Davis will change his interpretation depending on his audience and previous reaction.
I have worked on trade finance contracts and agreements most of my working life. If I was the recipient of such wording, in the preamble and content, I most definitely would not consider myself protected and would seek an amendment to the preamble which clearly states which articles are exempted from the nothing and everything catch-all phrase. It cannot ‘sit outside’ because it is an integral part of one of the articles.
It can be interpreted in different ways as we are seeing, but that does not hide the fact that it can be overridden by the preamble.
Furthermore, it would appear from the feedback from @Dippenhall that the ‘nothing and everything’ clause is EU initiated.
I have little doubt that the UK will abide by this section, but I have been highlighting that it is not binding despite Dublin believing it is. The EU also agree the wording, this is a joint fudge, not just UK.
But the preamble clearly relates to negotiating an agreement (because in the absence of an agreement, nothing is agreed), the specific text relates to where no agreement exists: in effect it's a warranty (which may prove invalid if the sticky tape across the join is damaged), providing a basic assurance that the GFA arrangements would be protected.
Davis will change his interpretation depending on his audience and previous reaction.
I have worked on trade finance contracts and agreements most of my working life. If I was the recipient of such wording, in the preamble and content, I most definitely would not consider myself protected and would seek an amendment to the preamble which clearly states which articles are exempted from the nothing and everything catch-all phrase. It cannot ‘sit outside’ because it is an integral part of one of the articles.
It can be interpreted in different ways as we are seeing, but that does not hide the fact that it can be overridden by the preamble.
Furthermore, it would appear from the feedback from @Dippenhall that the ‘nothing and everything’ clause is EU initiated.
I have little doubt that the UK will abide by this section, but I have been highlighting that it is not binding despite Dublin believing it is. The EU also agree the wording, this is a joint fudge, not just UK.
But the preamble clearly relates to negotiating an agreement (because in the absence of an agreement, nothing is agreed), the specific text relates to where no agreement exists: in effect it's a warranty (which may prove invalid if the sticky tape across the join is damaged), providing a basic assurance that the GFA arrangements would be protected.
We will just have to disagree. All I can say is that, in my business life, I would not accept the wording as drafted for the simple reason it is open to (mis)interpretation.
Davis will change his interpretation depending on his audience and previous reaction.
I have worked on trade finance contracts and agreements most of my working life. If I was the recipient of such wording, in the preamble and content, I most definitely would not consider myself protected and would seek an amendment to the preamble which clearly states which articles are exempted from the nothing and everything catch-all phrase. It cannot ‘sit outside’ because it is an integral part of one of the articles.
It can be interpreted in different ways as we are seeing, but that does not hide the fact that it can be overridden by the preamble.
Furthermore, it would appear from the feedback from @Dippenhall that the ‘nothing and everything’ clause is EU initiated.
I have little doubt that the UK will abide by this section, but I have been highlighting that it is not binding despite Dublin believing it is. The EU also agree the wording, this is a joint fudge, not just UK.
But the preamble clearly relates to negotiating an agreement (because in the absence of an agreement, nothing is agreed), the specific text relates to where no agreement exists: in effect it's a warranty (which may prove invalid if the sticky tape across the join is damaged), providing a basic assurance that the GFA arrangements would be protected.
We will just have to disagree. All I can say is that, in my business life, I would not accept the wording as drafted for the simple reason it is open to (mis)interpretation.
The nothing and everything clause is also repeated in article 5.
Davis will change his interpretation depending on his audience and previous reaction.
I have worked on trade finance contracts and agreements most of my working life. If I was the recipient of such wording, in the preamble and content, I most definitely would not consider myself protected and would seek an amendment to the preamble which clearly states which articles are exempted from the nothing and everything catch-all phrase. It cannot ‘sit outside’ because it is an integral part of one of the articles.
It can be interpreted in different ways as we are seeing, but that does not hide the fact that it can be overridden by the preamble.
Furthermore, it would appear from the feedback from @Dippenhall that the ‘nothing and everything’ clause is EU initiated.
I have little doubt that the UK will abide by this section, but I have been highlighting that it is not binding despite Dublin believing it is. The EU also agree the wording, this is a joint fudge, not just UK.
But the preamble clearly relates to negotiating an agreement (because in the absence of an agreement, nothing is agreed), the specific text relates to where no agreement exists: in effect it's a warranty (which may prove invalid if the sticky tape across the join is damaged), providing a basic assurance that the GFA arrangements would be protected.
We will just have to disagree. All I can say is that, in my business life, I would not accept the wording as drafted for the simple reason it is open to (mis)interpretation.
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
So the UK is leaving the customs union and the single market. The Republic of Ireland is in the customs union and the single market. There is to be no border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. How is that supposed to work? On in on one side one out on the other. So presumably no tariffs on stuff, or restriction of movement of people between the EU and the UK, is that brexit?
So the UK is leaving the customs union and the single market. The Republic of Ireland is in the customs union and the single market. There is to be no border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. How is that supposed to work? On in on one side one out on the other. So presumably no tariffs on stuff, or restriction of movement of people between the EU and the UK, is that brexit?
It will be interesting to see if the other EU countries approve moving forward.
If they do, we have to assume they know the answers you are seeking
So the UK is leaving the customs union and the single market. The Republic of Ireland is in the customs union and the single market. There is to be no border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. How is that supposed to work? On in on one side one out on the other. So presumably no tariffs on stuff, or restriction of movement of people between the EU and the UK, is that brexit?
It will be interesting to see if the other EU countries approve moving forward.
If they do, we have to assume they know the answers you are seeking
I jolly well hope so, I have been asking the same question long enough. After all the range of choices aren't infinite.
If the UK, Ireland and the EU want to protect the integrity of a "no border" border it will happen - why couldn't it?
Everything is possible if there is a genuine will to succeed. Borders and customs checks exist because that's how it was done when we started collecting customs in the 1600's. We didn't have computers then but you only have two look at the sophistication of containerisation to see how goods are processed entirely using electronic data. Logistics firms know where every item of goods in transit is at any one time. Everyone used to complete tax returns every year, and HMRC told you what to pay. Now you only make a return if you have any tax to pay and you pay tax on what you declare. Do customs open every package that's brought into the country or sent by post? Is any customs border watertight?
If there was no agreement and we fell back to working across a customs union large business will have no problem in adhering to new technology to comply with customs declarations, small business can be exempted. Tariffs and collecting duty are the least of the issues, customs duties yield a paltry £3b a year for the UK. Tariffs are as much about complying with WTO rules as a revenue earner.
Protecting tariffs is hardly worth going to war over, unless you are the EU. The EU customs union is not about getting rich from taxes, it's about creating regulatory barriers to inhibit competition and making free trade agreements tortuous. Regulatory equivalence is the battle ground. The EU knows that the UK meets all regulatory compliance standards, so can hardly argue we need to raise the hurdle to be allowed a free trade agreement. That's why the EU's only argument for not giving a trade deal is that it's rewarding the UK for leaving.
Movement of people across the border is a non issue. As Davies pointed out, it would be a dim people smuggler who went through the hoop getting someone into Ireland and then across to the UK when it's easier to smuggle someone in through Heathrow as a tourist.
It's achingly annoying for the EU. We don't have to concede anything to meet the EU regulatory equivalence hurdles for a free trade deal. These regulations normally take two years to identify and detail and five years for the other side to get their manufacturers and suppliers compliant. Maintaining compliance with EU regulations are no more a barrier to the UK than the regulations set by any other country on imports, and we don't have any control over them either. EU exports will continue to be a smaller percentage of our trade post Brexit anyway. Cars will be replaced by electric driverless pods so thinking the current automotive sector is going to stay as it is needs a rethink. We might lead the World in new driverless car technology changing the balance of automotive manufacturing with no engines to manufacture, just batteries to be screwed on to a plastic shell. Wonder if this possible scenario was factored into the expert projections of facts the Remainers obsess about.
All the EU have in their favour is time, which the UK doesn't. The EU have the ability to bluster, posture, delay and create artificial obstacles to a deal in order to push the UK right up to the limit by imposing impossible pre-conditions before actually agreeing a deal. The hope is that they can create enough unrest in the UK, briefing against the UK through the Remain press, and hoping Brexit can be sabotaged.
The EU is a dinosaur that will be unable to react quickly enough as commerce changes and new silk roads evolve. Instead of only being able to think up reasons to trash Brexit, Remainers need a reality check. It's going to happen and it will need new thinking and innovation, not the blinkered, dead hand negative, Private Frazer "were doomed" carping of Remainers.
If the UK, Ireland and the EU want to protect the integrity of a "no border" border it will happen - why couldn't it?
Everything is possible if there is a genuine will to succeed. Borders and customs checks exist because that's how it was done when we started collecting customs in the 1600's. We didn't have computers then but you only have two look at the sophistication of containerisation to see how goods are processed entirely using electronic data. Logistics firms know where every item of goods in transit is at any one time. Everyone used to complete tax returns every year, and HMRC told you what to pay. Now you only make a return if you have any tax to pay and you pay tax on what you declare. Do customs open every package that's brought into the country or sent by post? Is any customs border watertight?
If there was no agreement and we fell back to working across a customs union large business will have no problem in adhering to new technology to comply with customs declarations, small business can be exempted. Tariffs and collecting duty are the least of the issues, customs duties yield a paltry £3b a year for the UK. Tariffs are as much about complying with WTO rules as a revenue earner.
Protecting tariffs is hardly worth going to war over, unless you are the EU. The EU customs union is not about getting rich from taxes, it's about creating regulatory barriers to inhibit competition and making free trade agreements tortuous. Regulatory equivalence is the battle ground. The EU knows that the UK meets all regulatory compliance standards, so can hardly argue we need to raise the hurdle to be allowed a free trade agreement. That's why the EU's only argument for not giving a trade deal is that it's rewarding the UK for leaving.
Movement of people across the border is a non issue. As Davies pointed out, it would be a dim people smuggler who went through the hoop getting someone into Ireland and then across to the UK when it's easier to smuggle someone in through Heathrow as a tourist.
It's achingly annoying for the EU. We don't have to concede anything to meet the EU regulatory equivalence hurdles for a free trade deal. These regulations normally take two years to identify and detail and five years for the other side to get their manufacturers and suppliers compliant. Maintaining compliance with EU regulations are no more a barrier to the UK than the regulations set by any other country on imports, and we don't have any control over them either. EU exports will continue to be a smaller percentage of our trade post Brexit anyway. Cars will be replaced by electric driverless pods so thinking the current automotive sector is going to stay as it is needs a rethink. We might lead the World in new driverless car technology changing the balance of automotive manufacturing with no engines to manufacture, just batteries to be screwed on to a plastic shell. Wonder if this possible scenario was factored into the expert projections of facts the Remainers obsess about.
All the EU have in their favour is time, which the UK doesn't. The EU have the ability to bluster, posture, delay and create artificial obstacles to a deal in order to push the UK right up to the limit by imposing impossible pre-conditions before actually agreeing a deal. The hope is that they can create enough unrest in the UK, briefing against the UK through the Remain press, and hoping Brexit can be sabotaged.
The EU is a dinosaur that will be unable to react quickly enough as commerce changes and new silk roads evolve. Instead of only being able to think up reasons to trash Brexit, Remainers need a reality check. It's going to happen and it will need new thinking and innovation, not the blinkered, dead hand negative, Private Frazer "were doomed" carping of Remainers.
Could you change the record regarding Remainers? You've repeated your nonsense about how much you despise Remainers in every post and it really harms any decent points you hope to make, and I will concede everything else in your post gives some food for thought regarding a forward-thinking Brexit.
As many Leavers seem to be as unhappy at the way negotiations are going as Remainers and stonemuse is certainly not alone amongst them that it is probably not worth leaving given what concessions we are making in the process. This is a view I have seen repeated since last week.
A big bone of contention for both sides is that it was firmly promised over and over again that we would remain in the SM/CU as per a Swiss or Norway style deal. Admittedly I was initially a Leave voter because I was attracted to a UK that forged its own path whilst retaining access to the single market and I only changed my mind to vote Remain early 2016. As such the biggest complainers of the current situation seem to be Farage, JRM, Bone, Redwood etc. As opposed to any prominent Remainers who seem to be used to the state of bemusement we find ourselves in regarding the haplessness of our government.
Brexit is one thing and if someone was getting on with it competently, then great. But the fact is these idiots in government don't have a plan, have never had a plan and lack the capacity to concoct a plan. And I wouldn't care how much in favour of a policy I was, if the government lacked the stability, mandate, and ability to successfully execute a policy I was in favour of, I would not support it in this way.
If the UK, Ireland and the EU want to protect the integrity of a "no border" border it will happen - why couldn't it?
Everything is possible if there is a genuine will to succeed. Borders and customs checks exist because that's how it was done when we started collecting customs in the 1600's. We didn't have computers then but you only have two look at the sophistication of containerisation to see how goods are processed entirely using electronic data. Logistics firms know where every item of goods in transit is at any one time. Everyone used to complete tax returns every year, and HMRC told you what to pay. Now you only make a return if you have any tax to pay and you pay tax on what you declare. Do customs open every package that's brought into the country or sent by post? Is any customs border watertight?
If there was no agreement and we fell back to working across a customs union large business will have no problem in adhering to new technology to comply with customs declarations, small business can be exempted. Tariffs and collecting duty are the least of the issues, customs duties yield a paltry £3b a year for the UK. Tariffs are as much about complying with WTO rules as a revenue earner.
Protecting tariffs is hardly worth going to war over, unless you are the EU. The EU customs union is not about getting rich from taxes, it's about creating regulatory barriers to inhibit competition and making free trade agreements tortuous. Regulatory equivalence is the battle ground. The EU knows that the UK meets all regulatory compliance standards, so can hardly argue we need to raise the hurdle to be allowed a free trade agreement. That's why the EU's only argument for not giving a trade deal is that it's rewarding the UK for leaving.
Movement of people across the border is a non issue. As Davies pointed out, it would be a dim people smuggler who went through the hoop getting someone into Ireland and then across to the UK when it's easier to smuggle someone in through Heathrow as a tourist.
It's achingly annoying for the EU. We don't have to concede anything to meet the EU regulatory equivalence hurdles for a free trade deal. These regulations normally take two years to identify and detail and five years for the other side to get their manufacturers and suppliers compliant. Maintaining compliance with EU regulations are no more a barrier to the UK than the regulations set by any other country on imports, and we don't have any control over them either. EU exports will continue to be a smaller percentage of our trade post Brexit anyway. Cars will be replaced by electric driverless pods so thinking the current automotive sector is going to stay as it is needs a rethink. We might lead the World in new driverless car technology changing the balance of automotive manufacturing with no engines to manufacture, just batteries to be screwed on to a plastic shell. Wonder if this possible scenario was factored into the expert projections of facts the Remainers obsess about.
All the EU have in their favour is time, which the UK doesn't. The EU have the ability to bluster, posture, delay and create artificial obstacles to a deal in order to push the UK right up to the limit by imposing impossible pre-conditions before actually agreeing a deal. The hope is that they can create enough unrest in the UK, briefing against the UK through the Remain press, and hoping Brexit can be sabotaged.
The EU is a dinosaur that will be unable to react quickly enough as commerce changes and new silk roads evolve. Instead of only being able to think up reasons to trash Brexit, Remainers need a reality check. It's going to happen and it will need new thinking and innovation, not the blinkered, dead hand negative, Private Frazer "were doomed" carping of Remainers.
"Undeniably, the facts have changed since June 2016: only a fool would say otherwise."
Put me on the list Geraint, you arrogant pillock. EU still heading for closer political and fiscal union last time I looked, or has that changed Geraint?
The facts from Gipsy Rose Geraint who knows already the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and what will and will not happen:
Brexit voters voted for £350m a week to the NHS - Not me Geraint - does that exclude me from your definition of a fool? Brexit voters voted for access to single market - Have you ruled this out then Geraint? Brexit voters voted for low inflation - Like we have at present you mean Geraint? Brexit voters voted for a high pound - So you think there are advantages to a overpriced sterling - you fool? Brexit voters voted for not paying any exit bill - Says who? Brexit voters voted for no trade tariffs - No trade tariffs with whom? So you know where the tariffs will be and how much and how relevant - you fool? Brexit voters voted for more jobs - Currently, highest employment rate ever.
No wonder Remainers gets confused with fact and fiction, they read the Guardian for their opinions.
We don't need a referendum, there are no new facts and there will be no new facts until Brexit has happened.
We have elections in the country and at any time a pro EU party can stand on a manifesto that seeks re-entry to the EU.
We had an election and voters voted for a referendum. We don't have a referendum unless government has a mandate to call one. This government has no mandate and unless Labour is elected in the meantime on a manifesto to hold a second referendum, the likes of Geraint Davies should be upholding democracy instead of undermining it. He is in the Council of Europe so knows how the gravy train works, and wouldn't want to lose access. He once had the highest expenses claims in a particular year of any constituency MP spending £38k on postage and £20k for his London flat and had his public profile heavily edited ahead of the 2015 expenses investigation - Fact - was in the Guardian.
I agree, there are no new facts. We just have the same facts that the Brexit Daily Mail reading fools and idiots refused to acknowledge in their determination to achieve their Little Englander dreams. Facts like you cannot have a frictionless border in Ireland if the UK is outside the CU; facts like it is pure fantasy to believe that the EU27 will allow us access to the SM on anything but terms that are significantly worse than what we have currently; facts like achieving FTAs with Bangladesh and Rwanda and Australia is completely without value compared to the FTA we currently have with the biggest and most prosperous trading block in the World; facts like the EU will remove a significant number of jobs and businesses from the City, an industry sector that effectively pays for the rest of the country at the moment; facts like that only 37% of the electorate voted Brexit (and as Nick Cleggg stated in his recent excellent book on Brexit a lot more of those voters have since died compared to those who voted Remain) so the constant whining from Brexiteers about the 'will of the people' and democracy was nonsense the day after the referendum and it is even more of a nonsense now.
Only 35% voted to stay in the EU. So what does that mean for you? So, had Remain got 52% and the Government had said it was only advisory and we are going to leave anyway. What would your reaction have been?
"Undeniably, the facts have changed since June 2016: only a fool would say otherwise."
Put me on the list Geraint, you arrogant pillock. EU still heading for closer political and fiscal union last time I looked, or has that changed Geraint?
The facts from Gipsy Rose Geraint who knows already the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and what will and will not happen:
Brexit voters voted for £350m a week to the NHS - Not me Geraint - does that exclude me from your definition of a fool? Brexit voters voted for access to single market - Have you ruled this out then Geraint? Brexit voters voted for low inflation - Like we have at present you mean Geraint? Brexit voters voted for a high pound - So you think there are advantages to a overpriced sterling - you fool? Brexit voters voted for not paying any exit bill - Says who? Brexit voters voted for no trade tariffs - No trade tariffs with whom? So you know where the tariffs will be and how much and how relevant - you fool? Brexit voters voted for more jobs - Currently, highest employment rate ever.
No wonder Remainers gets confused with fact and fiction, they read the Guardian for their opinions.
We don't need a referendum, there are no new facts and there will be no new facts until Brexit has happened.
We have elections in the country and at any time a pro EU party can stand on a manifesto that seeks re-entry to the EU.
We had an election and voters voted for a referendum. We don't have a referendum unless government has a mandate to call one. This government has no mandate and unless Labour is elected in the meantime on a manifesto to hold a second referendum, the likes of Geraint Davies should be upholding democracy instead of undermining it. He is in the Council of Europe so knows how the gravy train works, and wouldn't want to lose access. He once had the highest expenses claims in a particular year of any constituency MP spending £38k on postage and £20k for his London flat and had his public profile heavily edited ahead of the 2015 expenses investigation - Fact - was in the Guardian.
I agree, there are no new facts. We just have the same facts that the Brexit Daily Mail reading fools and idiots refused to acknowledge in their determination to achieve their Little Englander dreams. Facts like you cannot have a frictionless border in Ireland if the UK is outside the CU; facts like it is pure fantasy to believe that the EU27 will allow us access to the SM on anything but terms that are significantly worse than what we have currently; facts like achieving FTAs with Bangladesh and Rwanda and Australia is completely without value compared to the FTA we currently have with the biggest and most prosperous trading block in the World; facts like the EU will remove a significant number of jobs and businesses from the City, an industry sector that effectively pays for the rest of the country at the moment; facts like that only 37% of the electorate voted Brexit (and as Nick Cleggg stated in his recent excellent book on Brexit a lot more of those voters have since died compared to those who voted Remain) so the constant whining from Brexiteers about the 'will of the people' and democracy was nonsense the day after the referendum and it is even more of a nonsense now.
Only 35% voted to stay in the EU. So what does that mean for you? So, had Remain got 52% and the Government had said it was only advisory and we are going to leave anyway. What would your reaction have been?
It was always advisory, then Leave started calling people traitors and saboteurs
If the UK, Ireland and the EU want to protect the integrity of a "no border" border it will happen - why couldn't it?
1. Everything is possible if there is a genuine will to succeed. Borders and customs checks exist because that's how it was done when we started collecting customs in the 1600's. We didn't have computers then but 2. you only have two look at the sophistication of containerisation to see how goods are processed entirely using electronic data. Logistics firms know where every item of goods in transit is at any one time. Everyone used to complete tax returns every year, and HMRC told you what to pay. Now you only make a return if you have any tax to pay and you pay tax on what you declare. Do customs open every package that's brought into the country or sent by post? Is any customs border watertight?
If there was no agreement and we fell back to working across a customs union large business will have no problem in adhering to new technology to comply with customs declarations, 3. small business can be exempted. Tariffs and collecting duty are the least of the issues, customs duties yield a paltry £3b a year for the UK. Tariffs are as much about complying with WTO rules as a revenue earner.
Protecting tariffs is hardly worth going to war over, unless you are the EU. The EU customs union is not about getting rich from taxes, it's about creating regulatory barriers to inhibit competition and making free trade agreements tortuous. Regulatory equivalence is the battle ground. 4. The EU knows that the UK meets all regulatory compliance standards, so can hardly argue we need to raise the hurdle to be allowed a free trade agreement. That's why the EU's only argument for not giving a trade deal is that it's rewarding the UK for leaving.
Movement of people across the border is a non issue. As Davies pointed out, it would be a dim people smuggler who went through the hoop getting someone into Ireland and then across to the UK when it's easier to smuggle someone in through Heathrow as a tourist.
It's achingly annoying for the EU. 5. We don't have to concede anything to meet the EU regulatory equivalence hurdles for a free trade deal. These regulations normally take two years to identify and detail and five years for the other side to get their manufacturers and suppliers compliant. Maintaining compliance with EU regulations are no more a barrier to the UK than the regulations set by any other country on imports, and we don't have any control over them either. EU exports will continue to be a smaller percentage of our trade post Brexit anyway. Cars will be replaced by electric driverless pods so thinking the current automotive sector is going to stay as it is needs a rethink. 6. We might lead the World in new driverless car technology changing the balance of automotive manufacturing with no engines to manufacture, just batteries to be screwed on to a plastic shell. Wonder if this possible scenario was factored into the expert projections of facts the Remainers obsess about.
7. All the EU have in their favour is time, which the UK doesn't. The EU have the ability to bluster, posture, delay and create artificial obstacles to a deal in order to push the UK right up to the limit by imposing impossible pre-conditions before actually agreeing a deal. The hope is that they can create enough unrest in the UK, briefing against the UK through the Remain press, and hoping Brexit can be sabotaged.
The EU is a dinosaur that will be unable to react quickly enough as commerce changes and new silk roads evolve. Instead of only being able to think up reasons to trash Brexit, Remainers need a reality check. It's going to happen and it will need new thinking and innovation, not the blinkered, dead hand negative, Private Frazer "were doomed" carping of Remainers.
If I were to make the same assumptions as you, I might agree.
1. Many things, however, do actually, remain impossible, no matter what the will to succeed - cold water fusion, levitation, homeopathy working, my chat up lines....
2. Yes, logistics companies can keep track of containerised shipments, but that's the easy end of the scale. Not all trade within the Single Market is containerised. Arguing that no Customs controls are watertight is not an argument for abandoning them.
3. Why can small businesses be exempted from customs controls? Livestock transport across the border in Ireland, and much of the general haulage, is carried out by small businesses - they really cannot be exempted if you wish to protect the consumer from potetnially harmful produce and products.
4. The EU argument is that they will negotiate a trade deal with the UK (not give), but that the type of trade deal is intrinsically tied up with the the UK's decisions on membership of the Single Market/Customs Union. In any event, the current talks process is in advance of any real trade negotiations.
5. In terms of third party access to EU Customs Union/Single Market, the UK will clearly be compliant with all EU Regulations on the point of exit. It's a good starting point for goods, but there would be considerable work to be done, determining what would happen as regulatory divergence kicked in and, in particular, whenever the UK would agree a trade deal with a third party country, that did not, itself have an agreement with the EU, where the non-tariff concerns would become important, particularly sanitary/phtyosanitary measures and standards (being hugely unoriginal, I will refer to US beef and chicken).
6. The hypothetical possibility that the UK might be a World leader in driverless car technology may or may not have been factored in to the expert projections of likely outcomes, rather than facts, that I know Remainers obssess about. I wonder is this a good time to point out that the UK has, since the 1940s, regularly been on the cusp of being a World leader in verious types of technology, only for others to usurp that role, no doubt this has been factored in to the pro-Brexit projections...
7. Actually, time is not the only thing that the EU has on its side, it also has the clout of the Single Market, and its trading agreements with others, including those under development. The blustering and posturing that I have seen comes from David Davis, Michel Barnier, on the other hand.... I get that you want to see the EU as a trading dinosaur, but it is an organisation made up of its member states, the member states (some might say Germany, and who am I to be original?) have shown themselves to be more than capable of reacting to changing times (indeed, the UK is a bit late to the new silk roads, in comparison). To take the Dads' Army analogy on, the "new thinking and innovation" displayed by leading lights on the Brexit side is clearly the reincarnation of Private Pike.
The really big issue for any trade talks is that the UK have talked themselves into a Free Trade Agreement only.
The EU have made clear that the deal that will be open for negotiation will not include effective membership of the Siungle Market, which will have an impact on the service sector.
If the UK, Ireland and the EU want to protect the integrity of a "no border" border it will happen - why couldn't it?
Everything is possible if there is a genuine will to succeed. Borders and customs checks exist because that's how it was done when we started collecting customs in the 1600's. We didn't have computers then but you only have two look at the sophistication of containerisation to see how goods are processed entirely using electronic data. Logistics firms know where every item of goods in transit is at any one time. Everyone used to complete tax returns every year, and HMRC told you what to pay. Now you only make a return if you have any tax to pay and you pay tax on what you declare. Do customs open every package that's brought into the country or sent by post? Is any customs border watertight?
If there was no agreement and we fell back to working across a customs union large business will have no problem in adhering to new technology to comply with customs declarations, small business can be exempted. Tariffs and collecting duty are the least of the issues, customs duties yield a paltry £3b a year for the UK. Tariffs are as much about complying with WTO rules as a revenue earner.
Protecting tariffs is hardly worth going to war over, unless you are the EU. The EU customs union is not about getting rich from taxes, it's about creating regulatory barriers to inhibit competition and making free trade agreements tortuous. Regulatory equivalence is the battle ground. The EU knows that the UK meets all regulatory compliance standards, so can hardly argue we need to raise the hurdle to be allowed a free trade agreement. That's why the EU's only argument for not giving a trade deal is that it's rewarding the UK for leaving.
Movement of people across the border is a non issue. As Davies pointed out, it would be a dim people smuggler who went through the hoop getting someone into Ireland and then across to the UK when it's easier to smuggle someone in through Heathrow as a tourist.
It's achingly annoying for the EU. We don't have to concede anything to meet the EU regulatory equivalence hurdles for a free trade deal. These regulations normally take two years to identify and detail and five years for the other side to get their manufacturers and suppliers compliant. Maintaining compliance with EU regulations are no more a barrier to the UK than the regulations set by any other country on imports, and we don't have any control over them either. EU exports will continue to be a smaller percentage of our trade post Brexit anyway. Cars will be replaced by electric driverless pods so thinking the current automotive sector is going to stay as it is needs a rethink. We might lead the World in new driverless car technology changing the balance of automotive manufacturing with no engines to manufacture, just batteries to be screwed on to a plastic shell. Wonder if this possible scenario was factored into the expert projections of facts the Remainers obsess about.
All the EU have in their favour is time, which the UK doesn't. The EU have the ability to bluster, posture, delay and create artificial obstacles to a deal in order to push the UK right up to the limit by imposing impossible pre-conditions before actually agreeing a deal. The hope is that they can create enough unrest in the UK, briefing against the UK through the Remain press, and hoping Brexit can be sabotaged.
The EU is a dinosaur that will be unable to react quickly enough as commerce changes and new silk roads evolve. Instead of only being able to think up reasons to trash Brexit, Remainers need a reality check. It's going to happen and it will need new thinking and innovation, not the blinkered, dead hand negative, Private Frazer "were doomed" carping of Remainers.
I think this is an interesting post.
If I read it right you say new technology sorts goods out across a border, and that people will enter the UK as Tourists rather than via Ireland, collecting customs isn't worth much money anyway, and small businesses can do what they like.
A lot of brexiters paint it as a non issue in a similar way. Certainly politicians in the DUP.
In terms of a principle of brexit, taking back control of our borders, there seem to be some flaws in your scenario to sort out.
First and foremost, if there is cross border stuff without compliance wouldn't there need to be some kind of body or force to deal with that, can that be done with the present resources or would new resources have to be found?
Would it even need the assistance of people smugglers for folk to enter the UK along that stretch of land, I doubt it, so if it is unfettered would there need to be resources to deal with that? Either directly on the border or within the UK in some form or another? Would that incur extra costs?
What would be the line between being a 'small' business with exemptions and a large business with the easily acquired technology?
Would those businesses be graded and only have to buy in the technology in stages, or would there be a point where a modest business is suddenly expected to be like a big business but simply can't afford the initial transition costs?
How about smuggling in the old fashioned sense? Surely with two entities the opportunities for cross border smuggling increases and will need some kind of force or body to deal with it?
Could it be that the issues I have raised, and how they're dealt with, when taken together it becomes a hard border?
I am pretty sure I have missed some obvious points, especially with regard to agriculture and livestock.
Either way I believe the kind of things I have raised is firmly down to the UK to tell us how it will get sorted out, not the EU, because it is the UK who have initiated everything.
I have (as a remainer) always accepted 'it' (whatever it is) is going to happen, but I will reserve the right to think up reasons to trash brexit because I can see no good in it either in principle or what is happening in practice.
indeed, the UK is a bit late to the new silk roads, in comparison
Actually, this is not correct. The UK (or, at least, London) has a big financial role to play in the latest ... and biggest ... ‘silk road’ initiative, ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR)
Furthermore, many UK companies are getting involved in developing new trade networks and expanding old ones.
In addition, many of our law firms and consultancy firms will have a large role to play.
The Chinese ambassador to London, Liu Xiaoming, certainly agrees, saying: “Britain is a country of global influence and can be an important partner for China in OBOR. Britain has many strengths and unique advantages that could give it a head start in OBOR co-operation.“
Gu Xueming, President, Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, MOFCOM said, ‘The United Kingdom was the first developed country to support the Belt and Road Initiative and the first to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as a founding member. China and the UK have been continuously elevating the level of bilateral relations by taking the Belt and Road as an opportunity.’
Many articles on this, but you may find the below interesting:
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
We have to leave the EU to comply as a second referendum on leave / remain will be incredibly destructive. And if we delay leaving there will be MEP elections in May 2019 - which will not go down well - one can imagine Farage...
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
Definitely interesting, and significant parts ring true. But I would not say that it tells the whole story. The Irish Government is not just playing games about the border - there is real fear about the potential for violence. The economic impact of Brexit on the Irish economy will be dramatic; and I do not believe that a hard border can be avoided.
The internal political issues alluded to are a bit overblown, Sinn Fein being seen as a danger is taken as read, but Varadkar and Coveney have been widely praised.
Truthfully, I think that, after 60 years, the tax deals may be on the way out anyway (partly driven by tax changes in the USA), while the UK leaving the EU makes Ireland more attractive to non-EU inward investment.
It is difficult to overstate how committed Ireland and most Irish people are to EU membership. For all that there will be suffering, and there will, they know on which side they are. Compare the solicitous approach by the EU to Irish border issues to the cavalier disregard shown by the UK up until the last minute.
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
We have to leave the EU to comply as a second referendum on leave / remain will be incredibly destructive. And if we delay leaving there will be MEP elections in May 2019 - which will not go down well - one can imagine Farage...
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
The words ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are very emotive and are consciously being used in the media with ‘soft’ being portrayed as the easier, nicer option, whereas ‘hard’ is used to denote difficulty and problems, one to avoid with all that the word ‘hard’ connotates.
The options are more sensibly defined as ‘Canada+’, ‘Norway’ option, or Remain.
It is an interesting read, largely discussing political positions and machinations regarding Ireland and brexit, and unsurprisingly mentions the border. However once the smoke of statementing has cleared there remains the everyday practicalities to deal with in regard to the border.
A border between Mexico and the USA does not seem to be able to work with the kind of technological ideas suggested above, and failing all else the best idea the president can come up with is a wall. I don't know if small businesses along the Mexico/USA border are exempt, or if electronic invoicing or tracking chips are in place, yet when push comes to shove a wall is what they want to end up with. Of course Ireland isn't Mexico, but the principle of having two different systems with a line between them remains in both examples, and practical solutions are hard to find.
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
We have to leave the EU to comply as a second referendum on leave / remain will be incredibly destructive. And if we delay leaving there will be MEP elections in May 2019 - which will not go down well - one can imagine Farage...
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
The words ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are very emotive and are consciously being used in the media with ‘soft’ being portrayed as the easier, nicer option, whereas ‘hard’ is used to denote difficulty and problems, one to avoid with all that the word ‘hard’ connotates.
The options are more sensibly defined as ‘Canada+’, ‘Norway’ option, or Remain.
Doesn't matter what we call them. Some still maintain that the referendum was was debated on clear lines as per your labels. Those people tend to be the ones who wanted to leave everything. And deliver it within six months!
These people are still looking to lobby and disrupt without any reference to the consequences for the economy nor the Irish border. Plus they tend to distort the reality about the EU political economy.
My relief on Friday was that we at least have a two year transition deal so no cliff edge in March 2019. That makes a big difference and the nation should now be able to address this matter in a sober fashion through 2018 without the Brexiloons bouncing up and down!
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
We have to leave the EU to comply as a second referendum on leave / remain will be incredibly destructive. And if we delay leaving there will be MEP elections in May 2019 - which will not go down well - one can imagine Farage...
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
The words ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are very emotive and are consciously being used in the media with ‘soft’ being portrayed as the easier, nicer option, whereas ‘hard’ is used to denote difficulty and problems, one to avoid with all that the word ‘hard’ connotates.
The options are more sensibly defined as ‘Canada+’, ‘Norway’ option, or Remain.
Doesn't matter what we call them. Some still maintain that the referendum was was debated on clear lines as per your labels. Those people tend to be the ones who wanted to leave everything. And deliver it within six months!
These people are still looking to lobby and disrupt without any reference to the consequences for the economy nor the Irish border. Plus they tend to distort the reality about the EU political economy.
My relief on Friday was that we at least have a two year transition deal so no cliff edge in March 2019. That makes a big difference and the nation should now be able to address this matter in a sober fashion through 2018 without the Brexiloons bouncing up and down!
There are lobbyists and loons on all sides, exit, remain and EU ... so I am equally happy that we should now be able to take this forward rationally and transparently.
But don’t write off the lobbyists and loons ... they will still do their utmost to disrupt.
There is a very good debate to be had moving forward and positive benefits can be obtained ... perhaps the process should be delegated to Charlton Life ... in the main, and on this particular thread, we have handled it rather well
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
We have to leave the EU to comply as a second referendum on leave / remain will be incredibly destructive. And if we delay leaving there will be MEP elections in May 2019 - which will not go down well - one can imagine Farage...
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
The words ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are very emotive and are consciously being used in the media with ‘soft’ being portrayed as the easier, nicer option, whereas ‘hard’ is used to denote difficulty and problems, one to avoid with all that the word ‘hard’ connotates.
The options are more sensibly defined as ‘Canada+’, ‘Norway’ option, or Remain.
Doesn't matter what we call them. Some still maintain that the referendum was was debated on clear lines as per your labels. Those people tend to be the ones who wanted to leave everything. And deliver it within six months!
These people are still looking to lobby and disrupt without any reference to the consequences for the economy nor the Irish border. Plus they tend to distort the reality about the EU political economy.
My relief on Friday was that we at least have a two year transition deal so no cliff edge in March 2019. That makes a big difference and the nation should now be able to address this matter in a sober fashion through 2018 without the Brexiloons bouncing up and down!
There are lobbyists and loons on all sides, exit, remain and EU ... so I am equally happy that we should now be able to take this forward rationally and transparently.
But don’t write off the lobbyists and loons ... they will still do their utmost to disrupt.
There is a very good debate to be had moving forward and positive benefits can be obtained ... perhaps the process should be delegated to Charlton Life ... in the main, and on this particular thread, we have handled it rather well
I think it is abundantly clear that most of the loons in this debate are on the exit side.
The reaction to last week is evolving and we will have to wait a while for the public to digest. In the meantime there has been some development on polls on the subject: This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill. And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
Thanks for this.
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
We have to leave the EU to comply as a second referendum on leave / remain will be incredibly destructive. And if we delay leaving there will be MEP elections in May 2019 - which will not go down well - one can imagine Farage...
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
The words ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are very emotive and are consciously being used in the media with ‘soft’ being portrayed as the easier, nicer option, whereas ‘hard’ is used to denote difficulty and problems, one to avoid with all that the word ‘hard’ connotates.
The options are more sensibly defined as ‘Canada+’, ‘Norway’ option, or Remain.
Doesn't matter what we call them. Some still maintain that the referendum was was debated on clear lines as per your labels. Those people tend to be the ones who wanted to leave everything. And deliver it within six months!
These people are still looking to lobby and disrupt without any reference to the consequences for the economy nor the Irish border. Plus they tend to distort the reality about the EU political economy.
My relief on Friday was that we at least have a two year transition deal so no cliff edge in March 2019. That makes a big difference and the nation should now be able to address this matter in a sober fashion through 2018 without the Brexiloons bouncing up and down!
There are lobbyists and loons on all sides, exit, remain and EU ... so I am equally happy that we should now be able to take this forward rationally and transparently.
But don’t write off the lobbyists and loons ... they will still do their utmost to disrupt.
There is a very good debate to be had moving forward and positive benefits can be obtained ... perhaps the process should be delegated to Charlton Life ... in the main, and on this particular thread, we have handled it rather well
I think it is abundantly clear that most of the loons in this debate are on the exit side.
Comments
This poll on a second referendum once details are known has shifted from neck and neck at 46% to 50% in favour vs 34% against. At the same time 58% either disapprove or strongly disapprove of a £50Bn Brexit bill.
And this poll on 1st December before the phase one agreement shows a clear combined majority for the SM/CU. That's to say Soft Brexit of staying in the SM/CU plus remain in the EU.
This is important because some maintain that it was clear in the referendum that voting leave was a vote to leave the SM/CU. Andrew Marr went so far as to show clips from both campaigns stating this. However many can also remember the leave campaign refusing to specify what the Brexit deal might be and NOT ruling out a Norway style deal. The underlying data is very clear on the recent polls: 10% of remainers believe in a hard Brexit! Whilst 25% of both Remain and Leave believe in a soft Brexit. So there is less support for staying in the EU but a clear majority backing a Norway style deal.
Not all leavers believe in a hard Brexit. What is noticeable is that amongst C2DE voters there is a larger support for Hard Brexit but this is still less than 45%. So whatever Davis might say in the few days since phase one was agreed, we are moving further and further away from June 2016 and closer to the final outcome. And this may actually enjoy popular support?
Edit: Should add that 58% of Conservative voters believe in a hard Brexit as opposed to 36% supporting Soft Brexit or abort the process. Ironic as that is the exact opposite of national opinion at this point!
My question is, what would be the point of staying in the SM/CU if we leave?
In such a situation, we are better off not leaving.
Glad that's sorted.
The Republic of Ireland is in the customs union and the single market.
There is to be no border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK.
How is that supposed to work? On in on one side one out on the other.
So presumably no tariffs on stuff, or restriction of movement of people between the EU and the UK, is that brexit?
If they do, we have to assume they know the answers you are seeking
After all the range of choices aren't infinite.
Everything is possible if there is a genuine will to succeed. Borders and customs checks exist because that's how it was done when we started collecting customs in the 1600's. We didn't have computers then but you only have two look at the sophistication of containerisation to see how goods are processed entirely using electronic data. Logistics firms know where every item of goods in transit is at any one time. Everyone used to complete tax returns every year, and HMRC told you what to pay. Now you only make a return if you have any tax to pay and you pay tax on what you declare. Do customs open every package that's brought into the country or sent by post? Is any customs border watertight?
If there was no agreement and we fell back to working across a customs union large business will have no problem in adhering to new technology to comply with customs declarations, small business can be exempted. Tariffs and collecting duty are the least of the issues, customs duties yield a paltry £3b a year for the UK. Tariffs are as much about complying with WTO rules as a revenue earner.
Protecting tariffs is hardly worth going to war over, unless you are the EU. The EU customs union is not about getting rich from taxes, it's about creating regulatory barriers to inhibit competition and making free trade agreements tortuous. Regulatory equivalence is the battle ground. The EU knows that the UK meets all regulatory compliance standards, so can hardly argue we need to raise the hurdle to be allowed a free trade agreement. That's why the EU's only argument for not giving a trade deal is that it's rewarding the UK for leaving.
Movement of people across the border is a non issue. As Davies pointed out, it would be a dim people smuggler who went through the hoop getting someone into Ireland and then across to the UK when it's easier to smuggle someone in through Heathrow as a tourist.
It's achingly annoying for the EU. We don't have to concede anything to meet the EU regulatory equivalence hurdles for a free trade deal. These regulations normally take two years to identify and detail and five years for the other side to get their manufacturers and suppliers compliant. Maintaining compliance with EU regulations are no more a barrier to the UK than the regulations set by any other country on imports, and we don't have any control over them either. EU exports will continue to be a smaller percentage of our trade post Brexit anyway. Cars will be replaced by electric driverless pods so thinking the current automotive sector is going to stay as it is needs a rethink. We might lead the World in new driverless car technology changing the balance of automotive manufacturing with no engines to manufacture, just batteries to be screwed on to a plastic shell. Wonder if this possible scenario was factored into the expert projections of facts the Remainers obsess about.
All the EU have in their favour is time, which the UK doesn't. The EU have the ability to bluster, posture, delay and create artificial obstacles to a deal in order to push the UK right up to the limit by imposing impossible pre-conditions before actually agreeing a deal. The hope is that they can create enough unrest in the UK, briefing against the UK through the Remain press, and hoping Brexit can be sabotaged.
The EU is a dinosaur that will be unable to react quickly enough as commerce changes and new silk roads evolve. Instead of only being able to think up reasons to trash Brexit, Remainers need a reality check. It's going to happen and it will need new thinking and innovation, not the blinkered, dead hand negative, Private Frazer "were doomed" carping of Remainers.
As many Leavers seem to be as unhappy at the way negotiations are going as Remainers and stonemuse is certainly not alone amongst them that it is probably not worth leaving given what concessions we are making in the process. This is a view I have seen repeated since last week.
A big bone of contention for both sides is that it was firmly promised over and over again that we would remain in the SM/CU as per a Swiss or Norway style deal. Admittedly I was initially a Leave voter because I was attracted to a UK that forged its own path whilst retaining access to the single market and I only changed my mind to vote Remain early 2016. As such the biggest complainers of the current situation seem to be Farage, JRM, Bone, Redwood etc. As opposed to any prominent Remainers who seem to be used to the state of bemusement we find ourselves in regarding the haplessness of our government.
Brexit is one thing and if someone was getting on with it competently, then great. But the fact is these idiots in government don't have a plan, have never had a plan and lack the capacity to concoct a plan. And I wouldn't care how much in favour of a policy I was, if the government lacked the stability, mandate, and ability to successfully execute a policy I was in favour of, I would not support it in this way.
So, had Remain got 52% and the Government had said it was only advisory and we are going to leave anyway. What would your reaction have been?
1. Many things, however, do actually, remain impossible, no matter what the will to succeed - cold water fusion, levitation, homeopathy working, my chat up lines....
2. Yes, logistics companies can keep track of containerised shipments, but that's the easy end of the scale.
Not all trade within the Single Market is containerised. Arguing that no Customs controls are watertight is not an argument for abandoning them.
3. Why can small businesses be exempted from customs controls? Livestock transport across the border in Ireland, and much of the general haulage, is carried out by small businesses - they really cannot be exempted if you wish to protect the consumer from potetnially harmful produce and products.
4. The EU argument is that they will negotiate a trade deal with the UK (not give), but that the type of trade deal is intrinsically tied up with the the UK's decisions on membership of the Single Market/Customs Union. In any event, the current talks process is in advance of any real trade negotiations.
5. In terms of third party access to EU Customs Union/Single Market, the UK will clearly be compliant with all EU Regulations on the point of exit. It's a good starting point for goods, but there would be considerable work to be done, determining what would happen as regulatory divergence kicked in and, in particular, whenever the UK would agree a trade deal with a third party country, that did not, itself have an agreement with the EU, where the non-tariff concerns would become important, particularly sanitary/phtyosanitary measures and standards (being hugely unoriginal, I will refer to US beef and chicken).
6. The hypothetical possibility that the UK might be a World leader in driverless car technology may or may not have been factored in to the expert projections of likely outcomes, rather than facts, that I know Remainers obssess about. I wonder is this a good time to point out that the UK has, since the 1940s, regularly been on the cusp of being a World leader in verious types of technology, only for others to usurp that role, no doubt this has been factored in to the pro-Brexit projections...
7. Actually, time is not the only thing that the EU has on its side, it also has the clout of the Single Market, and its trading agreements with others, including those under development. The blustering and posturing that I have seen comes from David Davis, Michel Barnier, on the other hand.... I get that you want to see the EU as a trading dinosaur, but it is an organisation made up of its member states, the member states (some might say Germany, and who am I to be original?) have shown themselves to be more than capable of reacting to changing times (indeed, the UK is a bit late to the new silk roads, in comparison). To take the Dads' Army analogy on, the "new thinking and innovation" displayed by leading lights on the Brexit side is clearly the reincarnation of Private Pike.
The really big issue for any trade talks is that the UK have talked themselves into a Free Trade Agreement only.
The EU have made clear that the deal that will be open for negotiation will not include effective membership of the Siungle Market, which will have an impact on the service sector.
What do you think about this article? I believe it was written before the agreement was published.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/12/border-question-can-be-solved-only-once-britain-understands-what-irish-want%3famp
If I read it right you say new technology sorts goods out across a border, and that people will enter the UK as Tourists rather than via Ireland, collecting customs isn't worth much money anyway, and small businesses can do what they like.
A lot of brexiters paint it as a non issue in a similar way. Certainly politicians in the DUP.
In terms of a principle of brexit, taking back control of our borders, there seem to be some flaws in your scenario to sort out.
First and foremost, if there is cross border stuff without compliance wouldn't there need to be some kind of body or force to deal with that, can that be done with the present resources or would new resources have to be found?
Would it even need the assistance of people smugglers for folk to enter the UK along that stretch of land, I doubt it, so if it is unfettered would there need to be resources to deal with that? Either directly on the border or within the UK in some form or another? Would that incur extra costs?
What would be the line between being a 'small' business with exemptions and a large business with the easily acquired technology?
Would those businesses be graded and only have to buy in the technology in stages, or would there be a point where a modest business is suddenly expected to be like a big business but simply can't afford the initial transition costs?
How about smuggling in the old fashioned sense? Surely with two entities the opportunities for cross border smuggling increases and will need some kind of force or body to deal with it?
Could it be that the issues I have raised, and how they're dealt with, when taken together it becomes a hard border?
I am pretty sure I have missed some obvious points, especially with regard to agriculture and livestock.
Either way I believe the kind of things I have raised is firmly down to the UK to tell us how it will get sorted out, not the EU, because it is the UK who have initiated everything.
I have (as a remainer) always accepted 'it' (whatever it is) is going to happen, but I will reserve the right to think up reasons to trash brexit because I can see no good in it either in principle or what is happening in practice.
indeed, the UK is a bit late to the new silk roads, in comparison
Actually, this is not correct. The UK (or, at least, London) has a big financial role to play in the latest ... and biggest ... ‘silk road’ initiative, ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR)
Furthermore, many UK companies are getting involved in developing new trade networks and expanding old ones.
In addition, many of our law firms and consultancy firms will have a large role to play.
The Chinese ambassador to London, Liu Xiaoming, certainly agrees, saying: “Britain is a country of global influence and can be an important partner for China in OBOR. Britain has many strengths and unique advantages that could give it a head start in OBOR co-operation.“
Gu Xueming, President, Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, MOFCOM said, ‘The United Kingdom was the first developed country to support the Belt and Road Initiative and the first to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as a founding member. China and the UK have been continuously elevating the level of bilateral relations by taking the Belt and Road as an opportunity.’
Many articles on this, but you may find the below interesting:
https://sc.com/BeyondBorders/one-belt-one-road-why-uk-will-gain/
https://fdiintelligence.com/Locations/Asia-Pacific/China/Will-the-UK-find-post-Brexit-prosperity-along-China-s-One-Belt-One-Road
cbbc.org/services/brisouthernroutes/
It has been argued that the EU is, in fact, not doing enough to be involved:
blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/04/11/why-chinas-one-belt-one-road-initiative-should-be-taken-more-seriously-by-the-eu/
To decide the three options of Hard Brexit, Norway option and Remain, the obvious way to decide is a three way vote - but that chance has gone.
Having had the vote in 2016, advisory or not, the government now has to engineer the style of Brexit, i.e., a choice between hard and soft. Should they choose soft then people might take the same view that you do and say "we are better off not leaving". But we are not in that place today - it simply isn't an option. But int might be in the future?
There is no point in crunching the numbers ourselves, nor whinging about how unfair it all is. For it is what it is. In 2018 we will see what the EU27 offer as an interim deal and what comes later but if not the EEA then it won't amount to much.
The internal political issues alluded to are a bit overblown, Sinn Fein being seen as a danger is taken as read, but Varadkar and Coveney have been widely praised.
Truthfully, I think that, after 60 years, the tax deals may be on the way out anyway (partly driven by tax changes in the USA), while the UK leaving the EU makes Ireland more attractive to non-EU inward investment.
It is difficult to overstate how committed Ireland and most Irish people are to EU membership. For all that there will be suffering, and there will, they know on which side they are. Compare the solicitous approach by the EU to Irish border issues to the cavalier disregard shown by the UK up until the last minute.
The options are more sensibly defined as ‘Canada+’, ‘Norway’ option, or Remain.
However once the smoke of statementing has cleared there remains the everyday practicalities to deal with in regard to the border.
A border between Mexico and the USA does not seem to be able to work with the kind of technological ideas suggested above, and failing all else the best idea the president can come up with is a wall. I don't know if small businesses along the Mexico/USA border are exempt, or if electronic invoicing or tracking chips are in place, yet when push comes to shove a wall is what they want to end up with.
Of course Ireland isn't Mexico, but the principle of having two different systems with a line between them remains in both examples, and practical solutions are hard to find.
These people are still looking to lobby and disrupt without any reference to the consequences for the economy nor the Irish border. Plus they tend to distort the reality about the EU political economy.
My relief on Friday was that we at least have a two year transition deal so no cliff edge in March 2019. That makes a big difference and the nation should now be able to address this matter in a sober fashion through 2018 without the Brexiloons bouncing up and down!
But don’t write off the lobbyists and loons ... they will still do their utmost to disrupt.
There is a very good debate to be had moving forward and positive benefits can be obtained ... perhaps the process should be delegated to Charlton Life ... in the main, and on this particular thread, we have handled it rather well