Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
LOL at the guardian readers here.
Trade discussions will obviously be important to both sides, because both sides want to end ecconomical uncertainty.
The British side didnt want to wait until the last minute to discuss trade. That isn't going to happen, it will begin in only 4 months. However, a lot of issues are intertwined, and so will be discussed in parallel. The fact that people can see capitulation during the first formal discussions, simply points to the fact they want our side to fail badly, and are looking for it.
To start discussions on a trade deal is a compromise on both sides, as the EU were moaning about it being a lot later in the process.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
LOL at the guardian readers here.
Trade discussions will obviously be important to both sides, because both sides want to end ecconomical uncertainty.
The British side didnt want to wait until the last minute to discuss trade. That isn't going to happen, it will begin in only 4 months. However, a lot of issues are intertwined, and so will be discussed in parallel. The fact that people can see capitulation during the first formal discussions, simply points to the fact they want our side to fail badly, and are looking for it.
To start discussions on a trade deal is a compromise on both sides, as the EU were moaning about it being a lot later in the process.
Click to expand...

Trade discussions will start out if the UK agrees to pay what the EU think its due. Unless that is agreed first then there will be no trade deal discussions. The discussions will either halt or they will be delayed stripping the UK from valuable time needed to seal a meaningful trade deal with its biggest market
 
Hammond has definitely broken rank this morning. Seeing blood he's quite clearly putting pressure on May/Davis et al, basically saying that anything different to the exact same terms would not be acceptable and damaging for the economy. May now has a Chancellor she cannot sack, effectively saying in public her government's position of "no deal is better than a bad deal" is shite.
 
Yet he wants out of the customs union and the single market. None of these politicians make sense. All he's doing is giving people sufficient time to take their money out of the UK in an orderly manner.
 
AshfordLad said:
You have the wrong idea. Non EU nationals are not entitled to most of the benefits so cost the govt a lot lot less than EU nationals. Especially in case of the nurses.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, but you gotta explain this @AshfordLad ? How does a Turkish nurse working in the UK, on the same salary as a Swedish nurse working in the UK, cost the government a lot lot less? :confused:
 
Last edited:
:lol: What a mess.
Hammond not mincing his words.
May has lost control.
Cabinet has gone to the dogs.
 
Pound taken another dive.
More expensive to send money to my parents.:(
 
I think he's implying non-EU people are not entitled to the same state benefits such as childcare and all those.
 
Rightnr said:
I think he's implying non-EU people are not entitled to the same state benefits such as childcare and all those.
Click to expand...

You still get childcare etc if you're a non-EU nurse in the UK. A bunch of countries have an agreement on this even if you're under "immigration control":

Algeria, Morocco, San Marino, Tunisia, Turkey, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, the Channel Islands, Israel, Kosovo, Macedonia, Mauritius, Montenegro, New Zealand, Serbia.

Oh, and if you're from any country and sponsored, you also get it,
 
Serious question - has there been any comment from the Labour Party re. the risks of losing single market access post election?
 
I liked this quote from Carney this morning -

"Before long, we will all begin to find out the extent to which Brexit is a gentle stroll along a smooth path to a land of cake and consumption".
 
The Chancellor said most globalisation has focused on goods, especially from China and Germany - but 80% of Britain's economy is now in services like finance, IT and communications.

"For the UK to be able to share fairly in the benefits of globalisation, we need to lead a global crusade for liberalisation of services," he said.

"Fragmentation of financial services would result in poorer quality, higher priced products for everyone."
Click to expand...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/immigration-not-shut-down-declares-10652145
Why it makes no sense whatsoever to leave the single market
KxMkI2j.png
Click to expand...
Keeping free trade of goods, but denying ourselves freedom to trade services, is an absolute disaster.
 
The state of politics in this country at the moment... Madness has basicallly taken hold and we've decided to throw ourselves off the cliff in the hope that there's a land of plenty on the rocks beneath.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
The state of politics in this country at the moment... Madness has basicallly taken hold and we've decided to throw ourselves off the cliff in the hope that there's a land of plenty on the rocks beneath.
Click to expand...

It's 100% down to the fear mongering media.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Serious question - has there been any comment from the Labour Party re. the risks of losing single market access post election?
Click to expand...

Stamers done quite a lot of interviews but mainly about leaving the customs union on the table.

Overall Labours position is still that leaving the single market is a necessary part of Brexit so i wouldn't expect to hear them scream the risks. They'll still have an eye on the next election
 
Brexit: the options for trade
Chapter 5: A UK-EU free trade agreement - House of Lords

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/72/7208.htm

Some really interesting discussion there from the HoL
Goods

135.Witnesses agreed that tariff-free access for goods to the EU’s market could be included in a FTA. Mr González García said agreeing tariffs on industrial goods would be straightforward (“I do not see why there should be barriers or obstacles in the automotive industry”), though agreement on tariffs for agriculture and market access for fishing would be more of a “challenge.”187 He added it would be “very easy” to agree on “rules of origin, customs procedures, customs facilitation and co-operation”.188

136.Mr Ruparel said that regardless of what might be included in a FTA, complying with rules of origin and incurring tariffs on goods with parts produced outside of the UK would be an “additional administrative burden for businesses and goods exporters.”189

Services

137.Witnesses also recognised that a FTA provided the possibility of some liberal terms for trade in services with the Single Market, though Mr González García suggested that some services might be easier to include than others, such as telecommunications and e-commerce.190

138.Mr Ruparel went further, saying that services “will clearly be the most difficult sector, particularly financial services, as there is no precedent for third-country access to the Single Market in financial services and other services.”191 Both Dr Gehring and Mr Ruparel said that previous FTAs signed by the EU which included services were some distance short of the access the UK currently enjoys as an EU Member State. Dr Gehring said: “Let us be honest: the current acquis of EU rules is normally much broader [than a FTA].” While the CETA agreement included “some mild form of mutual recognition of qualifications”, there were “quite a few areas of the existing EU acquis that I have not seen in any FTA in a bilateral relationship”.192 Mr Ruparel noted that while CETA provided “some rights of establishment, and the ability to set up subsidiaries and entities in the EU”, it was “far short … of providing a passport and being able to provide a service from your home base in the UK”. There were also “hundreds of pages of restrictions”, and so he concluded that a similar agreement between the UK and the EU “would be a big change for the UK, particularly on the services side”.193

Complying with EU law

139.Mr González García, Dr Gehring and Mr Ruparel agreed that if the UK wanted comprehensive market access under a FTA with the EU, it would have to accept EU regulations and standards. Mr González García said that in negotiations, “the EU is going to ask, ‘You want access to financial services. Which of my directives are you going to implement and replicate in your law?’” He suggested that “the easiest thing would be for the UK to adopt the EU law”, to ensure that “level of access to EU services would be greater”. On the other hand, he cautioned that “the more you want to be in the Single Market, the more locked into EU law you would be”, and that this would result in “less flexibility in negotiation with third countries” on future FTAs.194 Dr Gehring agreed, noting also that this might be “politically … very difficult, because sometimes you do not have political input into how the standards are made.”195

140.In some cases, though, meeting EU standards and regulations would not necessarily require the UK to adopt EU law, if it could demonstrate that its domestic law had an equivalent effect. Dr Gehring referred to the example of the Emissions Trading System, where the UK “would rather have a carbon tax, but the overall price of carbon between the two systems was similar, [so] there could be an equivalence negotiation”.196 Mr Ruparel cautioned, though, that whether “you meet the equivalence standards … is a political not a technical decision”.197

Dispute resolution

141.Dispute resolution under FTAs is described in Box 7.
Any FTA would require the establishment of some form of mechanism to resolve disputes. Countries can also use the WTO dispute settlement which allows for an appeal of the decision and for compensation if the case is won.

When set up within the framework of a FTA, the most common procedure for resolving trade disputes is state-to-state dispute settlement. In this case, a state complains about violations of the agreement by the other state to a joint panel. However, dispute settlement clauses in FTAs are as diverse as the FTAs themselves.

In FTAs containing an investment chapter, it is also possible to include a dispute settlement mechanism between investors and states (investor-state dispute settlement—ISDS). This grants an investor the right to resort to international arbitration against a country’s government where the host state violates the rights granted to an investor under public international law.198 In the case of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and under CETA, this has proved extremely controversial. The provisional application of CETA agreed in October 2016 does not include these investor-state dispute resolution provisions.

If there is a dispute about trade relations between the Switzerland and the EU, the CJEU will initially publish its decision, and this decision will then go to a joint committee of Swiss and EU officials, which decides on how this issue should be viewed in the context of their bilateral relationship.
Click to expand...
142.According to Mr González García, the advantage of including dispute settlement clauses within FTAs was that they provided an extra (if indirect) benefit to business and investors by offering “an additional forum where the state will call the other state to say that they have an issue”.199 FTAs provided complainants with the ability to “challenge and appeal the decision by an impartial, neutral administrative tribunal, in quasijudicial or judicial proceedings”.200

143.On the other hand, Dr Gehring argued that states seem to “prefer the WTO process”.201 That process can result in the complainant being allowed to impose countermeasures—such as breaking its own WTO obligations towards the member that lost in WTO dispute settlement (for example by imposing tariffs beyond the bound tariff rate)—which may convince the trading partner to bring its actions into line with WTO practice.202 Dr Gehring emphasised that FTA dispute resolution clauses worked on a state-to-state level and so did not provide businesses with the opportunity to challenge the actions of their trading partners unless they had “access to the Government” and could “easily sway the entire United Kingdom to take on, say, the United States”.203

144.Several witnesses urged the Government to consider developing more robust dispute settlement arrangements to police a future FTA between the UK and the EU. Referring to the EFTA Court, Dr Gehring said: “A joint court between EU judges and UK judges to administer the new comprehensive relationship could be possible”.204 Mr Ruparel agreed.205 We note that such a proposal is unlikely to pass legal scrutiny by the CJEU. In 1991, it ruled against a proposal to establish an EEA court composed of eight judges—including five from the CJEU—on the basis that such a system was incompatible with Community law. As a consequence, the EFTA Court was set up pursuant to a different model.206 Dr Gehring too warned that such “creativity may run into slight difficulties”.207 He referred to the Swiss model of dispute resolution (which does not have a court): “The practice over the last 10 years has shown that … it is basically impossible for the Swiss side to get any change negotiated in the joint committee, because the Commission officials feel legally bound by the definitive judgment of the Court of Justice.”208
Click to expand...
It goes on
 
Not only that, IIRC Spain actually require EU nationals to have residence cards, so they can track who is in and who is out. For a country obsessed with security and spying for safety reasons, it's amazing how much opposition there is against a simple ID card which is also a much more practical means of ID than a big unwieldy passport.

The fact they don't track arrivals and departures of EU nationals actually puts us in a worse position than non-EU people when it comes to proving residence. The amount of pain the HO have caused for simple admin reasons is absolutely disproportionate to any risks I might pose. Another reason why I think Theresa May is not fit to govern the country - her HO was so badly managed.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
:lol: sure it is. Trump likes to think he's a businessman. Will he risk damaging trade with a market of 700 million people to placate a (clearly desperate) market of 60 million?
Click to expand...

He's not the brightest and can be as irrational and vindictive as the EU - he's shown that - so who knows ?

On the other hand, there isn't an FTA between the USA and the EU, so he wouldn't be putting much at risk as you suggest.
 
Full bodied red said:
Given the EU's contempt for the Tump and Trump's contempt for the EU ( Frau Fatarse in particular ) I'd say this is a done deal.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-trade-idUKKBN1990HN
Click to expand...
It will certainly happen FBD, but it's not going to really help because....

1) Nothing can be arranged whilst Britain is in the European Union. Its actually illegal for Mr Fox to even negotiate trade deals whilst Britain remains a member. No one knows what Britain will come away with in terms of keeping existing European Trade Deals.

If Brexit is delayed, or there are transitional arrangements, it could long delay any UK-USA deal

2) There is still a decent chance that the USA will negotiate a deal with the EU, first, and that could even still include the UK. USA-EU negotiations have at least started, even if Trump, Brexit and controversy with TTIP has thrown spanners in the works.

3) The UK has a goods deficit but a services surplus. It doesn't really help to have greater access to goods if we can't sell our services in return. What exactly are we meant to be selling the USA? I fully support the idea of a free trade deal with the USA, but simply removing tax from US goods will cost the UK government, and would be rather pointless if we don't benefit.

4) We cant replicate what we have with the EU with the US. If that's not the point, then fine, but it needs to be said.

If a car manufacturer in Germany needs to increase their stock of a certain part, they can buy it from Britain and expect it to appear overnight on cheap road freight - we are as competitive to Berlin as Italy or Poland are.

For the US, that simply isn't true. The Atlantic ocean adds cost and time, not to mention we are already geared towards the EU markets.

5) Negotiating trade deals is complicated, and takes a long time. Britain hasnt had a single trade negotiator in over 40 years (I think). Are we really going to manage to negotiate TWO major trade deals simultaneously?

6) By the time the UK leaves the EU, the political landscape may have changed drastically.

Labour could be in power in the UK. Trump may have been empeeched in the US. If the transitional period includes staying in the customs union for 5 years, the Democrats may even have power again. The EU may have taken steps towards Federilisation with Macron. It could be a very different place.

........

Now I totally support the idea of free trade and free work areas between Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc. That sounds great... But we need to be realistic about the time scale and what it will actually achieve.
 
Last edited:
saivet said:
Never realised any of this, and to be honest, it's a pretty big thing not to cone into light. If anything it just shows how poor the Remain campaign was.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my first thought too. Mental that such a massive decision was forced upon such a poorly informed electorate. Shame on both campaigns really.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, that was my first thought too. Mental that such a massive decision was forced upon such a poorly informed electorate. Shame on both campaigns really.
Click to expand...
If immigration was the biggest concern of Brexit voters then surely us enforcing residence IDs would see them and us remain voters happy. I guess they may say the damage has been done, but leaving the EU outright doesn't rectify that.
 
saivet said:
Never realised any of this, and to be honest, it's a pretty big thing not to cone into light. If anything it just shows how poor the Remain campaign was.
Click to expand...

It's been said on here countless times though, the Remain campaign clearly wasn't good enough but would Brexiters listen? if the Sun or Mail etc say anything, it must be true but they wouldn't listen to people who actually know what they're talking about
 
saivet said:
Never realised any of this, and to be honest, it's a pretty big thing not to cone into light. If anything it just shows how poor the Remain campaign was.
Click to expand...

It was raised and circled around in the televised debates but Leave just shot it down repeating they couldn't stop them coming into the country. The campaign was never on practicalities but leavers racism/xenophobia heck it's not really the Europeans anyone wanted to stop but it was clearly seen as a gateway to further controls.

If you packaged up what we already do along with what we can do these people would lap it up if it was sold as a new nasty measure.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
It's been said on here countless times though, the Remain campaign clearly wasn't good enough but would Brexiters listen? if the Sun or Mail etc say anything, it must be true but they wouldn't listen to people who actually know what they're talking about
Click to expand...
I've not read about it in here. I think they probably would have though. Might have given them something more to complain about, but that line of argument could at least have been dampened

I guess the problem with the Remain campaign would be that they're essentially admitting they got it wrong by not enforcing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.