homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Shake it all about: Brexit thread II (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  64  65  66 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
Ann

Curious
# 94

 - Posted      Profile for Ann   Email Ann   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Be careful,shipmates! According to The Times, a petition is circulating asking Parliament to legislate to make post-Brexit advocacy of rejoining the EU an offence of High Treason. Volunteers for being hanged,drawn and quartered please take one pace forward.

I think he's being shown that there are other points of view .

--------------------
Ann

Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Be careful,shipmates! According to The Times, a petition is circulating asking Parliament to legislate to make post-Brexit advocacy of rejoining the EU an offence of High Treason. Volunteers for being hanged,drawn and quartered please take one pace forward.

I can remember well proposals that anyone who advocate leaving the EU after the 1974 referendum was guilty of treason. It's another sign that Brexit is unravelling and the Brexiteers becoming desperate.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's another sign that Brexit is unravelling and the Brexiteers becoming desperate.

It really isn't though is it? Even as someone that didn't vote for it I can recognise that petition as the work of one (now suspended) loony councillor.

Actually, I'm increasingly (as someone in business and in their 30s) of the opinion that we need to get on with it now. All the faffing about, legal challenges, etc are just making it worse.

I'm now fully committed to doing everything I can to make as much of a success as possible of Brexit - because I've got a pension, a mortgage, and (hopefully) a lot of life left to run. I can't afford to hang back and watch from the sidelines.

I'd far rather we all hanged together than separately, and I think we've got a better chance of avoiding hanging at all if we work together.

FWIW that (in a straw poll of my strongly remain office) now seems to be the majority view of people I know my age - love anecdata! Inherited Blitz spirit back with a vengeance.

My mind has also been slightly focused recently by spending some time in the Black Country, with friends and relatives (aged 25-40 and Brexiters to a (wo)man), and touring the less salubrious pubs of the West Midlands. I really think if there's any attempt not to go through with this then parts of the country might become ungovernable.

Genuinely.

Perhaps that makes me the Vicar of Bray, but so be it. I was, am, a Remainer, but I've got no choice now (as I see it) to work hard for as good a Brexit as we can get.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sioni you might remember that I once described my worldview as Baldwin meets Scruton with a dash of Pushful Joe? Let's just say that I was Baldwin before the vote and am now favouring the Chamberlain-Scruton nexus since.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some UKIP people are definitely saying that the vote was for hard Brexit, which it obviously wasn't

Well it depends what you mean by hard Brexit. Two days ago on Sunday Politics Andrew Neil showed an excerpt from an interview with David Cameron during the referendum campaign. In trying to promote the Remain view, Cameron made it clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market. I don't see how anybody can now argue that they didn't vote to leave the Single Market unless, of course, they were Remainers.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell, your last 2 posts show clearly where I consider that your error lies. In both, you talk of an election. This was not an election; it was a referendum to vote on a single question, whether to Remain or to Leave. How either course was to be followed was not a matter to put before voters in a manifesto.

To take another example from here, where there have so far been 44 or 45 referendums, of which only 8 have been carried. In 1946, the Labour govt put a question to give the Commonwealth Govt power to legislate on social security. Until then that had been the power of individual states, save for old age and invalid pensions. In seeking the power, the Govt did not set out how it would utilise it, what the particular benefits would be and the eligibility to receive them. It simply sought the power to enable it to legislate in the future.

By analogy, a question of similar simplicity was put to the UK electorate. The steps to be taken afterwards were for the government to take, those steps including the negotiations with the EU as well as preparing the legislation necessary to cover the enormous number of statutory provisions which had been introduced as a part of the UK's membership. These post-referendum steps could be envisaged by voters, but quite how each was to be tackled would be a matter for the government.

[ 18. October 2016, 21:14: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell, your last 2 posts show clearly where I consider that your error lies. In both, you talk of an election. This was not an election; it was a referendum to vote on a single question, whether to Remain or to Leave. How either course was to be followed was not a matter to put before voters in a manifesto.

And, I would say a referendum is a form of an election. An election for a representative in Parliament (usually) has more than two options, and a referendum usually has just two options. But, in both cases the question posed to the electorate is "which of these people/parties/options do you prefer?" An election and referendum is closer than you seem to think, IMO.

I still don't see why any question put to the electorate, whether that's a question about who to represent us or a referendum question, shouldn't include a manifesto. If we don't know what the options are how are people to make an informed decision?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan, I think we shall have to disagree on that. Elections are to determine who is to govern the country/state/local council for the next term. A referendum is to determine a single question. Although I was too young to vote at the landmark referendum in 1967 concerning the counting of aboriginal people in the census, and giving the Commonwealth Govt express power to legislate for them, I remember it clearly and like so many others campaigned in support. There have been a dozen or more referendum questions put since and I've voted at all of them. While there has been campaigning for and against on each, none has had the sort of preparation you endorse.

Let's look back at the social services referendum of 1946 to which I referred above. If your proposal had been followed, one would have expected papers detailing the sums to be provided for all the new benefits (new to the Federal Govt, that is) how those funds were to be raised and so forth. That was not done. The real question - apart from providing support for a power which had in fact been exercised for some time - was whether such a power should be given to the Federal Govt with consequent national uniformity of eligibility and benefit, or whether it should remain with the States.

Agreed that a referendum is an election of sorts, a voter elects whether to vote Yes or No, Leave or Remain. Despite that, I can see real differences between this sort of process and the regular election of members of parliament/presidents/congress members etc.

[ 19. October 2016, 02:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The level of detail required to make an informed decision will, naturally, depend on the question.

When electing members for Parliament (or other body) we require a reasonably detailed plan of what they intend to do over the term of office (and, personally, some indication that that is part of a longer term plan), that does require a manifesto - and one of sufficient size to accommodate plans for several year in office.

When the question is one of a matter of policy, again the detail needed will depend on the question. "Should aboriginal people be included on the census?" is pretty much self-explanatory, and all that's required is a campaign to explain why they should. "Should welfare be a Federal or State power?" is also quite simple, all that's needed are the few sentences to say that initially there would be a programme of producing a uniform scheme across the country, and all subsequent changes would be made by the Federal government - the only potential hiccup would be to work out what would happen if one State voted to retain those powers and all the others voted to transfer them to the Federal government. "Should we retain FPTP or adopt an AV voting system?" needs nothing more than a clear description of AV. In all these cases, there would be very little in the way of problems with implementing the changes if the vote went that way.

However, when the question is one where the implementation of the change would be very complex and involve negotiations with multiple other parties over multiple issues then, IMO, an informed decision can only be made when a prefered route through those complex issues has been pencilled in - recognising that unless those complex negotiations are done in advance of the vote (and, they won't be) then that can only ever be an intention rather than a path that will be followed no matter what. So, Scottish Independence had questions about currency, membership of EU and NATO, the status of the border, the place of Scotland within the UK defense system (with rUK troops and facilities currently in Scotland, and Scottish troops based in UK facilities around the world), etc to be addressed. The Scottish Government produced an extensive white paper to describe what they wanted to achieve, and the vote was informed by that document (even if most people only read the summaries and key points produced by the media). Brexit has a similar collection of issues that have multiple options available - in or out of the common market, the status of the border, the status of EU citizens currently in the UK, the availability of non-UK workers to fill our skills gaps, availability of opportunities for young people to study abroad, participation in European science and technology projects, farm subsidies, will we need to abide by EU standards and regulations, etc. We were denied the option of making an informed decision since the prefered option of the Leave campaign on these issues was not spelled out, and indeed in several cases different people were giving different answers.

Fundamentally, it comes down to a requirement for a free and fair election is that the people need to be able to make an informed decision. That can't happen if key information is not available.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No Alan, I'm sorry but I'm not with you. The question of whether to remain or leave is not the same as how any decision to leave will be achieved. The first was one largely (it seems) answered on an emotional response - I agree with your assessment of that, but that does not alter the conclusion. BTW, your latest post suggests that the rational case include setting out the likely position of the EU in the event of a Leave vote. I can't recall if that were known beforehand, or if the general outline were, whether the approach that Article 50 be invoked before any negotiations commenced had been made public, if indeed it had been made at all.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some UKIP people are definitely saying that the vote was for hard Brexit, which it obviously wasn't

Well it depends what you mean by hard Brexit. Two days ago on Sunday Politics Andrew Neil showed an excerpt from an interview with David Cameron during the referendum campaign. In trying to promote the Remain view, Cameron made it clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market. I don't see how anybody can now argue that they didn't vote to leave the Single Market unless, of course, they were Remainers.
I saw a ton of stuff from people who were proposing various scenarios for the UK post Leave on FB. There were very few fully fledged hard Brexiters.

Most were proposing some sort of deal that would give the UK Single Market access, but not on as good terms as before. The EU's recent record on getting Trade Deals done isn't that great. The US deal has fallen apart and the Canadian one seems to be going the same way.

Others were hoping for a return to EETA / ETA which would put us back on the same footing as we were in 1973.

Others expected that the EU would still give us All The Things after we’d left and nothing would change. But I’ve never believed a man whose biggest achievement was putting bike racks all over London.

And therein lies the problem. There is no “correct” answer to what happens after we Leave. But whatever happens, it will be seen as a betrayal by everyone.

And I can say that I didn't vote to Leave the Single Market [Razz]

Tubbs

[ 19. October 2016, 12:06: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem is that the Leavers offered a variety of frankly incompatible things. Someone was always going to get let down. What is interesting is that the Tories have decided to privilege the opinions of angry nativists from Sunderland and embittered pensioners from the shires over the opinions of the City of London and the young and the educated. In the short term, of course, they can do what the hell they want but in the longer term that is going to cause them problems. There isn't going to be a Jeremy Corbyn shaped hole where the opposition used to be indefinitely.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The question of whether to remain or leave is not the same as how any decision to leave will be achieved.

You are, of course, correct that they are different but related questions. My opinion is that the "how" question should have been answered first, with a referendum on the question of whether to leave on that basis (or, as close to that as would be achieved in negotitations). Of course, it wasn't. So, as second best (recognising the reality of the outcome of a referendum that was a long way short of ideal) the how question now needs to be answered, and that process needs to follow democratic principles - so, for a start our representatives in the Commons being fully involved in the discussions and debates on formulating that answer. And, potentially a further referendum to see if this is agreeable to the country as a whole. It certainly shouldn't be done behind closed doors without public scrutiny and accountability, it's not as though it's somethign as trivial as selecting a new leader of the Tory party.

quote:
I can't recall if that were known beforehand, or if the general outline were, whether the approach that Article 50 be invoked before any negotiations commenced had been made public, if indeed it had been made at all.
It was clearly stated prior to the referendum that Article 50 would need to be invoked prior to any negotiations. It was generally assumed (but without any information to actually base decisions on) that A50 would be invoked practically as soon as the result was known (a little time for the Tories to huddle and select a new PM being the only expected delay).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't really understand the point of a referendum on a Brexit deal when one is reached. What happens if the general public votes No? Do we just leave the EU without a deal, or do we hope the other 27 countries take pity on us and give our beloved representatives more time to think of a better deal for us (which is quite likely to imply a worse deal for them)?

[ 19. October 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm obviously missing something here. I've just watched former Taoiseach John Bruton on a BBC News Channel Special about Brexit claiming what a disaster border controls along the Irish border would be. Everyone agreed with him, and Lord Lamont suggested that we should be looking to the type of border between Norway and Sweden, which uses a lot of technology to make the border as soft as possible, which doesn't impede the movement of people. John Bruton agreed that this should be looked at.

Next they were talking about the implications of the UK having to fall back on WTO rules. Mr Bruton then said that Ireland would be forced, by its obligations to the EU, to set up customs posts along the border. In that event, it would be Ireland closing its own border, which everyone in the country seems to dread. So why do it? If the EU suggests to Ireland that it must do that, the Irish government should tell them in no uncertain terms that it will not and cannot agree to such a request. I believe that all 27 countries have to agree on any terms of a settlement, so why would Ireland even consider inflicting such misery with all its possible consequences.

Following on from the discussion, I would be interested to see, with regards to the whole EU, how many of these threats it will actually enforce against a country which is threatening nothing, especially not the erection of any barriers to the trade which contributes to all of their prosperity.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Next they were talking about the implications of the UK having to fall back on WTO rules.

Though, of course, WTO rules only apply to members of the WTO. It would be a bit rich for a country which is not a member of the WTO to think WTO rules would be applicable. Although I suppose it would be possible for the UK to join the WTO before we finally exit the EU.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No Alan, I'm sorry but I'm not with you. The question of whether to remain or leave is not the same as how any decision to leave will be achieved.

As the EU has repeatedly said that it's not offering a deal with free market but not free movement, there are three broad options:
1) Stay.
2) Leave but keep free movement and access to the free market.
3) Leave and reject free movement and no access to the free market.
It is not at all obvious that everyone voted for either 2 or 3 has 3 or 2 as their second choice. It may well be that some of them have 1 as their second choice.
If only 1 in 20 Leave voters (2.6% of all who voted) have 1 has the second choice, that would make Remain the Condorcet winner. It would require 19 out of 20 Leave voters to agree on either 2 or 3 as the first preference for Remain not to be the First Past the Post winner.

[ 19. October 2016, 21:30: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell, you seem to be moving towards acceptance of my point, if not all the way. I doubt that you can come any further.

You note the possibility of a further referendum on the deal reached. That seems to me full of problems. What if you like half the provisions but could not live with the balance. How do you vote? More importantly, by the time any deal is reached, Art 50 will have been invoked and the clock will be ticking. The electorate says No to the deal, by a substantial majority; the EU says that that's the deal that's on offer, and there's a month left of your time. Where's the UK then?

That's not to say that there should not be very public scrutiny of the deal. Parliament is the place for that, preferably in stages, regular reports to it from the negotiating team and so on.

[ 20. October 2016, 02:35: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, of course, WTO rules only apply to members of the WTO. It would be a bit rich for a country which is not a member of the WTO to think WTO rules would be applicable. Although I suppose it would be possible for the UK to join the WTO before we finally exit the EU.

Wait, the UK isn't a member of the WTO? According to the WTO the UK has been a member since 1995.

The only question seem to be whether the UK is a member only as a member state of the EU.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In various discussions I've read I'm sure that the EU is the WTO member, and individual nations within the EU being members by stint of being part of the EU. In trade terms, that makes sense as the EU (almost by definition of the Common Market) is a single trading entity. The question is, would the UK WTO membership as part of the EU automatically carry over as continuing membership after we exit the EU. I assume there's someone in government who has looked into that, and either obtained the necessary assurances from the WTO that membership will be automatic or has started the negotiations to join the WTO in our own right.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In various discussions I've read I'm sure that the EU is the WTO member, and individual nations within the EU being members by stint of being part of the EU. In trade terms, that makes sense as the EU (almost by definition of the Common Market) is a single trading entity. The question is, would the UK WTO membership as part of the EU automatically carry over as continuing membership after we exit the EU. I assume there's someone in government who has looked into that, and either obtained the necessary assurances from the WTO that membership will be automatic or has started the negotiations to join the WTO in our own right.

Not quite. The UK is a member of the WTO in its own right as it was one of the founders. Its tariffs and services obligations are incorporated in the schedules for the EU and these will need to be renegotiated after Brexit. The EU will also have to do renegotiate their schedules as their market size has changed. As the WTO operates by consensus, this may take a while.

Trade negotiations with anyone can't start until the UK has left the EU. Hopefully the Government is contacting holders of existing agreements to see if they're willing to allow the UK to trade with them on the same terms and sounding out other WTO members to see how the land lies. (But it's Liam Fox so who knows!)

Credit where credit is due. I knew sod all about trade before Brexit!

Tubbs

[ 20. October 2016, 09:20: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would imagine it is a similar situation to other international bodies. For example during several UN negotiations I've followed (yes, I'm that sad), the EU countries sent their own representatives and the EU had a place as a trading block.

One of the countries then spoke on behalf of all of the EU countries - and when any of the individual countries spoke they were careful not to disagree with the EU position.

I'm not familiar with how the WTO works, but I imagine that the EU countries present a united front so that non-EU WTO members get the same deal whoever they trade with inside the EU.

So in practice, I'm thinking the UK probably doesn't have its own individual trading position worked out at the WTO outwith of the EU.

Fundamentally, though, it'd be a bit ridiculous to say that the UK would fall back to the WTO rules if the UK wasn't even a member of the WTO in its own right, AFAIU they're just going to be starting from a clean piece of paper as if we'd just joined.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I would imagine it is a similar situation to other international bodies. For example during several UN negotiations I've followed (yes, I'm that sad), the EU countries sent their own representatives and the EU had a place as a trading block.

One of the countries then spoke on behalf of all of the EU countries - and when any of the individual countries spoke they were careful not to disagree with the EU position.

I'm not familiar with how the WTO works, but I imagine that the EU countries present a united front so that non-EU WTO members get the same deal whoever they trade with inside the EU.

So in practice, I'm thinking the UK probably doesn't have its own individual trading position worked out at the WTO outwith of the EU.

Fundamentally, though, it'd be a bit ridiculous to say that the UK would fall back to the WTO rules if the UK wasn't even a member of the WTO in its own right, AFAIU they're just going to be starting from a clean piece of paper as if we'd just joined.

Trade agreements are handled by the EU who negotiates on everyone’s behalf. An EU member can’t negotiate separate agreements.

Normally trade quotas and tariff etc are negotiated as part of a country’s ascension to the WTO. The UK is in an odd position. As it was a founder member of the WTO, it is already an individual member. But because it’s part of the EU the UK doesn’t have any agreements or quotas etc of its own. It's blooming convoluted!

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by PaulTH:

quote:
Next they were talking about the implications of the UK having to fall back on WTO rules. Mr Bruton then said that Ireland would be forced, by its obligations to the EU, to set up customs posts along the border. In that event, it would be Ireland closing its own border, which everyone in the country seems to dread. So why do it? If the EU suggests to Ireland that it must do that, the Irish government should tell them in no uncertain terms that it will not and cannot agree to such a request. I believe that all 27 countries have to agree on any terms of a settlement, so why would Ireland even consider inflicting such misery with all its possible consequences.

Indeed. It's the need for all 27 countries to agree a deal which makes this a possibility. If there is not an agreement on an FTA then the UK defaults to WTO status and the Irish are then obliged both by its membership of the EU and the WTO to reinstate tariffs and, therefore, a border to enforce them. Ireland's treaty obligations to the EU and the WTO would oblige them, in the absence of an FTA, that would allow the UK access to the Single Market.

The EU has its faults but the UK's decision to unilaterally dispense with its existing FTAs and to seek new ones without a clear strategy for achieving them is rather more to blame for the current situation than the EU, Ireland or the WTO.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

Following on from the discussion, I would be interested to see, with regards to the whole EU, how many of these threats it will actually enforce against a country which is threatening nothing

This is a rather disingenuous argument whether or not you realise it. There is no 'threat'. The UK has unilaterally decided to tear up its existing agreements with the rest of the EU.

Under those circumstances, the EU is forced to treat the UK just like it would any other country with which it has no other agreement.

There is simply no basis for how and why an open border would continue to operate and what and who would be allowed over it.

It's the case that Ricardus outlined so well earlier in the thread:

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile;u=00008757

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris styles:
Under those circumstances, the EU is forced to treat the UK just like it would any other country with which it has no other agreement.

OK so the UK goes into Brexit negotiations saying that it has no wish to impose any tariffs on the EU.It points out that everyone benefits from free trade, including German car workers and French wine growers. The EU invokes its rule book and slaps tariffs on British goods. Britain retaliates and does the same. As the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU, it makes more out of reciprocal tariffs than the EU. But let's face it. Trade will be lost. Jobs will be lost. Can someone tell me who will benefit from this, because I don't see anyone being better off than they would be if we reciprocally agree not to impose tariffs.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
OK so the UK goes into Brexit negotiations saying that it has no wish to impose any tariffs on the EU.It points out that everyone benefits from free trade, including German car workers and French wine growers. The EU invokes its rule book and slaps tariffs on British goods. Britain retaliates and does the same. As the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU, it makes more out of reciprocal tariffs than the EU. But let's face it. Trade will be lost. Jobs will be lost. Can someone tell me who will benefit from this, because I don't see anyone being better off than they would be if we reciprocally agree not to impose tariffs.

I don't think either side can decide "not to impose tariffs", if the EU decided to allow a state who wasn't following the rest of the EU rules to be part of the tariff free zone then there is precious little point in having an EU.

And the idea that someone is "making more" out of the tariffs than the other seems rather odd. Tariffs are not designed to create revenue but to control imports. If we need their imports more than we need theirs, then if we both impose duties, we're screwed. If they impose duties and we don't, we're screwed.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You are, of course, correct that they are different but related questions. My opinion is that the "how" question should have been answered first, with a referendum on the question of whether to leave on that basis (or, as close to that as would be achieved in negotitations).

<snip>

quote:
I can't recall if that were known beforehand, or if the general outline were, whether the approach that Article 50 be invoked before any negotiations commenced had been made public, if indeed it had been made at all.
It was clearly stated prior to the referendum that Article 50 would need to be invoked prior to any negotiations.
This outlines the basic problem with the "figure out 'how' before voting for Brexit"; that by the very nature of the EU agreement, "how" could only be determined after the decision to Leave was made. This was, most likely, a very deliberate strategy on the part of the architects of the EU to prevent constant haggling over concessions, backed up by threats of withdrawal.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'm obviously missing something here. I've just watched former Taoiseach John Bruton on a BBC News Channel Special about Brexit claiming what a disaster border controls along the Irish border would be. Everyone agreed with him, and Lord Lamont suggested that we should be looking to the type of border between Norway and Sweden, which uses a lot of technology to make the border as soft as possible, which doesn't impede the movement of people. John Bruton agreed that this should be looked at.

Next they were talking about the implications of the UK having to fall back on WTO rules. Mr Bruton then said that Ireland would be forced, by its obligations to the EU, to set up customs posts along the border. In that event, it would be Ireland closing its own border, which everyone in the country seems to dread. So why do it?

What you're missing here is a basic understanding of how free trade areas work. The basics are free movement of goods (and, in the case of the EU, people) within the free trade area, which means that there have to be uniform trade and customs regulations between every part of the free trade area and countries outside the free trade area. If Ireland, for example, allowed tariff-free movement of goods between the UK and itself, then it is also effectively allowing the tariff-free movement of goods between the UK and every other EU country, provided the goods are willing to make the trip via Ireland. This is why EU nations give up their ability to negotiate separate trade agreements, because such agreements would completely undermine the free trade area.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Following on from the discussion, I would be interested to see, with regards to the whole EU, how many of these threats it will actually enforce against a country which is threatening nothing, especially not the erection of any barriers to the trade which contributes to all of their prosperity.

As others have noted, the EU is threatening nothing other than to keep on being the EU, with free movement of goods and people within its geographic boundaries and some kind of border and customs control with countries outside its geographic boundaries. The only thing that's changed is the UK has decided that they'd rather be on the outside than the inside.

And from a "game theory" point of view its fairly easy to anticipate that the EU will hold a relatively hard line on the terms of Brexit. What the UK is essentially asking for is a system which gives them all the bits of EU membership that they like (free movement of goods) while opting out of the EU stuff they don't like (free movement of people, uniform product and safety standards, etc.). This is a classic free rider problem, and the big risk for the EU is not the diminishment of trade with the UK, but that the whole system will collapse if it becomes apparent to other countries that they could lobby for a similar "all of the benefits and none of the costs" arrangement like the UK seems to expect to be able to negotiate. This is likely to be even more the case given that while it was in the EU the UK was already allowed to opt out of certain EU projects (like the Euro).

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by chris styles:
Under those circumstances, the EU is forced to treat the UK just like it would any other country with which it has no other agreement.

OK so the UK goes into Brexit negotiations saying that it has no wish to impose any tariffs on the EU.It points out that everyone benefits from free trade, including German car workers and French wine growers.

You are viewing things too simplistically. I'll quote Ricardus' excellent example again:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
"In order for Ricardinia and Paulsland to have a free trade agreement for the tariff-free exchange of knockwurst, several rules must be in place. Neither one of us can subsidise our knockwurst-factories to a greater degree than the other (otherwise Ricardinia can just flood the Paulslandic market with cheap state-subsidised knockwurst). We must define what we mean by knockwurst so that we know what we are suspending tariffs on. We must agree at least some minimal production standards so that Paulsland can't flood the Ricardinian market with cheap knockwurst bulked out with sand and cement to save production costs."

.. and this is where the issues start. Take the most simplistic treatment of the car example, let's assume that a reciprocal arrangement is called for. Cars sold within the EU have to qualify to standards set out by EURO NCAP (incidentally it was originally set up under the Department of Transport) - there are benefits accruing to all sorts of parties here, including consumers. Car manufacturers within the EU will be subject to laws regulating state aid - as will all manufacturers generally. Furthermore where they use parts from countries outside the EU, these will be subject to the same safety standards as parts originating within the EU. The parts may well be tested by some kind of national body which is regulated by an European wide agreement that sets minimum safety standards and in return recognizes each national body.

As you can see this would soon generate a bunch of knock on effects in terms of legislation Britain would have to accept without having any future direction over how it was it evolved.

As you add more and more products to this kind of regime it would start to approximate EFTA, but a very expensive and bespoke EFTA that would take years to negotiate with the trade negotiators the UK doesn't have.

.. and the stickler would be things like services, the export of which is of great interest to the UK. The UK is unlikely to be able to get an agreement on 'free trade' for services, unless it agrees to the free movement of people - because the EU is understandably wary of a kind of race to the bottom where jobs are offshored without any mechanism that allows people to follow those jobs.

.. and then the UK is actually in the situation the Leavers think it started in. In a position where the regulations it is subject to is set by a set of bodies over which it has little if any influence.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Trade will be lost. Jobs will be lost. Can someone tell me who will benefit from this, because I don't see anyone being better off than they would be if we reciprocally agree not to impose tariffs.

I don't think anyone would benefit, which is one of the reasons I voted Remain. However, it is what we are now being told the Leave campaign voted for.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
chris styles:
quote:
.. and then the UK is actually in the situation the Leavers think it started in. In a position where the regulations it is subject to is set by a set of bodies over which it has little if any influence.
What about the approach of Richard North, who is an ardent brexiteer (co-author of "The Great Delusion") and, incidentally, an equally ardent proposal of the EEA solution, so a rabid soft-brexiteer.

His argument is that the regulations, to which of course we have to be subject, are increasingly made by global standards organisations working with ISO/WTO and are ratified, as opposed to originated in Brussels. If we stay in the EU we can only influence standards by influencing the EU. If we leave we can influence the global standards bodies directly, and therefore have more, not less influence. To quote:

quote:
Thus the UK will be ideally positioned to help make the laws which will
govern the EU. They are processed by Brussels for implementation by national
bodies, but they do not originate in the EU. If we work with EFTA/EEA, we will
still receive laws from Brussels, but we will have shaped them long before they
become EU law.

Do you see merit in this, or only bullshit?

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
chris styles:
quote:
.. and then the UK is actually in the situation the Leavers think it started in. In a position where the regulations it is subject to is set by a set of bodies over which it has little if any influence.
What about the approach of Richard North, who is an ardent brexiteer (co-author of "The Great Delusion") and, incidentally, an equally ardent proposal of the EEA solution, so a rabid soft-brexiteer.

His argument is that the regulations, to which of course we have to be subject, are increasingly made by global standards organisations working with ISO/WTO and are ratified, as opposed to originated in Brussels. If we stay in the EU we can only influence standards by influencing the EU. If we leave we can influence the global standards bodies directly, and therefore have more, not less influence. To quote:

quote:
Thus the UK will be ideally positioned to help make the laws which will
govern the EU. They are processed by Brussels for implementation by national
bodies, but they do not originate in the EU. If we work with EFTA/EEA, we will
still receive laws from Brussels, but we will have shaped them long before they
become EU law.

Do you see merit in this, or only bullshit?

Well I do see some merit in it, but then I was a reluctant remainer rather than a principled one so I'm open to solutions which involve neither remaining nor full Brexit.* Richard North has been doing a lot of the thinking Alan's been talking about Leavers' lacking for the last 20 years or so. Unfortunately, he's just one man, so his thoughts don't have statutory power, and neither do they have the whole groundswell of the Leave movement behind it.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I really liked this in today's Guardian - which looks to Ireland to try to solve the "England problem" by talking May's government back from the cliff of Hard Brexit and with the Republic trying to find an impossible third way for the UK to remain in a close tied relationship with Eire without completely pissing off the EU.

It is a wonderfully optimistic idea in the midst of the prevailing misery, I thought - but whether it has any legs whatsoever is probably moot. But what a great world it would be if Eire was somehow able to step up to the plate and pull something out of the flame which was a lifeline for those of us in the UK who see Hard Brexit as a total disaster.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
chris styles:
quote:
.. and then the UK is actually in the situation the Leavers think it started in. In a position where the regulations it is subject to is set by a set of bodies over which it has little if any influence.
What about the approach of Richard North, who is an ardent brexiteer (co-author of "The Great Delusion") and, incidentally, an equally ardent proposal of the EEA solution, so a rabid soft-brexiteer.

His argument is that the regulations, to which of course we have to be subject, are increasingly made by global standards organisations working with ISO/WTO and are ratified, as opposed to originated in Brussels. If we stay in the EU we can only influence standards by influencing the EU. If we leave we can influence the global standards bodies directly, and therefore have more, not less influence. To quote:

There may be some merit in this in that some regulations do come from the WTO and associated bodies, though there is an argument here that as part of a bigger trade bloc (the EU) the UK has a greater chance of influencing them than on its own.

That said, the rules governing a single market (even of the EEA variety) go far beyond those coming from the WTO (especially when it comes to services, and the kinds of complex multi-national supply lines that the majority of british manufacturing is involved in).

Going back to my previous post - part of which appears to have been lost; the trend these days is for countries to negotiate 'trade platforms' rather than multiple bilateral agreements, because of the time (often legislative time) and effort involved. When it comes to the EU there are a number of existing platforms the UK could join, of which the EU and EFTA are currently ruled out by the constraints the current government have placed upon themselves.

It is important to realise that trade negotiators are in finite supply, and such departments will have been staffed based on long term projections of the work involved, and will be pre-committed years in advance on various trade talks. Where legislatures are involved, there is similarly a limited amount of time available to hash out trade agreements. In this context it's complete accurate to say that the UK would be 'at the back of the queue' at least initially - and would remain so, unless there was significant reason to drop other trade talks in favour of talks with the UK.

[ 21. October 2016, 09:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Finally, if you want people to do you favours, like dropping/pausing highly advanced talks with other trade blocs in order to concentrate on trade talks with you, then chest beating might not be the best way of making feel well inclined towards you.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

 - Posted      Profile for Ronald Binge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I really liked this in today's Guardian - which looks to Ireland to try to solve the "England problem" by talking May's government back from the cliff of Hard Brexit and with the Republic trying to find an impossible third way for the UK to remain in a close tied relationship with Eire without completely pissing off the EU.

It is a wonderfully optimistic idea in the midst of the prevailing misery, I thought - but whether it has any legs whatsoever is probably moot. But what a great world it would be if Eire was somehow able to step up to the plate and pull something out of the flame which was a lifeline for those of us in the UK who see Hard Brexit as a total disaster.

I've read that. Fintan hits the nail on the head, there. British and Irish cooperation is enlightened self interest at its very best. Besides, I live in Co Donegal and study/shop in Co Londonderry every day so I have more than a passing interest in this.


I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

[Paranoid]

--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)

Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Ronald:
quote:

I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

Well, I guess if the rest of the post was in irish it would read fine. [Biased]

I can't help but notice that the UK's irony meter seems to have broken recently. May arrives in Europe. She's been talking about a hard Brexit. She announces that Britain will continue to be a dependable and faithful partner to Europe after the divorce proceedings are finalised. All the other European leaders are sitting there with this 'WTF are you on about' look on their faces. It all smacks of a 'we have absolutely no idea what we are doing' kind of a policy. It's total la-la land; amusing to watch from the outside but also faintly terrifying.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to go back to the standards discussion for a bit. I don't know about ISO. Howevever, as CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation - European Standardisation Committee) is not an EU organisation, we will remain members of it. I think BSI is the member.

M.

Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:


I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

[Paranoid]

Eh?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:


I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

[Paranoid]

Eh?
Use of "Eire" is a can of worms. FWIW my Irish relatives were always clear with me growing up in the 1980s that the only people using Eire with any regularity post the 1940s were the British press (aside from stamps and coins).

I'll leave it to an Irish shipmate to give the chapter and verse but I've always steered clear and do wince when it's used.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is one of many hits when googling along the lines of "why don't people like it when Ireland's called Eire."

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Please accept my apols, I was totally and blissfully unaware that this was a thing.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It used to be used by right-wing English newspapers, didn't it? I'm not sure if they were being patronizing, or making some point about partition.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or perhaps, like many of us, they thought it was the name of the country.

I only found out a lot of Irish people don't like it a couple of years ago.

M.

Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by M.
quote:

Or perhaps, like many of us, they thought it was the name of the country.

It is, if you happen to be writing or speaking in irish. It wold be like insisting that Spain should only ever be referred to as Espania even though you are referring to it in English. It's not in any way insulting (unless you're one of those types that looks to be insulted about anything), it just looks a bit strange. here are some that suggest its a hangover insult from days gone by, but I don't buy that. I think most people use it in blissful ignorance.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder what effect the failure of the CETA deal will have if any. Hopefully they'll sort it out but according to politico.eu (which acknowledgement hopefully clears me):
quote:
Canadian Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland said Friday her efforts to reach a deal with the EU on a landmark trade deal with Canada had failed and that she would be returning home empty handed.

“During the last few months we have worked very hard with the European Commission and member states. But it seems evident that the EU is now not capable of having an international deal, even with a country which has values as European as Canada, even with a country as kind, as patient,” she said upon leaving the regional Walloon parliament in Namur this afternoon.

“Canada is disappointed, I am personally very disappointed, I have worked very, very hard. We have decided to go back home. I am very, very sad, really. Tomorrow morning, I will be at home with my three children,” she added, fighting back tears.

This could have many inplications. Brexiteers will say that this reinforces the Lawson argument that though a soft-brexit deal might be preferable, it is very likely that it will fail. These deals require unanimity, and if a deal with a friendly nation can fail because of one region in Belgium, when there is not a scintilla of animus against Canada, it is not paranoid to believe that if we tried we could very well fail and might only find out at the last moment.

Brexiteers will also point to the dys-functionality of the EU in getting trade deals, and I expect a lot of schadenfreude in the Daily Mail.

Like I said, I hope they will sort it out, I have no grudge against the EU. But if they don't, it could have a silver lining, although probably too late, in that it could trigger a move to Qualified Majority Voting for trade deals. Were this now in force, I think it quite likely that May could be persuaded that soft brexit is better. Of course, I would say that because that's what I want and I like May as leader.

But all the signs are negative.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

 - Posted      Profile for Ronald Binge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please accept my apols, I was totally and blissfully unaware that this was a thing.

No bother, its only a minor quibble

--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)

Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by anteater:

quote:
Brexiteers will also point to the dys-functionality of the EU in getting trade deals, and I expect a lot of schadenfreude in the Daily Mail.
It is quite dysfunctional. But it's dysfunctional because all the nations of the EU get a say in these matters not because authoritarian power mad bureaucrats in the EU Commission can't find their arse with both hands, which is how these things are invariably spun.

In any event the choice is stark. Nix the referendum or end up trading with Europe without a trade deal. It was recently suggested that when we change the colour of our passports to blue we do away with the French wording on the Royal Coat of Arms and replace it with something English. I suggest we adopt as our national motto the simple and eloquent phrase: "We're So Screwed".

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
"We're So Screwed".

Crossing into the other thread, I am grateful to an random American church group person's sympathetic recognition when I observed this. And pointing out that misery had potential company (which I really hope it doesn't).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

[B]Brexiteers will also point to the dys-functionality of the EU in getting trade deals, and I expect a lot of schadenfreude in the Daily Mail{/B]

Never mind the Daily Mail, but the failure to agree CETA, seven years in the making, is a serious sign of dysfunctionality in the EU. Earlier in the week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said "If, in a week or two, we see that Europe is unable to sign a progressive trade agreement with a country like Canada, well then with whom will Europe do business in the years to come?" It's a good question. Belgium, a country riven with ethnic and economic divisions requires, by its constitution, that all five regional parliaments must agree before the federal government can do so. So CETA is dead unless someone can revive it.

The other big deal, TTIP, between the EU and the USA is also hitting the buffers. President Hollande has aid he will veto it, and some voices in the US, including Mr Trump have reservations with it. When I voted Remain on 23rd June, it was as a reluctant Remainer, on the basis of better the devil you know. But I've never liked the EU or its institutions. I agree with the premise on which it was founded, that this continent, torn apart by wars for centuries, should at last learn to live and work together in a way which makes future conflicts impossible.

This debacle around CETA proves that when the UK leaves, it will be a hard Brexit. Not because we want it to be, but because the sclerotic bureaucracy will never agree anything. As Mr Trudeau asks, with whom can this institution do business? It's quite possible that Brexit will mean that the UK becomes an insignificant offshore island. That the power of the City of London drains away to Paris, Frankfurt or even Dublin. But it's equally possible that Canada and the US, who can't get agreement from the EU, could from the UK alone. That China, India and the Commonwealth could forge deals and that the entrepreneurial spirit which made Britain a great nation is still with us and will reinvent itself as a beacon of free trade. That's what I hope for this land I love.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  64  65  66 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools