Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:41 pm

par13del wrote:
LJ wrote:
Our British friends forget that any FTA needs to be approved by all 27 menner states + a few regional governments. .

I find it hard to believe that for 40+ years the UK has been deeply involved in the European project and did not know that simple fact.


We have been on it explaining that in this very forum a million times or so, and we still have Brexiteers not knowing that....... if 1+1=2 had anything to do with Brexit we could read just about 5 times a week that it is 1 or 3.
If there is anything we know to be a fact from the last couple of years, it is that those in favor of Brexit didn´t have the slightest idea about the tiniest factoids about the EU... and still plug their ears even today when someone explains those.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 3:31 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Arion640 wrote:

She could of said states instead of nations, and it would of had the same meaning...


I don’t know what “could of said” and “would of had” mean. They certainly doesn’t mean anything in english.

However, if you’re suggesting that the words “nation” and “state” are interchangeable, you would be wrong.


As I previously explained upthread, the UK countries are countries, but can be comparable to US states, or the Emirates in the UAE. They are entities that make up the bigger country.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:23 pm

Arion640 wrote:
As I previously explained upthread, the UK countries are countries, but can be comparable to US states, or the Emirates in the UAE. They are entities that make up the bigger country.


Nope.

The UK is a unitary state.

The US and UAE are federations.

Look up the definitions on your own time.

It’s generally a good idea to figure out what specific words and terms mean before using them.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:33 pm

tommy1808 wrote:

We have been on it explaining that in this very forum a million times or so, and we still have Brexiteers not knowing that....... if 1+1=2 had anything to do with Brexit we could read just about 5 times a week that it is 1 or 3.
If there is anything we know to be a fact from the last couple of years, it is that those in favor of Brexit didn´t have the slightest idea about the tiniest factoids about the EU... and still plug their ears even today when someone explains those.

best regards
Thomas


In fairness, some of the Brexiteers posting here know even less about the UK than most of us “foreigners”. Just read some of their (frankly bizarre) statements (above) about their own United Kingdom.

They really don’t seem keen on disabusing us of the notion that they don’t actually understand what they voted for. Or, for that matter, why they voted for it.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:52 pm

ChrisKen wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Klaus wrote:
No, the arguments you guys have been bringing for why no borders across the UK are great but no borders across the EU are horrible have just turned out to be nothing more than flimsy pretenses to obscure the real reason: Plain and simple xenophobia, nothing more.


That is absolute nonsense. It is all about public safety as I have been explaining to
everyone on this thread who lack knowledge and experience of the subject matter.

You cannot get into the UK or Ireland without a passport or ID check.

Give me public safety over a bizarre fanatical utopia any day.

You cannot get into the UK from the EU without those checks either.... so if it's good enough for UK/Ireland/NI what's your problem with the same between UK/EU as an non-schengen EU member?

'Public safety' = brexiteering xenophiobic nonsense.

Oh btw, those 'nasty eu criminals' will still be able to enter the country after December. Except after that date, we won't know who they are since you voted to kybosh the intelligence sharing/police records & co-operation between the EU members. A rather significant degradation in your claimed public safety argument. Which in itself was nonsense to start with; the UK could bar entry to those undesirables if it wished.
The UK's failure to do so, was it's own incompetence at identifying them or an unwillingness to do so. (Ditto for most, if not all brexiteering anti-EU claims)



Wrong. Completely wrong.

Any EU citizen that has committed a criminal offence in the UK will continue to be flagged on arrival as soon as their passport is scanned. We do not know whether an EU citizen has committed a crime in their home country on arrival to the UK. Now or in the future. If they are arrested in the UK, we do get access to overseas police records. We may or may not continue that after 31/12/20.

Only whether there is a European arrest warrant out for them and I am sure the EU would wish for us to have access after 31/12/20 to ensure their citizens receive fair justice.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:51 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
As I previously explained upthread, the UK countries are countries, but can be comparable to US states, or the Emirates in the UAE. They are entities that make up the bigger country.


Nope.

The UK is a unitary state.

The US and UAE are federations.

Look up the definitions on your own time.

It’s generally a good idea to figure out what specific words and terms mean before using them.


Doesn’t change a thing, the principal of my argument is still the same.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:33 pm

Arion640 wrote:

Doesn’t change a thing, the principal of my argument is still the same.


Nope. And you’ll realize why the moment you read up about them and what makes them different (yes, it’s evident that you still haven’t).

Alternatively, you can keep pretending to know what you’re talking about. You might even be able to convince some of your Brexit-voting compatriots here that your factually incorrect statements are true. The rest of us won’t fall for it though.
 
agill
Posts: 1066
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:07 pm

Since it's starting to look like a hard WTO-style Brexit isn't totally unlikely. How would this affect Airbus? Would they have to pay tariffs every time a part is shipped across the channel? And does the UK have any form of WTO-schedules in order if that would happen.
 
A101
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:59 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:

N-Irish, Scottish, Welsh devolved assembly didn't give consent to ratify the WA but UK engaged anyway.
Enough to demonstrate there is no democracy lesson to be learn from their side of the channel.


That’s because it’s not within there devolved competence to do so, that why they have elected officials within the Parliment of Westminster, remember that little thing called the Act of the Union 1707 in which both Scottish and English Parliaments ceased to exist and became the Parliment of Great Britain.


It's not because something is legal that it makes it right.


So you suggest that the UK do not follow its own laws?

There are two avenues to change the law, either get elected to Parliament of Great Britain present a Bill to Parliament and hope it gets majority support to change the law, the other is start a petition generate enough like minded constitutes to sign said petition let Parliament of Great Britain debate the petition and hope they present a Bill to Parliament and hope it gets majority support to change the law

Grizzly410 wrote:
Klaus said NI and Scotland have been dragged out EU against their will and that's absolutely the case as demonstrated by the devolved assembly denegating their consent to the WA.


:rotfl: Have they,,,,,,,,,, Did they not get to vote in a Referenda for the United Kingdom to either remain or leave the EU, did we exclude them from the vote, unlike our entry into the EU the people of the UK did not get a vote on it, Edward Heath just went ahead and did it knowingly at the time if he did it was most likely to be rejected.


Grizzly410 wrote:
With you, when westminster holds the wheel and decides the direction without passenger consent that doesn't seems to be a sovereignty issue for the passenger.


That's no different to any nation a referenda is run along the lines of each respective legislative laws, Just because you do not agree with the laws for holding a referenda within the UK dose not make the result null and void.


Grizzly410 wrote:
But at the same time sovereignty pooling is an issue with EU even though no political desision of the Brexit magnitude can be taken without each member state consent. Doesn't make much sense.



You lost me on this one, since when do member states vote on whether to allow another member to invoke A50
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:06 pm

LJ wrote:
Our British friends forget that any FTA needs to be approved by all 27 menner states + a few regional governments. If you look at the current opposition towards CETA, the only conclusion can be that without regulators alignment, no FTA is possible. If CETA cannot be approved due to uncertainty about regulatory alignement, any FTA with the UK will not be possible without it.


It will be no deal then
 
A101
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:33 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Arion640 wrote:

Doesn’t change a thing, the principal of my argument is still the same.


Nope. And you’ll realize why the moment you read up about them and what makes them different (yes, it’s evident that you still haven’t).

Alternatively, you can keep pretending to know what you’re talking about. You might even be able to convince some of your Brexit-voting compatriots here that your factually incorrect statements are true. The rest of us won’t fall for it though.


At present its semantics between the differences of a unitary or federal form of government and the current state of actual government in the UK;

As it currently stands we have the Parliament of United Kingdom, then the Parliament/Assembly of Scotland Northern Ireland & Wales then it flows onto lower councils as its present form you could in theory call it a federal government as it is in all but name, prior to granting power to the devolved Parliament/Assembly the Parliament of United Kingdom had the ability to pass all laws within the Kingdom (unitary) it no longer has that power, Which is no different from the Federation of Australia


At the moment I don't see anyone questioning the merits of unitary governments of the likes of France, Greece, Italy etc etc
 
A101
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:50 pm

LJ wrote:
Our British friends forget that any FTA needs to be approved by all 27 menner states + a few regional governments.


Very condescending post, one only has to look at the way the TM's WA was held up in Parliament to know the same thing can happen in the EU

LJ wrote:
If you look at the current opposition towards CETA, the only conclusion can be that without regulators alignment, no FTA is possible. If CETA cannot be approved due to uncertainty about regulatory alignement, any FTA with the UK will not be possible without it.



That's a matter for the individual Members to decide, if the negotiations team come up with a CETA type agreement and the members do not sign off then that's a risk both sides actually play. there's always a chance the negotiations team agree to something that will get one of the members offside.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:55 pm

agill wrote:
Since it's starting to look like a hard WTO-style Brexit isn't totally unlikely. How would this affect Airbus? Would they have to pay tariffs every time a part is shipped across the channel? And does the UK have any form of WTO-schedules in order if that would happen.


This is Airbus alone, but there are many more businesses who depend on inter channel trade, that's one reason why this Brexit is so toxic for business. And many more on British side then the EU side.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:09 pm

agill wrote:
Since it's starting to look like a hard WTO-style Brexit isn't totally unlikely. How would this affect Airbus? Would they have to pay tariffs every time a part is shipped across the channel? And does the UK have any form of WTO-schedules in order if that would happen.



Well I think the gulf between the EU and UK is too wide and we wont not see a FTA, but I am expecting to see numerous bilateral agreements to keep trade between the two humming along as its in both interests to do so.
 
Bostrom
Posts: 952
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:25 pm

Arion640 wrote:
How Ceuta and Melilla are integrated with Spain doesn’t change the argument they are occupying part of someone else's country.


Just like "How the six counties are integrated with the UK doesn’t change the argument they are occupying part of someone else's country."?

Arion640 wrote:
Gibraltar is British sovereign territory but you are right, not part of mainland United Kingdom. But of course they voted to remain part of GB, if they didn’t vote to be with Spain and didn’t vote for independence, what did they vote for!?


It's hard to vote to remain something that you aren't. In 2002 they voted no to shared sovereignty and in 1967 they voted to keep the british sovereignty. They have as far as I know never been given the chance to become part of United Kingdom. France and the Netherlands have integrated their former colonies but UK has so far refused to do that. As far as I know, the only british colony that was given the option to become part of the UK was Malta, but they went for independence instead. If the UK really wants to keep the colonies, they should in my opnion offer them the option to become an integral part of the UK, and the residents should be able to vote in the UK general elections. (Note that I'm not taking any side in the Gibraltar conflict. And we have probably gone pretty far off topic.)
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:39 pm

A101 wrote:

At present its semantics between the differences of a unitary or federal form of government and the current state of actual government in the UK;

As it currently stands we have the Parliament of United Kingdom, then the Parliament/Assembly of Scotland Northern Ireland & Wales then it flows onto lower councils as its present form you could in theory call it a federal government as it is in all but name, prior to granting power to the devolved Parliament/Assembly the Parliament of United Kingdom had the ability to pass all laws within the Kingdom (unitary) it no longer has that power, Which is no different from the Federation of Australia


At the moment I don't see anyone questioning the merits of unitary governments of the likes of France, Greece, Italy etc etc


Everything can be shrugged off as “semantics” if one is so inclined. That’s probably how we ended up in a situation where Brexiteers are getting upset about how the EU’s negotiating guidelines do little more than mirror the language that the UK signed up to in the Political Declaration. You can just hear them, at the time, go: “conditions based on geographic proximity? Ah, just semantics. Who cares?”

Until, of course, they themselves do a few months later. Point being: words have meaning and shouldn’t be tossed around by people too lazy (or daft - take your pick) to figure out what they mean.

With respect to unitary or federal started, the difference is day and night. In a unitary state, devolved powers exist at the whim of the center. They can be withdrawn whenever Westminster feels like doing that. In a federal system, states rights/powers are enshrined in the constitution and can’t be removed without the consent of the state(s). The Scottish “state’s” existence is at the sole discretion of Westminster. Arkansas’ ... is not. Calling the two comparable given the very different conditions of their very existence....requires a significant lack of intellectual rigour or capability.

That said, that exchange on “semantics” provides a lot of clarity certain Brexit-leaning posters’ hubris:. It’s hard to take a Brexiteer’s views on Brexit and the EU seriously when it becomes clear that they don’t even know how the system they actually believe in, works.

At this point, we would be well within our rights to conclude that those Brexit-leaning voters posting here don’t actually know what they’re talking about even when it comes to the UK, let alone the more complex EU.

And no, I don’t have views on whether a federal or unitary state is better.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Dutchy wrote:
agill wrote:
Since it's starting to look like a hard WTO-style Brexit isn't totally unlikely. How would this affect Airbus? Would they have to pay tariffs every time a part is shipped across the channel? And does the UK have any form of WTO-schedules in order if that would happen.


This is Airbus alone, but there are many more businesses who depend on inter channel trade, that's one reason why this Brexit is so toxic for business. And many more on British side then the EU side.


Well airbus are now longer leaving the UK as previously predicted.

And if they do ever stop making the wings in the UK, they won’t be moving production to the EU. It will be off to China.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:56 pm

Bostrom wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
How Ceuta and Melilla are integrated with Spain doesn’t change the argument they are occupying part of someone else's country.


Just like "How the six counties are integrated with the UK doesn’t change the argument they are occupying part of someone else's country."?

Arion640 wrote:
Gibraltar is British sovereign territory but you are right, not part of mainland United Kingdom. But of course they voted to remain part of GB, if they didn’t vote to be with Spain and didn’t vote for independence, what did they vote for!?


It's hard to vote to remain something that you aren't. In 2002 they voted no to shared sovereignty and in 1967 they voted to keep the british sovereignty. They have as far as I know never been given the chance to become part of United Kingdom. France and the Netherlands have integrated their former colonies but UK has so far refused to do that. As far as I know, the only british colony that was given the option to become part of the UK was Malta, but they went for independence instead. If the UK really wants to keep the colonies, they should in my opnion offer them the option to become an integral part of the UK, and the residents should be able to vote in the UK general elections. (Note that I'm not taking any side in the Gibraltar conflict. And we have probably gone pretty far off topic.)


I actually agree with you regarding integrating them into the UK, I think they’d have to obey UK laws though, which is why the Insurance and gambling industry is so popular there.

I’d also like to see the channel islands become part of the UK (currently possessed by the crown), but they’d have to give up all their offshoring activity and obey UK law.
 
bennett123
Posts: 9625
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:13 pm

Gibraltar is one of 14 British Overseas Territories, not part of Great Britain.

In Europe, they share this status with the 2 Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:15 pm

A101 wrote:
agill wrote:
Since it's starting to look like a hard WTO-style Brexit isn't totally unlikely. How would this affect Airbus? Would they have to pay tariffs every time a part is shipped across the channel? And does the UK have any form of WTO-schedules in order if that would happen.



Well I think the gulf between the EU and UK is too wide and we wont not see a FTA, but I am expecting to see numerous bilateral agreements to keep trade between the two humming along as its in both interests to do so.


I’m inclined to agree that if things continue this way, an FTA is unlikely.

That said, I’m not convinced that even the side deals will do much. Those are predicated on two things:

- after years of abuse and absurdities being heaped on EU states (Nazis, Soviets, colonies, undemocratic and other Brexiteer tropes), it requires EU states and citizens to hold their nose and make concessions to a country run by a man who called them Nazis. In essence, it requires the Dutch to ignore the fact that the guy demanding concessions has called their country all kinds of names. For deals to prevail, economic considerations would have to trump that. But would they? They didn’t in the UK. Unless we are to assume that EU citizens are much more intelligent and rational than the UK, it is unlikely.

- the EU doesn’t know how strong it’s economic hand is. If pushed far enough, it always has the nuclear option of putting USMCA-type poison pills allowing them to revoke FTAs with their partners if those partners don’t restrict their trade with certain third countries. The precedent already exists (USMCA). While the UKand EU may not agree a deal, how many third countries will choose the UK over the EU given relative market sizes if this transpires. Unfortunately the UK doesn’t hold a similar card. Straight off the bat, that gives the EU a lot more room to play hardball. Given the abuse hurled at them, they might adopt a Brexiteer mindset.
 
A101
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:23 pm

ElPistolero wrote:

Everything can be shrugged off as “semantics” if one is so inclined. That’s probably how we ended up in a situation where Brexiteers are getting upset about how the EU’s negotiating guidelines do little more than mirror the language that the UK signed up to in the Political Declaration. You can just hear them, at the time, go: “conditions based on geographic proximity? Ah, just semantics. Who cares?”


Agree about the use of the term "semantic" but the up roar is those same guidelines are being used to inflame the tensions between both the EU/UK. although not binding on the UK it is the EU Parliament saying regulatory alignment as the price for a FTA, very inflammatory before the negotiations start would you not agree?


ElPistolero wrote:
With respect to unitary or federal started, the difference is day and night. In a unitary state, devolved powers exist at the whim of the center. They can be withdrawn whenever Westminster feels like doing that. In a federal system, states rights/powers are enshrined in the constitution and can’t be removed without the consent of the state(s). The Scottish “state’s” existence is at the sole discretion of Westminster. Arkansas’ ... is not. Calling the two comparable given the very different conditions of their very existence....requires a significant lack of intellectual rigour or capability.


Well the government of the day cannot unilaterally remove those devolved powers, that has to be legislated just like there was legislation to give those powers. and those same and also Scotland Northern Ireland & wales have also got a vote to pass or not to remove those powers as the have elected representatives in Westminster

ElPistolero wrote:

That said, that exchange on “semantics” provides a lot of clarity certain Brexit-leaning posters’ hubris:. It’s hard to take a Brexiteer’s views on Brexit and the EU seriously when it becomes clear that they don’t even know how the system they actually believe in, works.

At this point, we would be well within our rights to conclude that those Brexit-leaning voters posting here don’t actually know what they’re talking about even when it comes to the UK, let alone the more complex EU.

And no, I don’t have views on whether a federal or unitary state is better.



You are entitled to any view you wish as long as you follow the rules of the forum, as to the which is a better system of government there are pro's and con like everything else in the world, in my view it doesn't make one better than the other unless you are in a dictatorship like Nth Korea
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Feb 17, 2020 11:37 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
agill wrote:
Since it's starting to look like a hard WTO-style Brexit isn't totally unlikely. How would this affect Airbus? Would they have to pay tariffs every time a part is shipped across the channel? And does the UK have any form of WTO-schedules in order if that would happen.


This is Airbus alone, but there are many more businesses who depend on inter channel trade, that's one reason why this Brexit is so toxic for business. And many more on British side then the EU side.


Well airbus are now longer leaving the UK as previously predicted.

And if they do ever stop making the wings in the UK, they won’t be moving production to the EU. It will be off to China.


we'll see................
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:06 am

A101 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

Everything can be shrugged off as “semantics” if one is so inclined. That’s probably how we ended up in a situation where Brexiteers are getting upset about how the EU’s negotiating guidelines do little more than mirror the language that the UK signed up to in the Political Declaration. You can just hear them, at the time, go: “conditions based on geographic proximity? Ah, just semantics. Who cares?”


Agree about the use of the term "semantic" but the up roar is those same guidelines are being used to inflame the tensions between both the EU/UK. although not binding on the UK it is the EU Parliament saying regulatory alignment as the price for a FTA, very inflammatory before the negotiations start would you not agree?


ElPistolero wrote:
With respect to unitary or federal started, the difference is day and night. In a unitary state, devolved powers exist at the whim of the center. They can be withdrawn whenever Westminster feels like doing that. In a federal system, states rights/powers are enshrined in the constitution and can’t be removed without the consent of the state(s). The Scottish “state’s” existence is at the sole discretion of Westminster. Arkansas’ ... is not. Calling the two comparable given the very different conditions of their very existence....requires a significant lack of intellectual rigour or capability.


Well the government of the day cannot unilaterally remove those devolved powers, that has to be legislated just like there was legislation to give those powers. and those same and also Scotland Northern Ireland & wales have also got a vote to pass or not to remove those powers as the have elected representatives in Westminster

ElPistolero wrote:

That said, that exchange on “semantics” provides a lot of clarity certain Brexit-leaning posters’ hubris:. It’s hard to take a Brexiteer’s views on Brexit and the EU seriously when it becomes clear that they don’t even know how the system they actually believe in, works.

At this point, we would be well within our rights to conclude that those Brexit-leaning voters posting here don’t actually know what they’re talking about even when it comes to the UK, let alone the more complex EU.

And no, I don’t have views on whether a federal or unitary state is better.



You are entitled to any view you wish as long as you follow the rules of the forum, as to the which is a better system of government there are pro's and con like everything else in the world, in my view it doesn't make one better than the other unless you are in a dictatorship like Nth Korea


- Is it inflammatory? Brexiteers such as JRM et al voted for this type of regulatory alignment in May’s deal. Now the UK’s position has changed, but the EU’s hasn’t. If one side moves the goal post enough, anything can become inflammatory. I don’t seem to recall when the EU ever said that free trade access would not be commensurate with the level of regulatory alignment. Don’t get me wrong - I understand why it’s contentious for the UK. But at the same time, I’m not sure why anyone would expect the EU to allow the UK to do to it what NAFTA 1.0 enabled Mexico to do to the US. The EU’s position falls within the rational spectrum.

- We can go around in circles, but the UK Parliament has 533 seats from England, and a combined 117 seats for the other 3 nations. The House of Commons can legislate away devolved powers whenever they want; MPs from the nations can oppose it, but they don’t have the numbers by a wide wide margin. Just saying that they can vote against it when they constitute a small minority doesn’t cut it. Ergo, their very existence as nations is discretionary. This is a fact. Now give them or the assemblies a constitutional veto on things affecting them... and you might have a point. Would make UK politics brilliantly entertaining, that’s for sure.
 
A101
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:26 am

ElPistolero wrote:

Is it inflammatory? Brexiteers such as JRM et al voted for this type of regulatory alignment in May’s deal. Now the UK’s position has changed, but the EU’s hasn’t. If one side moves the goal post enough, anything can become inflammatory. I don’t seem to recall when the EU ever said that free trade access would not be commensurate with the level of regulatory alignment. Don’t get me wrong - I understand why it’s contentious for the UK.



Yes it is as the EU parliament while not binding has placed a resolution in parliament to keep Britain permanently tied to its employment, environment and competition laws as the price for maintaining free trade with the EU. At no time has the UK parliament made a resolution to what the position is before negotiations, by all means member nations can give guidance to the EU negotiations team but passing a resolution is symbolic and fundamentally different and very inflammatory. The intention of the resolution can and could be interpreted as the EU parliament will not agree to the FTA unless the conditions are part of it, I would interpret as don’t bother turning up unless you agree to these demands

As to JRM he is one vote in a parliament of 650, and with the goal post’s as you say were actually moved when the EU/UK renegotiated parts of the WA and the PD is not a binding instrument on either the EU or UK. I guess if Boris had time on his side he would most have been likely to want to renegotiate the whole document, both sides compromised on that.

ElPistolero wrote:
I’m not sure why anyone would expect the EU to allow the UK to do to it what NAFTA 1.0 enabled Mexico to do to the US. The EU’s position falls within the rational spectrum.



If it wasn’t for Trump would the US even have contemplate ditching NAFTA for USMCA, you are using it as a comparison and by association comparing the UK to Mexico when our current standards meet the EU’ s the only real contention is future alignment in the social arena not the actual standards of goods

ElPistolero wrote:
We can go around in circles, but the UK Parliament has 533 seats from England, and a combined 117 seats for the other 3 nations. The House of Commons can legislate away devolved powers whenever they want; MPs from the nations can oppose it, but they don’t have the numbers by a wide wide margin. Just saying that they can vote against it when they constitute a small minority doesn’t cut it. Ergo, their very existence as nations is discretionary. This is a fact. Now give them or the assemblies a constitutional veto on things affecting them... and you might have a point. Would make UK politics brilliantly entertaining, that’s for sure.


Agree its a debate that can go round and round, while I agree the representation is balanced in favour of England that in its self does not mean that all elected representatives will always vote in English favour, one just has to look at the division between party groups and within there own party.

Can you just imagine the uproar if the Government of the day put a bill like that on the table, it would have to be a bloody very good reason in which I think it would make the troubles look insignificant
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:00 am

ElPistolero wrote:
- after years of abuse and absurdities being heaped on EU states (Nazis, Soviets, colonies, undemocratic and other Brexiteer tropes), it requires EU states and citizens to hold their nose and make concessions to a country run by a man who called them Nazis. In essence, it requires the Dutch to ignore the fact that the guy demanding concessions has called their country all kinds of names. For deals to prevail, economic considerations would have to trump that. But would they? They didn’t in the UK. Unless we are to assume that EU citizens are much more intelligent and rational than the UK, it is unlikely.

Interesting, based on those feelings one would expect that any agreement those governments agreed to whether this year or next year would be to put the UK in check and or to punish them for electing their leader and Brexit.
Such does play into the hands of Brexiters who say that the EU would be looking to punish and make the UK a "ruled state" (won't use the v word) making their no deal push more acceptable.

Time will tell, reality is even with the geographic location, the UK economy and whatever industry it has is no match for the EU and based on economics, most likely insignificant and could be ignored, however, we know that will not happen.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:18 am

A101 wrote:
Yes it is as the EU parliament while not binding has placed a resolution in parliament to keep Britain permanently tied to its employment, environment and competition laws as the price for maintaining free trade with the EU. At no time has the UK parliament made a resolution to what the position is before negotiations, by all means member nations can give guidance to the EU negotiations team but passing a resolution is symbolic and fundamentally different and very inflammatory


But this isn’t a regular FTA negotiation, is it? FTA negotiations start with regulatory divergence, and a concerted effort to achieve some level of regulatory alignment to facilitate the free flow of goods (e.g. CETA).

In this negotiation, it’s the opposite. You have regulatory alignment, with one party loudly proclaiming that it will diverge in the future. In effect, the UK is demanding an FTA on the basis that a level playing field exists today, while simultaneously committing to abandoning the level field tomorrow. One might reasonably characterize the UK’s position as provocative.

A101 wrote:
As to JRM he is one vote in a parliament of 650, and with the goal post’s as you say were actually moved when the EU/UK renegotiated parts of the WA and the PD is not a binding instrument on either the EU or UK. I guess if Boris had time on his side he would most have been likely to want to renegotiate the whole document, both sides compromised on that.


Worth pointing out that only 34 Tories voted against it the end. Even Boris voted for it. Now they’re all willing to support WTO terms. That’s their prerogative; why do they think the EU must adapt to their new position?

I’m not convinced, either, that the renegotiation moved the goal post. The EU never changed its position; the latest guidelines mirror the language in the documents agreed. If anything, EU messaging has been consistent, while the UK’s messaging has been all over the place - sometimes “checks” on the NI border, sometimes “no checks” - all depends on who’s talking. And now the disingenuous attempt to rebrand WTO as the non-existent “Australia-style” deal. In this context, it’s a bit rich to accuse the EU of being inflammatory.

A101 wrote:
If it wasn’t for Trump would the US even have contemplate ditching NAFTA for USMCA, you are using it as a comparison and by association comparing the UK to Mexico when our current standards meet the EU’ s the only real contention is future alignment in the social arena not the actual standards of goods


Fair point re: Trump, but that cat is out of the bag. “Level playing field” provisions have currency now. And no, I’m not comparing the UK with Mexico in terms of social standards, wages etc; I’m comparing them in terms of geography. Yes, it’s true that “current” UK standards meet EU standards. That’s not in question. The question is: what does regulatory divergence mean?

The fundamental issue here is simple: If the EU signs an FTA, and relaxed UK labour or other regulations in the future make it more favourable for companies selling products in the EU to set up factories in the UK instead of Europe, while maintaining access to the European market through the FTA, then you end up in the “Mexico” situation. The EU doesn’t want that.

Hardly surprising; Brexiteers like JRM have long accused the EU of being protectionist. At worst, EU is living up to its reputation.

A101 wrote:
Agree its a debate that can go round and round, while I agree the representation is balanced in favour of England that in its self does not mean that all elected representatives will always vote in English favour, one just has to look at the division between party groups and within there own party.


The numbers merely drive home the point that the nations don’t even have nominal protection in Parliament, let alone protection enshrined in the constitution. Their existence isn’t guaranteed, but remains at the whim of a parliamentary majority.

A101 wrote:
Can you just imagine the uproar if the Government of the day put a bill like that on the table, it would have to be a bloody very good reason in which I think it would make the troubles look insignificant


Respectfully, that’s conjecture. There is only one way to guarantee that devolution won’t be reversed: constitutional changes. No sign of that happening anytime soon. Why? Should be simple enough since it reflects status quo, right?

Except it’s not. What would it mean for Brexit, for example?
 
A101
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:58 am

ElPistolero wrote:

But this isn’t a regular FTA negotiation, is it? FTA negotiations start with regulatory divergence, and a concerted effort to achieve some level of regulatory alignment to facilitate the free flow of goods (e.g. CETA).

In this negotiation, it’s the opposite. You have regulatory alignment, with one party loudly proclaiming that it will diverge in the future. In effect, the UK is demanding an FTA on the basis that a level playing field exists today, while simultaneously committing to abandoning the level field tomorrow. One might reasonably characterize the UK’s position as provocative.




Don’t think there is such a thing, each and every agreement will have there own hurdles to overcome. It’s just this one started with a messy divorce and generating a lot of attention. Take the trade talks between Australia and the EU it just doesn’t make the headline news unless it directly affects someone. Most Australians are none the wiser that the country is in talks. But when I mention what the EU wants in relation to GI indicators they have no idea what it means for business then when I tell them the initial reaction is go f&#k themselves.

ElPistolero wrote:
Worth pointing out that only 34 Tories voted against it the end. Even Boris voted for it. Now they’re all willing to support WTO terms. That’s their prerogative; why do they think the EU must adapt to their new position?


They don’t think they have to, but as demonstrated EU Parliament has passed a resolution on what they want either

ElPistolero wrote:
I’m not convinced, either, that the renegotiation moved the goal post. The EU never changed its position; the latest guidelines mirror the language in the documents agreed. If anything, EU messaging has been consistent, while the UK’s messaging has been all over the place - sometimes “checks” on the NI border, sometimes “no checks” - all depends on who’s talking. And now the disingenuous attempt to rebrand WTO as the non-existent “Australia-style” deal. In this context, it’s a bit rich to accuse the EU of being inflammatory.


The EU also said they will never reopen the WA either but they did, it might be subtle but it has changed along with the positions. Do I agree 100% with the changes made in respect to NI no. really it’s a 80% solution that gives NI the option of being fully aligned with the UK or stay in alignment with the EU.


ElPistolero wrote:
Fair point re: Trump, but that cat is out of the bag. “Level playing field” provisions have currency now. And no, I’m not comparing the UK with Mexico in terms of social standards, wages etc; I’m comparing them in terms of geography. Yes, it’s true that “current” UK standards meet EU standards. That’s not in question. The question is: what does regulatory divergence mean?

The fundamental issue here is simple: If the EU signs an FTA, and relaxed UK labour or other regulations in the future make it more favourable for companies selling products in the EU to set up factories in the UK instead of Europe, while maintaining access to the European market through the FTA, then you end up in the “Mexico” situation. The EU doesn’t want that.


It means we have the option of not staying in full alignment if the EU adopts changes to the status quo that are not in the interests of of the UK. We could stay in alignment but any changes are going to be in the interest of the EU and that’s understandable because that is the first priority not to any non member who happens to have signed away their sovereign right to the EU that’s why no sane nation will cede full control to the EU for a FTA.

If any government signed up for that then there was no point in actully leaving the EU in the first place

ElPistolero wrote:
The numbers merely drive home the point that the nations don’t even have nominal protection in Parliament, let alone protection enshrined in the constitution. Their existence isn’t guaranteed, but remains at the whim of a parliamentary majority.


That’s true in theory, but the reality is different


ElPistolero wrote:
Respectfully, that’s conjecture. There is only one way to guarantee that devolution won’t be reversed: constitutional changes. No sign of that happening anytime soon. Why? Should be simple enough since it reflects status quo, right?

Except it’s not. What would it mean for Brexit, for example


Enshrining the current devolved powers so that Westminster cannot dissolve Scottish North Ireland & Wales Parliament/Asssembly does not mean that they can stop Brexit from happening, powers involved pertains to the overall nation state will always be governed by Westminster no different from federation derived nation. There is a direct role for national, state and local government powers.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:03 am

noviorbis77 wrote:
Only whether there is a European arrest warrant out for them and I am sure the EU would wish for us to have access after 31/12/20 to ensure their citizens receive fair justice.


There won´t be European Arrest warrants with the UK. Having any agreement like that would make the whole European Arrest warrant unconstitutional here.... Germany, and a dozen+ others too, had to amend its constitution to make the EU arrest warrant possible "The law may provide otherwise for extraditions to a member state of the European Union or to an international court, provided that the rule of law is observed." it says here.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:25 am

So the EU is willing to decrease the safety of the people for political gains. Even a better reason for a border with the EU and a good reason to have a VISA scheme for EU citizens.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:29 am

A101 wrote:
agill wrote:
Since it's starting to look like a hard WTO-style Brexit isn't totally unlikely. How would this affect Airbus? Would they have to pay tariffs every time a part is shipped across the channel? And does the UK have any form of WTO-schedules in order if that would happen.



Well I think the gulf between the EU and UK is too wide and we wont not see a FTA, but I am expecting to see numerous bilateral agreements to keep trade between the two humming along as its in both interests to do so.



This is the swiss model. But EU do not want a swiss model because Swiss tried to cancel the ones it didnot like. EU would be stupid to accept a swiss model again.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:34 am

seahawk wrote:
So the EU is willing to decrease the safety of the people for political gains.


Not handing over citizens to non-EU countries is in the service of the safety of people.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:53 am

tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
So the EU is willing to decrease the safety of the people for political gains.


Not handing over citizens to non-EU countries is in the service of the safety of people.

best regards
Thomas



In short; democratic elected paliaments has given powers to EU to handle these activities with a number of conditions that UK is not willing to obey anymore. Please try to understand what it means to be part of EU and not part of EU.
 
LJ
Posts: 5290
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:48 am

A101 wrote:
Well I think the gulf between the EU and UK is too wide and we wont not see a FTA, but I am expecting to see numerous bilateral agreements to keep trade between the two humming along as its in both interests to do so.


I wouldn’t be so sure given the fact that the EU is now forcing Switzerland to replace all those billateral agreements with only one FTA.
 
olle
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:14 am

seahawk wrote:
So the EU is willing to decrease the safety of the people for political gains. Even a better reason for a border with the EU and a good reason to have a VISA scheme for EU citizens.



Like EITAS for non EU citizen..
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:51 am

tommy1808 wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Only whether there is a European arrest warrant out for them and I am sure the EU would wish for us to have access after 31/12/20 to ensure their citizens receive fair justice.


There won´t be European Arrest warrants with the UK. Having any agreement like that would make the whole European Arrest warrant unconstitutional here.... Germany, and a dozen+ others too, had to amend its constitution to make the EU arrest warrant possible "The law may provide otherwise for extraditions to a member state of the European Union or to an international court, provided that the rule of law is observed." it says here.

best regards
Thomas


Given that the Brexiteers on here are welcoming the prospect of exiting the ECHR, that might be a good thing.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:05 am

Dutchy wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Only whether there is a European arrest warrant out for them and I am sure the EU would wish for us to have access after 31/12/20 to ensure their citizens receive fair justice.


There won´t be European Arrest warrants with the UK. Having any agreement like that would make the whole European Arrest warrant unconstitutional here.... Germany, and a dozen+ others too, had to amend its constitution to make the EU arrest warrant possible "The law may provide otherwise for extraditions to a member state of the European Union or to an international court, provided that the rule of law is observed." it says here.

best regards
Thomas


Given that the Brexiteers on here are welcoming the prospect of exiting the ECHR, that might be a good thing.


The ECHR is out of date and needs replacing.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:12 am

noviorbis77 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

There won´t be European Arrest warrants with the UK. Having any agreement like that would make the whole European Arrest warrant unconstitutional here.... Germany, and a dozen+ others too, had to amend its constitution to make the EU arrest warrant possible "The law may provide otherwise for extraditions to a member state of the European Union or to an international court, provided that the rule of law is observed." it says here.

best regards
Thomas


Given that the Brexiteers on here are welcoming the prospect of exiting the ECHR, that might be a good thing.


The ECHR is out of date and needs replacing.


The UK is out of date and need to move 100 years forward.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:43 am

LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Well I think the gulf between the EU and UK is too wide and we wont not see a FTA, but I am expecting to see numerous bilateral agreements to keep trade between the two humming along as its in both interests to do so.


I wouldn’t be so sure given the fact that the EU is now forcing Switzerland to replace all those billateral agreements with only one FTA.

Why would the EU need to force Switzerland?
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:57 am

Cayman island on fiscal blacklist. First of the 14 (?) tax heavens, or rather parasites going down. I expect all others to follow shortly.
Signature censored
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:12 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Given that the Brexiteers on here are welcoming the prospect of exiting the ECHR, that might be a good thing.


The ECHR is out of date and needs replacing.


The UK is out of date and need to move 100 years forward.

Best regards
Thomas


Tit for tat insults.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:12 pm

Olddog wrote:
Cayman island on fiscal blacklist. First of the 14 (?) tax heavens, or rather parasites going down. I expect all others to follow shortly.


Who cares. It’s mainly used by US companies anyway.

Also, the other 12 UK territories aren’t tax havens.
 
LJ
Posts: 5290
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:38 pm

par13del wrote:
LJ wrote:

I wouldn’t be so sure given the fact that the EU is now forcing Switzerland to replace all those billateral agreements with only one FTA.

Why would the EU need to force Switzerland?


Because the Swiss don’t want to change the situation. The new agreement can be considered less beneficial as it increases market access in certain areas. However, it also ensures that the Swiss government implements the EU regulation faster.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11638
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:41 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

There won´t be European Arrest warrants with the UK. Having any agreement like that would make the whole European Arrest warrant unconstitutional here.... Germany, and a dozen+ others too, had to amend its constitution to make the EU arrest warrant possible "The law may provide otherwise for extraditions to a member state of the European Union or to an international court, provided that the rule of law is observed." it says here.

best regards
Thomas


Given that the Brexiteers on here are welcoming the prospect of exiting the ECHR, that might be a good thing.


The ECHR is out of date and needs replacing.


That is just your opinion.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:59 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
agill wrote:
Since it's starting to look like a hard WTO-style Brexit isn't totally unlikely. How would this affect Airbus? Would they have to pay tariffs every time a part is shipped across the channel? And does the UK have any form of WTO-schedules in order if that would happen.


This is Airbus alone, but there are many more businesses who depend on inter channel trade, that's one reason why this Brexit is so toxic for business. And many more on British side then the EU side.


Well airbus are now longer leaving the UK as previously predicted.


It was NEVER predicted to leave the day after. I have pointed that out to you months ago. This is yet another deliberate misinterpretation of reality aka. a Brexit lie.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:31 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

This is Airbus alone, but there are many more businesses who depend on inter channel trade, that's one reason why this Brexit is so toxic for business. And many more on British side then the EU side.


Well airbus are now longer leaving the UK as previously predicted.


It was NEVER predicted to leave the day after. I have pointed that out to you months ago. This is yet another deliberate misinterpretation of reality aka. a Brexit lie.


It wasn’t actually you guys on the EU side to be fair. It was our UK remain campaign that lied.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:36 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
Cayman island on fiscal blacklist. First of the 14 (?) tax heavens, or rather parasites going down. I expect all others to follow shortly.


Who cares. It’s mainly used by US companies anyway.

Also, the other 12 UK territories aren’t tax havens.

Ah no, as as English Colony the local's are more closely aligned to the UK versus the USA who provides a lot of their tourist income and some US tax payers.
The funny thing is that they will be quite happy to get the bulk of their business from Mother England versus the EU, so depending on what Mother England does, they may be less inclined to do anything to get off the EU blacklist.

Once again this will highlight the need to get the American's on-board as was done during the Clinton and Obama years, even if their involvement was more geared towards the drug trade and reporting of individual financial records.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:37 pm

LJ wrote:
par13del wrote:
LJ wrote:

I wouldn’t be so sure given the fact that the EU is now forcing Switzerland to replace all those billateral agreements with only one FTA.

Why would the EU need to force Switzerland?


Because the Swiss don’t want to change the situation. The new agreement can be considered less beneficial as it increases market access in certain areas. However, it also ensures that the Swiss government implements the EU regulation faster.

So in essence the bigger party working in its best interest.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:15 pm

par13del wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
Cayman island on fiscal blacklist. First of the 14 (?) tax heavens, or rather parasites going down. I expect all others to follow shortly.


Who cares. It’s mainly used by US companies anyway.

Also, the other 12 UK territories aren’t tax havens.

Ah no, as as English Colony the local's are more closely aligned to the UK versus the USA who provides a lot of their tourist income and some US tax payers.
The funny thing is that they will be quite happy to get the bulk of their business from Mother England versus the EU, so depending on what Mother England does, they may be less inclined to do anything to get off the EU blacklist.

Once again this will highlight the need to get the American's on-board as was done during the Clinton and Obama years, even if their involvement was more geared towards the drug trade and reporting of individual financial records.


“English Colony”. They are british overseas territories.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4105
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:22 pm

NAFTA - While it reduces the American conspiratorial-right to an amorphous pulsating blob, the 'deep state' saw NAFTA is an economic tool to change Mexico. It did, and while devastating some sectors, especially a lot of agriculture, Mexico moved to being a mid-income nation. Most years now there is a net movement of Mexicans back to Mexico. And overall, created much economic benefit to the US.

USMCA Not all that many changes to the original agreement (which is largely still in effect), AND has not yet been passed by congress.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:45 pm

A101 wrote:
Don’t think there is such a thing, each and every agreement will have there own hurdles to overcome. It’s just this one started with a messy divorce and generating a lot of attention. Take the trade talks between Australia and the EU it just doesn’t make the headline news unless it directly affects someone. Most Australians are none the wiser that the country is in talks. But when I mention what the EU wants in relation to GI indicators they have no idea what it means for business then when I tell them the initial reaction is go f&#k themselves.


Whether you think it is, or is not, a thing is moot. It’s been a discussion point for a while now, one that pops up even on the pro-Brexit Spectator and DT. As much as I would like to claim that it’s my insight, it’s not. It’s openly discussed.

In the words of France’s Europe Minister:

“Imagine if the only constraint is that you apply the standards that were in place on 1 January 2021 and then do what you want. It’s not reasonable.”

This isn’t an issue of heat and light. This issue is at the heart of the disagreement.

A101 wrote:
They don’t think they have to, but as demonstrated EU Parliament has passed a resolution on what they want either


I don’t follow. What?

A101 wrote:
The EU also said they will never reopen the WA either but they did, it might be subtle but it has changed along with the positions. Do I agree 100% with the changes made in respect to NI no. really it’s a 80% solution that gives NI the option of being fully aligned with the UK or stay in alignment with the EU.


I can understand why this narrative got political traction in the UK, but it’s not an accurate narrative. I’ll leave it to the pollster John Curtice to explain how you’re misreading the situation:

“The honest truth of the story of Boris Johnson renegotiating the Brexit deal is that it was a perfectly open secret that the one bit of the deal the EU would be willing to reopen was the so-called Northern Ireland backstop.

This is because the provision of the Northern Ireland backstop had been ones that the United Kingdom had proposed and the EU had accepted reluctantly.
“Whereas, what Boris Johnson did was go back to the EU to the original stance that they had originally proposed in the way of a Northern Ireland backstop.

The point is Boris was simply rewinding to an earlier stage in the negotiations and then coming up with some provisions designed to try to at least ameliorate the position of Northern Ireland.”

Suffice it to say, that really wasn’t the change in EU position about renegotiation that it’s made out to be. They didn’t concede anything, regardless of what Brexiteers want to claim. They simply put back a border in the Irish Sea, as they had warned all along.

A101 wrote:
It means we have the option of not staying in full alignment if the EU adopts changes to the status quo that are not in the interests of of the UK. We could stay in alignment but any changes are going to be in the interest of the EU and that’s understandable because that is the first priority not to any non member who happens to have signed away their sovereign right to the EU that’s why no sane nation will cede full control to the EU for a FTA.


Well no, changes in environmental and workers regulations could be beneficial to populations on both sides, so it’s not a zero sum game. I mean, let’s be clear: they’re not aiming for alignment on everything under the sun. Only on:

* workers' rights
* environmental protection
* taxation
* state aid (or subsidies)

Let’s not make this out to be more than it is. The EU is effectively refusing to be drawn into a race to the bottom. That’s not to say that the UK will initiate one. Only that the EU is going to insure itself against one. If UK intends to keep high equally standards, one can reasonably argue that issues about alignment are moot. The point is that the UK is refusing to commit to doing that.

A101 wrote:
That’s true in theory, but the reality is different


The reality of today may be different. The reality of tomorrow night not.

Unless it’s constitutionally enshrined, the situation today is meaningless.

A101 wrote:
Enshrining the current devolved powers so that Westminster cannot dissolve Scottish North Ireland & Wales Parliament/Asssembly does not mean that they can stop Brexit from happening, powers involved pertains to the overall nation state will always be governed by Westminster no different from federation derived nation. There is a direct role for national, state and local government powers.


Fair enough. So why not enshrine them? Why not become a federal state and guarantee their right to exist.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: flyguy89, Google Adsense [Bot], JJJ, Number6, petertenthije, stl07 and 57 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos