True but it still need to stick to EU rules and regulations else it loses access to the single market. Also note that Norway pays more per capita into the EU coffers then the British.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
True but it still need to stick to EU rules and regulations else it loses access to the single market. Also note that Norway pays more per capita into the EU coffers then the British.
Im not really interested in discussing why the EU will offer it, but I think they will.
The us would never submit to any EU control aka Norway. The UK will
Yes and the UK will do that also.. even though she didn't want the single market
So basically the UK will submit to the EU control, which will 'free it' to make trade deals. However those trade deals must be in line to the EU rules and regulations, rules btw, the UK has lost any right of influencing or VETO since its not an EU member anymore.
Sweet. It kind of reminds me of my country when it was still part of the British empire.
Yep! A kind of satellite state. Hence why brexiteers are rebelling
To be honest its been answered many times, its just what we ask for isnt actually an option.
To put it at its simplest, we want open borders for trade (especially in services - yes we know no major trade agreement has ever been signed that involves services, but we want to do the first, and we want to do it in record time) but closed borders for people. With no impediment to our ability to deals with other countries.
Yes I get the protest vote but I don't believe in fairies and unicorns nor self-harm.
The government held an election after the vote and still won. Yes they're in deep trouble but do you seriously think they give a toss whether some poor soul voted to leave the EU in protest hoping for a better life.
Do you even think they care whether the UK are in the EU or not, do you think Corbyn cares either?
The only thing they all care about is power and self-interest. The NHS , social care, infrastructure and all the rest people want improved will only happen if people are prepared to pay for it and no political party will ever get elected in the UK if they said they were going to provide much improved services but tax is going to be increased by 5p or 10p in the £1.
It's my fault for not being explicit, what are your non ridiculous wishes? Full access to the single market without the four freedoms isn't an option, so it shouldn't be mentioned at this point.
Oh right. There are no non-ridiculous wishes.
Im sure it was mentioned yesterday, but I laughed out loud when I was watching C4N last night. They had Peter Bone on (pro-Brexit MP) who said the EU could have customs checks on its side but we wouldnt bother with them on the UK side. He also said Ireland, when it came to it, wouldnt bother putting a border up with NI. This whole business of having borders is all just a big bluff, part of Project Fear, he insinuated. Why would anyone want borders anyway? Its not like this whole thing has been about keeping the foreigners out. We can leave the EU but then not actually have a border and not actually check who is coming in or leaving.
So to come back to your question again @JPRouve, there is very little about the debate in this country which would qualify as "non-ridiculous".
So to come back to your question again @JPRouve, there is very little about the debate in this country which would qualify as "non-ridiculous".
1) a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement
2) trade to be as frictionless as possible
3) regulatory alignment
4) continued closely following EU rules and regulations, with some deviations where appropriate #sovereignty
5) open borders with Ireland
6) visaless travel with EU
7) to be out of the single market
8) reciprocal single market access
9) ability to make own free trade deals with rest of world (not sure if you want this)
(But you can ignore number 8)
Last edited:
The regulatory alignment one is a big stumbling once you get past woolly sentiment and try nailing it down. If we align with the EU it means when they change their rules we have to change with them, or we come out of alignment. Which is problematic #sovereignty.
I know you think we will just end up accepting that anyway, and maybe we will. But it is highly unsatisfactory, if you think about the reasons given for actually coming out. Im repeating myself but it just means when we come to the end of this process the people who wanted out wont actually be satisfied. Which means the EU remains a massive political issue for the foreseeable future.
The problem is that your list is just an accumulation of good sounding politicians formulas, only (5), (6) and (7) have an actual meaning. And they don't go with (4) which also doesn't go with (3). If (3) doesn't work then (2) doesn't exist and (1) goes against (7). All of that without even getting into anything actually deep and comprehensive, 18 months of PR and we are still in the most superficial phase imaginable.
Like said earlier by Rajma, CETA is the closest model but there are no open borders because Canada aren't full members of the single market and aren't members of Schengen.
Yeah it's a big stumbling block and a difficult sell. But actually one that most remain MPs can see has too great advantages. I could see it being sold to UK with a UK body overseeing it. Where we diverge, it would open the need for bilateral agreements
Are you seriously saying that a "deep and comprehensive free trade agreement" hasnt a real meaning?
It doesn't have a real meaning, there is no definition of it. Deep and comprehensive are by definition subjective terms. The only defined term here is free trade agreement, after that you have to define what deep and comprehensive means to you, in the case of CETA for example it means that tariffs and quotas are still applied on a range of goods, it means that borders are regulated and not open.
Of course, I'm not asking you to define those, that would be ridiculous. I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't use these type of terms in here because that's political nonsense meant to sound great to the public.
Its not political nonsense at all. Of course it needs to be defined, much more clearly than I could do using my phone to talk on a football forum.
But we have examples of previous DCFTA in Ukraine, Moldova, etc. In which we can start the discussion.
For example:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/ukraine/index_en.htm
It may not have a picture perfect definition which can apply to all situations, but everyone knows what we are referring to when we talk about a "deep and comprehensive free trade agreement".
A free trade agreement with some regulatory and legislative alignment, and some subscriptions intuitive various services elements. Of which elements are going to be agreed, I couldn't possibly tell you
I think we all accept there will be tariffs, especially (more than quotas, which I dont see discussed as often, and I think there is an assumption - but I could be wrong - that we wont need quotas). Regulated borders too. There is some pie in the sky stuff about new technology systems that will allow that border control to be seamless, unintrusive and even invisible. Its easy to laugh at the notion that we will be able to implement this as-yet-uninvented technology at our borders within the next 3 years, but the fact it has been suggested at all is at least tacit acknowledgement that we will have regulated borders. Its just a case of defining what that regulation / cost will be. I think that is going to have to come from the EU side, really. The UK's opening gambit is "as low as possible" so maybe it is up to the EU to tell us how low it is prepared to go. And then we decide if we can live with it, or if WTO terms makes more sense.
Excuse my ignorance on the matter but why is it a big issue to have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland?
A hard border would break the good friday agreement.
Agreements can be tweaked though. Both the Irish and the British are civilized people and surely they won't start killing one another on a frigging hard border especially if efforts are spent to facilitate movement of people and goods between ROI and Northern Ireland.
Ah, how sweet. Someone give that poster a little flower.
. Thanks for filling us in about ourselves. Bless.Ah, how sweet. Someone give that poster a little flower.
thanks. You can spare the effort and stick it the flower up in your....
I am a Remainer. I think that Brexit is a Tory cat fight that had gone bad and will end up hurting us all. However, I sincerely fail to understand why a hard border is such a big issue.
As said I am not provoking anyone here. I am just asking a question.
feck off, you ignorant clod. Inform yourself before coming on and offering me abuse. There are people who live along the border, on both sides whose lives are massively affected by this imposition. It has been the cause of pain and suffering in this country. Its a delicate matter which people have made great sacrifices to improve. I could not give a red shite what you are.
I think the issue, put simply, is that the peace in Northern Ireland is extremely delicate and it wouldnt take much to set the troubles off again. Part of the settlement is the illusion of a united Ireland provided by the fact there is no border. It isnt a united Ireland, but anyone can travel between the north and the south at will, trade can occur between the two sides without impediment. The symbolism of a border in Ireland would be bad enough, but it would have practical implications as well. As I said its a very delicate and complex situation and there are better places to research this question than on here. Needless to say, whatever your or my level of understanding of it is, it IS a huge issue, EU Ministers say it will be the single hardest problem to resolve.
That what I was trying to do ie getting informed by asking questions. Stop hyperventilating and go back to the freezer else you risk to melt.
thanks for your reply
Pretty much. And part of the problem is how this has been represented in general discourse. People always say they want less immigration in the UK, but whenever such a discussion comes up there's never a particularly developed discussion about what people are willing to sacrifice for that to be the case.
Obviously there are means through which we can reduce immigration, but in an open and globalised world ending freedom of movement with the EU is something that's likely to have some negative consequences. That's not unfair, but simply the way it is.
It'd be like the general populous coming out and making a demand like "we all want more money". It's fair for everyone to want that, yeah, but in politics it's not as simple as wanting something...because generally to achieve a political goal you're going to have to sacrifice something else in the process. I've no idea why this hasn't been brought up at all though, or why it's not been brought up enough. I presume the major parties are aware of the anti-immigration sentiment to the point wherein they're wary of stoking the fires by telling people they can't have something without losing something else in the process.
I believe it'd violate the GFA, and if nothing else it provokes the Irish nationalists who'd rightfully argue it's a significant change to the current status quo within Northern Ireland that was agreed upon. All to satisfy the DUP, UKIP and hard-right Tories who've basically ignored that this is an issue at all.
thanks mate
Mine was a geniune question about a subject I don't know enough about and which now have a big (and rightful) say on the future relationships between EU and UK.
I think that's fair, except they're probably more worried about losing votes than not stoking fires.
To coin a favourite phrase here. Idiots voted for Cameron and his ref promise, In your opinion idiots voted to leave the EU, the same idiots voted tories back in. I can only assume Tory voters are the real idiots here, no-one else. "Things are going to shit, you know what, I'm going to vote for the same shit". Does that sound like someone with a sane mind Paul? Honestly?
You’re talking about a region where people regularly demand the right to march through the areas of their political opponents beating drums and waving flags commemorating how their ancestors slaughtered them in one bloody battle or another. Within living memory the British army was based there in armored compounds and carrying out patrols that were frequently shot at and blown up by bombs. A huge amount of political capital and compromise went into trying to negotiate a peace deal that was acceptable to two sides who had spent decades hating and murdering each other.
This is not a place where you can stick up some barriers and expect people will just be fine with it.
That's why I don't understand the Good Friday agreement, the agreement is only possible within the EU Framework. How can you create in 1999 an agreement as important as the GF within a framework that you don't really control and could change very easily. The incompetence is staggering from all sides, the EU, the UK, ROI and NI.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, other than the fact that all the people I know who voted for Brexit were traditional Labour voters prior to 2015 and again voted Tory in 2017 and having previously voted for Blair in the past , thinking he was the best thing since sliced bread when I couldn't stand him, now think he's the devil incarnate.
Then you have more than half the Tory MPs in favour of Remain and the leader of the opposition clearly in favour of Leave.
This is way beyond traditional Tory/Labour party politics.
It was never even seriously considered that the situation of the UK being in the EU could change. No-one was thinking about this kind of crap back then. They were just trying to construct an incredibly delicate agreement to stop people killing each other and did so within the framework that made sense at the time. It was a momumental achievement, and about as far from incompetent as you can get. The incompetence is purely recent.
Nice to see the Cabinet have got round to discussing the important Brexit stuff finally.
The incompetence was then and now. You can't base a contract on a framework that can be unilaterally altered by each co-signatories without providing an alternative in case of alteration, it's not as if we were talking about something impossible, I can understand that it was seen as unlikely but you don't create contracts around unlikeliness, you need to protect yourself from foreseeable scenari.
And it doesn't take away the fact that it was indeed a monumental achievement from a political and social standpoint, legally it's a butchered job.
Sorry but this is nonsense. They were negotiating one of the most delicate issues in modern British history, and even raising the idea of possible constitutional changes would have probably caused half the participants to lose their fecking minds. They did the best they could do at the time, and even then there were many people left angry and frustrated on both sides. Calling it incompetent is insulting to what was a remarkable achievement.
Nah, I think that's immensely unfair. You're talking about the endpoint of decades of negotiation, compromise and bloodshed. It took immense effort to reach even that delicate balance within the EU framework as it was literally a compromise that many thought impossible. Expecting them to futureproof against the then seemingly remote possibility of the UK leaving the EU is a bit much and rather unrealistic. Especially given that dealing with the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without Ireland would have in itself likely spoiled the negotiations as a whole.
Last edited: