or I take them at face value and think that the idea of leaving society in a better place for your kids/grandchildren(the most basic way to see if we are making progress)is something older people actively dislike and want to fight against.


For the most part I just blame Thatcher, she polluted the minds of millions.

 

[JPRouve]

Which is a CU. And a CU forbids unilateral deals with third countries. A50 isn't fit for purpose.

Art.50 has nothing to do with this and a CU doesn't forbid unilateral deals with third countries. Unilateral deals with third countries make open borders impossible.

 

[stevoc]

UK - We won't put up a hard border
EU - We won't put up a hard border
ROI - We won't put up a hard border

There is the basis for a legally binding codicil that references the spirit of the GFA and does not have to be part of the WA.

Worse case if the FTA isn't finished? The EU will have an open border with a third country and the UK will have an open border with the EU.

That should be enough to focus minds to get an FTA sorted out.

What makes you think no one will put a border up, just because a lot of people have said they won't?

 

[Honest John]

What makes you think no one will put a border up, just because a lot of people have said they won't?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if those three are declaring that to be the case then get them to sign a legally binding agreement to put it into law.

 

[Honest John]

Art.50 has nothing to do with this and a CU doesn't forbid unilateral deals with third countries. Unilateral deals with third countries make open borders impossible.

Why is everyone saying that a CU does forbid this then?

 

[stevoc]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if those three are declaring that to be the case then get them to sign a legally binding agreement to put it into law.

But there is a lot of mixed messages coming from representatives of all three. The European Commission and the NI secretary of state has both said there would need to be border checks put in place in the event of a no deal Brexit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46961982

https://www.irishnews.com/news/brex...l-mean-wto-customs-checks-in-ireland-1488385/

It's ironic though that the very thing preventing a deal being agreed and preserving the GFA is the backstop which is needed to protect the GFA.

I think all the politicians involved have been saying there will be no border controls put in place because they don't want to be seen as the side that breaks the GFA. But i think privately they all know in a no deal scenario a border is inevitable because of WTO MFN.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...f-irish-border-mandatory-under-no-deal-brexit