Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Crossie]

Brexit: Theresa May's Article 50 plans set to be delayed by months due to Stormont crisis legal challenge

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-theresa-may-illegal-article-50-a7526126.html

The headline is a bit sensational, what Long actually says is this:

Whether that means that Article 50 would have to be delayed, may at the end of the day be another case for the court to find out whether the absence of an administration here means that they need to consult with the devolved administration goes.”

Ms Long added that in the event of such a legal challenge, Article 50 could be delayed considerably while a court decides whether Stormont must approve plans.

 

[Will Absolute]

Will she say 'Brexit means Brexit' or will she say it will be a 'red white and blue brexit' or will they have scripted her a new and even more pointless slogan?

Because she won't be giving anymore detail than that.

I'd say we already know May's negotiating position. She wants free trade with Europe to the degree that can be reconciled with full resumption of British national sovereignty.

There's nothing particularly ambiguous about her stance. Britain will take full control of its borders and no longer be subject to EU law or the dictates of the EU commission. It then becomes a question of what kind of trading relationship, satisfactory to both parties, can be negotiated from that starting point.

It's neither sensible, nor practical, for May to be more explicit than that. At the moment Britain doesn't know what the EU's red lines are likely to be - the EU doesn't know itself. We're not talking about negotiating with a single nation speaking with a single voice. Who knows what the EU's 'final' position will be when the smoke clears? If history is anything to go by, the EU will cobble together some kind of byzantine fudge.

 

[JPRouve]

I'd say we already know May's negotiating position. She wants free trade with Europe to the degree that can be reconciled with full resumption of British national sovereignty.

There's nothing particularly ambiguous about her stance. Britain will take full control of its borders and no longer be subject to EU law or the dictates of the EU commission. It then becomes a question of what kind of trading relationship, satisfactory to both parties, can be negotiated from that starting point.

It's neither sensible, nor practical, for May to be more explicit than that. At the moment Britain doesn't know what the EU's red lines are likely to be - the EU doesn't know itself. We're not talking about negotiating with a single nation speaking with a single voice. Who knows what the EU's 'final' position will be when the smoke clears? If history is anything to go by, the EU will cobble together some kind of byzantine fudge.

The EU has never controlled any countries' borders and the two points I have underlined aren't compatible.

 

[Cheesy]

I'd say we already know May's negotiating position. She wants free trade with Europe to the degree that can be reconciled with full resumption of British national sovereignty.

There's nothing particularly ambiguous about her stance. Britain will take full control of its borders and no longer be subject to EU law or the dictates of the EU commission. It then becomes a question of what kind of trading relationship, satisfactory to both parties, can be negotiated from that starting point.

It's neither sensible, nor practical, for May to be more explicit than that. At the moment Britain doesn't know what the EU's red lines are likely to be - the EU doesn't know itself. We're not talking about negotiating with a single nation speaking with a single voice. Who knows what the EU's 'final' position will be when the smoke clears? If history is anything to go by, the EU will cobble together some kind of byzantine fudge.

And yet this leaves several problems. How will the border in Ireland be impacted? How will Scotland react to a hard Brexit when they overwhelmingly voted to Remain? How will it affect Gibraltar, an actual part of mainland Europe? Additionally, how will this affect British business? If the UK becomes isolated from Europe many businesses may seek to instead move towards mainland Europe in greater numbers, and the so-called 'special deal' with Nissan won't be something the government can do with everyone who threatens to leave.

 

[Cheesy]

It's worth noting (again) that for all May's rhetoric on border control and immigration, as home secretary she did little to actually reduce immigration when the UK already has full control of non-EU migration. I believe it's often been well above 100k for year and yet it's remained at its current level - any claims that they're actually going to do something about it have been borne out of the pressure being placed on the Tories by UKIP in the wake of Brexit.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The EU has never controlled any countries' borders and the two points I have underlined aren't compatible.

FOM means the EU has prevented countries from controlling theirs, would be the argument.

Doesn't Canada have a newly signed free trade deal without FOM?

 

[Chorley1974]

Neither have I said that you're stupid nor do I think you are. You are just incredibly ignorant, that's all. I'm confident you can work out what
means.


As I've written earlier, I don't think that May will throw billions to the research community as the EU have been doing.

Incredibly ignorant of what exactly?

 

[Will Absolute]

The EU has never controlled any countries' borders and the two points I have underlined aren't compatible.

You omitted the most important three words of the sentence - "to the degree". It's obvious that Britain isn't going to have the same trading relationship with Europe outside as it enjoyed within the EU. The degree to which trade is hampered or restricted will be the subject of the negotiations.

If the EU can dictate an open border policy in respect of EU citizens, no individual EU country has sovereign control of its borders.

 

[fcbforever]

FOM means the EU has prevented countries from controlling theirs, would be the argument.

Doesn't Canada have a newly signed free trade deal without FOM?

Freedom of movement =/= border control.

Also, the people which voted for Brexit are way to stupid to gasp that the UK was one of the countries which profitted the most from FOM....

 

[JPRouve]

FOM means the EU has prevented countries from controlling theirs, would be the argument.

Doesn't Canada have a newly signed free trade deal without FOM?

No that's not what it means, FOM tells you that EU citizens have the right to spend up to 3 months on your soil, that right has been granted by the members of the EU not the EU itself. Other than that you can and should control your borders.

And there is no Visa between the EU and Canada, the last two countries with Visa are Bulgaria and Romania and it will be lifted this year.

You omitted the most important three words of the sentence - "to the degree". It's obvious that Britain isn't going to have the same trading relationship with Europe outside as it enjoyed within the EU. The degree to which trade is hampered or restricted will be the subject of the negotiations.

If the EU can dictate an open border policy in respect of EU citizens, no individual EU country has sovereign control of its borders.

The EU doesn't dictate anything about the borders, the borders don't have to be opened, the EU only harmonized rules in order to allow the existence of open borders but countries can have closed borders. The only thing is that EU citizens are granted 3 months without being legally obliged to register themselves.

 

[Will Absolute]

The EU doesn't dictate anything about the borders, the borders don't have to be opened, the EU only harmonized rules in order to allow the existence of open borders but countries can have closed borders. The only thing is that EU citizens are granted 3 months without being legally obliged to register themselves

I don't understand what you're saying here. It's all a misunderstanding? There's no freedom of movement within the EU?

 

[fcbforever]

I don't understand what you're saying here. It's all a misunderstanding? There's no freedom of movement within the EU?

There is, you just don't understand what it means. Brexiteers in a nutshell

 

[JPRouve]

I don't understand what you're saying here. It's all a misunderstanding? There's no freedom of movement within the EU?

Within Schengen there is freedom of movement but it has nothing to do with borders, it's about citizenship rights. Just as an example, a EU resident doesn't have any FOM rights only a EU citizen has that right, that distinction should make it obvious that you have to control your borders to make that difference.

Edit: To caricature FOM within Schengen is like a three months automatic VISA for EU citizens.

 

[Will Absolute]

There is, you just don't understand what it means. Brexiteers in a nutshell

Labels or terminology are not the issue. What matters is that an EU citizen can get on a train in Eastern Europe and 24 hours later get off a train anywhere in Western Europe. It's the fact that millions of EU citizens avail of that right that causes the problem.

Obfuscation and quibbling about FOM, Schengen etc. are irrelevant.

 

[fcbforever]

Labels or terminology are not the issue. What matters is that an EU citizen can get on a train in Eastern Europe and 24 hours later get off a train anywhere in Western Europe. It's the fact that millions of EU citizens avail of that right that causes the problem.

Obfuscation and quibbling about FOM, Schengen etc. are irrelevant.

So you want Visas again? That will be fun.
I don't want to spoil it for you, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Visa_exemptions
Everyone on a country either green or blue on that map can do that...

 

[Crossie]

Labels or terminology are not the issue. What matters is that an EU citizen can get on a train in Eastern Europe and 24 hours later get off a train anywhere in Western Europe. It's the fact that millions of EU citizens avail of that right that causes the problem.

Obfuscation and quibbling about FOM, Schengen etc. are irrelevant.

OMG.

 

[Sphaero]

Why is the Schengen agreement even brought up that much in relation to the Brexit? Great Britain (and Ireland) were never part of it and reserved themselves the right to control their borders as they see fit. You wanna know what terrible consequences they suffered by not signing it? None. So much for the EU forcing GB under it´s dictatorship...

 

[Silva]

Why is the Schengen agreement even brought up that much in relation to the Brexit? Great Britain (and Ireland) were never part of it and reserved themselves the right to control their borders as they see fit. You wanna know what terrible consequences they suffered by not signing it? None. So much for the EU forcing GB under it´s dictatorship...

People either don't care enough, or don't have enough time to find the difference. Which is why politicians often tell half truths, give a misrepresentation of the situation or outright lie without it jeopardizing their jobs. The Schengen agreement is brought up to imply it's the same thing as freedom of movement and to imply that the EU controls nations borders and to make false promises about halting immigration. It, alongside arguments such as "different cultures" or "drain on society" are used to make (usually stupid) people feel superior to others and vote for regressive parties that make false promises. It's the reason why if you question these people about policy details they will be incapable of giving a coherent answer.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Freedom of movement =/= border control.

Also, the people which voted for Brexit are way to stupid to gasp that the UK was one of the countries which profitted the most from FOM....

Firstly I wouldn't be making points about how stupid people are until I could spell grasp and profited correctly in the sentence I accused them of being stupid in, that is for sure and I think it is who not which.

I don't care if we agree to continue with FOM post Brexit.

I don't care if we decide not to try to reduce the migration figures post Brexit either. Nor do I think such an effort would be very successful in its aim if we did.

I do think that it is the role of the nation state to decide how it tries to deal with the issue if it wishes to.

On the FOM point the remoaners are going to have to make up their minds about how important this principle and the rights instilled are.

If FOM is such a non issue then why would the EU be bothered about the UK trying to remove it? Why during the negotiations pre referendum did the EU countries not just say to Cameron of course you can suspend it for as long you want it is such a meaningless rule? Why would tariff free access to the single market be dependent on keeping it?

If you guys are correct I'm heartened that the negotiations on access will be easy as the removal of such a pesky little inconsequential rule would never be allowed to turn into a major obstacle compared to important matters like trade.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I don't understand what you're saying here. It's all a misunderstanding? There's no freedom of movement within the EU?

It is a misunderstanding of the terms of the debate in the UK.


FOM, Freedom of Movement is a short handed term for a long list of rights given to people in qualifying EU member states. Rather than list them all the tendency is to say Freedom of movement and everyone knows that you mean, rights to residency and to come and search for work etc.

 

[devilish]

Firstly I wouldn't be making points about how stupid people are until I could spell grasp and profited correctly in the sentence I accused them of being stupid in, that is for sure and I think it is who not which.

I don't care if we agree to continue with FOM post Brexit.

I don't care if we decide not to try to reduce the migration figures post Brexit either. Nor do I think such an effort would be very successful in its aim if we did.

I do think that it is the role of the nation state to decide how it tries to deal with the issue if it wishes to.

On the FOM point the remoaners are going to have to make up their minds about how important this principle and the rights instilled are.

If FOM is such a non issue then why would the EU be bothered about the UK trying to remove it? Why during the negotiations pre referendum did the EU countries not just say to Cameron of course you can suspend it for as long you want it is such a meaningless rule? Why would tariff free access to the single market be dependent on keeping it?

If you guys are correct I'm heartened that the negotiations on access will be easy as the removal of such a pesky little inconsequential rule would never be allowed to turn into a major obstacle compared to important matters like trade.

If you sign a contract you abide to it. If terms change then the contract needs to be renegotiated from scratch. The uk doesnt want fom which is fair enough. There again it must expect restrictions to the single market

I find it hilarious that british people cant understand that considering how obsessive they are in putting everything under contract. The last time i rented i had to agree under contract not to put a nail on the wall without the owner consent or else i risk being thrown out. I bet thats far less important then fom

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

If you sign a contract you abide to it. If terms change then the contract needs to be renegotiated from scratch. The uk doesnt want fom which is fair enough. There again it must expect restrictions to the single market

I find it hilarious that british people cant understand that considering how obsessive they are in putting everything under contract. The last time i rented i had to agree under contract not to put a nail on the wall without the owner consent or else i risk being thrown out. I bet thats far less important then fom

If everything you get from the contract is given freely to other parties without the FOM clause you would be mad to stay in the contract though wouldn't you if you disagreed with FOM clause.

 

[JPRouve]

If everything you get from the contract is given freely to other parties without the FOM clause you would be mad to stay in the contract though wouldn't you if you disagreed with FOM clause.

What do you mean by given freely to other parties?

 

[devilish]

If everything you get from the contract is given freely to other parties without the FOM clause you would be mad to stay in the contract though wouldn't you if you disagreed with FOM clause.

Which country is given unrestricted access to the single market without fom?

 

[JPRouve]

Which country is given unrestricted access to the single market without fom?

I could be wrong but people think about the CETA, there haven't been a lot of noise concerning FOM but that's because it was never a problem since it's already existent. I also think that people see fom has a right to reside in a country when it's just a right to move, you still need to register and abide to national rules to become a resident.

 

[devilish]

I could be wrong but people think about the CETA, there haven't been a lot of noise concerning FOM but that's because it was never a problem since it's already existent. I also think that people see fom has a right to reside in a country when it's just a right to move, you still need to register and abide to national rules to become a resident.

Well ceta is far from being unrestricted access to the single market

https://capx.co/the-canada-eu-trade-deal-is-no-model-for-brexit/

 

[JPRouve]

Well ceta is far from being unrestricted access to the single market

https://capx.co/the-canada-eu-trade-deal-is-no-model-for-brexit/

I know and there are no visa and they lifted the visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania, there is a freedom to travel.

 

[sun_tzu]

If you sign a contract you abide to it. If terms change then the contract needs to be renegotiated from scratch.

I'm pretty sure international treaties are not covered by contract law.

 

[devilish]

I'm pretty sure international treaties are not covered by contract law.

International treaties are far more complex. Changing international treaties are so complex than only an idiot would attempt that unless hes under heavy duress

 

[devilish]

I know and there are no visa and they lifted the visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania, there is a freedom to travel.

Canada wont have banking passporting either + tariffs will still apply on key farming areas

 

[JPRouve]

I'm pretty sure international treaties are not covered by contract law.

Treaties are laws, in the hierarchy they are between Constitutions and organic laws(laws that apply to the administration).

 

[sun_tzu]

International treaties are far more complex. Changing international treaties are so complex than only an idiot would attempt that unless hes under heavy duress

What heavy duress were the eu under for expansion? Or were they idiots?

 

[JPRouve]

What heavy duress were the eu under for expansion? Or were they idiots?

Expansions don't modify the treaties and on the members can expand it, when you use "the EU" and "they" you kind of imply that it's not the action of the members. The institution that we call EU doesn't have the power of expansion.

If the UK was against the expansion, they could have done something about it.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Well ceta is far from being unrestricted access to the single market

https://capx.co/the-canada-eu-trade-deal-is-no-model-for-brexit/

No it isn't but it does remove most of the tariff barriers. Which at least dispels the often made point that we are going to see huge tariffs introduced when we leave the EU.

The non tariff barriers work both ways and we have never seen a trade deal made between two parties who have the exact same standards before and existing trade as large and beneficial to both parties as we are about to see with the UK and the EU over the next 2 years or so.

So the EU is going to have to make its mind up about whether you believe in free trade deals which remove barriers and create wealth and increase living standards or not. Post Brexit the UK will not be the ones looking to put in place barriers on trade between the UK and the EU even though our balance of trade is in deficit.

The larger point in the article you posted is that the EU doesn't really do free trade deals it just finds different forms of protectionism. You might think that is a good thing but it contradicts the whole ethos of the free market.Why have one at all if you believe protectionism is the way forward and if free trade is your prefered ethos then why the protectionism in deals with countries outside the EU?

Either way Britain will be free to make its own deals with the whole of the rest of the world starting soon.

 

[sun_tzu]

Either way Britain will be free to make its own deals with the whole of the rest of the world starting soon.

Probably very shitty deals to get them done as quickly as possible I imagine...
Ip... yeah dont worry about that China we are cool
Privatise the NHS... whatever you say Mr trump.
Increased visa numbers... you got it India
Etc etc

 

[fcbforever]

Firstly I wouldn't be making points about how stupid people are until I could spell grasp and profited correctly in the sentence I accused them of being stupid in, that is for sure and I think it is who not which.

I don't care if we agree to continue with FOM post Brexit.

I don't care if we decide not to try to reduce the migration figures post Brexit either. Nor do I think such an effort would be very successful in its aim if we did.

I do think that it is the role of the nation state to decide how it tries to deal with the issue if it wishes to.

On the FOM point the remoaners are going to have to make up their minds about how important this principle and the rights instilled are.

If FOM is such a non issue then why would the EU be bothered about the UK trying to remove it? Why during the negotiations pre referendum did the EU countries not just say to Cameron of course you can suspend it for as long you want it is such a meaningless rule? Why would tariff free access to the single market be dependent on keeping it?

If you guys are correct I'm heartened that the negotiations on access will be easy as the removal of such a pesky little inconsequential rule would never be allowed to turn into a major obstacle compared to important matters like trade.

The second you write me a grammatically correct essay in German on a cellphone with English autocorrect, we can talk about the first sentence again.
What a sad way to attack a poster here.

And it's not a non issue, it's one of the fundamentals the free market in Europe is based on. It is a non issue for GB though and always was, because the country profited from it enormously. London as a financial powerhouse was so attractive to the world because there, you could employ both commonwealth and EU citizens with ease, it was one of the key advantages of Great Britian. This might change now and as you might have noticed, the banks have voiced their concerns (and plans) pretty clearly.

Why would it be dependent on keeping it? Because it's one of the 4 principial colums of the single market. The second you start giving out deals like that, it would be very damaging to the EU. Also, let's not forget here, the EU is far less dependent on GB than GB is on the EU. People tend to forget that. The second the UK decided to leave the EU, it suddenly became a very small fish trade wise.

 

[Stanley Road]

The Banks.are doing a lot.of cock waving thats all. Let them feck off so a different country can bail them out next time.

 

[fcbforever]

The Banks.are doing a lot.of cock waving thats all. Let them feck off so a different country can bail them out next time.

Hey, it wasn't the EU's decision to base your economy solely on freakin' banks and scrap the manufacturing sector alltogether.

 

[devilish]

No it isn't but it does remove most of the tariff barriers. Which at least dispels the often made point that we are going to see huge tariffs introduced when we leave the EU.

The non tariff barriers work both ways and we have never seen a trade deal made between two parties who have the exact same standards before and existing trade as large and beneficial to both parties as we are about to see with the UK and the EU over the next 2 years or so.

So the EU is going to have to make its mind up about whether you believe in free trade deals which remove barriers and create wealth and increase living standards or not. Post Brexit the UK will not be the ones looking to put in place barriers on trade between the UK and the EU even though our balance of trade is in deficit.

The larger point in the article you posted is that the EU doesn't really do free trade deals it just finds different forms of protectionism. You might think that is a good thing but it contradicts the whole ethos of the free market.Why have one at all if you believe protectionism is the way forward and if free trade is your prefered ethos then why the protectionism in deals with countries outside the EU?

Either way Britain will be free to make its own deals with the whole of the rest of the world starting soon.

Well, not really. On paper there's barely any difference between 98% and 100% of tariffs. But when you go to the nitty gritty of stuff you'll notice that there's a big difference

a- 25% of tariffs are already redundant. That's because the tariffs are so low than it doesn't really make a difference
b- Sensitive products are still under heavy tariffs (ex farming)
c- Harmonisation of rules is key. The EU might change the rules or state that the UK standards aren't up to the EU standards banning their products altogether.

Not to forget that CETA does not give Canada any financial passporting at all. Therefore it is nowhere near to an equivalent to unrestricted access to the single market.

Regarding who will be hurt the most, 13% of the UK GDP depends on the single market as opposed to just measly 3% of the EU GPD depends on the UK market. In matter of fact a looping 44% of UK exports go to the single market. Therefore its pretty evident whose got the shorter side of the stick.

Leavers love to remind people of how the UK will make free trade deals with the other countries. Its seems there's a free trade deal waiting to be signed with New Zealand. There again, these trade deals will never mimic what the single market give the UK, for two simple reasons

a- the distance between the EU countries and the UK is relatively short. For most UK products (ie those who are relatively cheap and the profit margin is small) a trade deal with a country at the other side of the world is meaningless because transportation costs will eat up most of the profit

b- unrestricted access to the single market allowed Europe's manufacturing system to become integrated with one another.For example a car can be assembled in a UK plant, with parts coming from Poland. who had been previously assembled in Romania using German expertise. That is something you can't mimic with New Zealand and Rest assured that its something EU politicians will make sure to include that among the 2% tariff list. I mean its in their interest to force UK based companies to move to Europe.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, Nafta, Asean, Union of South American countries, African union....these are all attempts meant to unite neighbouring regions and countries and build an integrated economy because in unity there's strength. Brexit defies logic. Its isolating a country in a world which is ganging up in regions. I've yet to think of one country who wants to burn bridges with the continent it is in. Not even the US had done that.

Giving the UK a soft Brexit would encourage other countries to leave the EU and would act as an incentive for the big guns (China or the US) to expect more out of any possible trade deal from the EU. After all the UK is a non EU member just as they are and if they can have the cake and eat it so can others. That's something the EU can't accept.

Ah and I almost forgot. Canada is a European ally. Not giving them a good deal would be translated to giving a big slap to a friend. Can you say the same about the UK? Especially after they managed to insult most of the EU countries and blaming most of their ills on their citizens

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Leavers love to remind people of how the UK will make free trade deals with the other countries. Its seems there's a free trade deal waiting to be signed with New Zealand. There again, these trade deals will never mimic what the single market give the UK, for two simple reasons

a- the distance between the EU countries and the UK is relatively short. For most UK products (ie those who are relatively cheap and the profit margin is small) a trade deal with a country at the other side of the world is meaningless because transportation costs will eat up most of the profit

New Zealand appear eager to have a trade deal but official negotiations on a deal can only start when the UK have left, in the meantime the Uk will be taking part negotiating a deal on behalf of the EU with NZ. Australia seem keen as well.
Of course they're expecting freedom of movement, well at least they speak English. Swapping a consumer base of 450m for 4.5m in NZ seems good.

Have shipped to NZ and Australia, more so Australia, the Uk think the EU have standards to abide by, well welcome to Australia. Shipping times get longer all the time because of all the trans-shipments as transportation costs get more expensive