So there we are. It seems that you and I could have largely agreed after a while on what a "better Europe" looks like. That think-tank by the way, while UK led, is staffed by people from across the EU, all of whom think Brexit is a huge mistake.
In a more sane world, instead of you and I debating it, UK politicians would be thrashing it out with EU country counterparts, and with Macron, and with the increasingly vocal CEE voices, would have had a good chance of winning a fair few arguments.
We surely know why that has not happened. It's because of the existence of the swivel-eyed nutter wing within the Tory party, feeding in to (and sustained by) the insular, xenophobic element of British society (shall we call that the Lord Nelson element?).
The referendum caused people like you to get into bed with those politicians and the Lord Nelson element, and taking an entrenched stance on a naked in-out question, against people like me.
And now here we are.
As I have always said, views of remainers and leavers are not necessarily miles apart. For that reason, I have avoided ... most of the time ... getting into ridiculous arguments with extremists on either side.
Bearing in mind that I have frequently stated the basis on which I would not have a problem in staying in the EU (as exemplified by these last few posts), I certainly do not have an 'entrenched stance'.
Repeating my former post: "However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU."
If, as a result of the referendum, there had been more willingness to negotiate - from BOTH sides - we could have seen, as you state, 'UK politicians thrashing it out with EU country counterparts'.
The pity is that, as yet, this has not happened - however, there is still time.
I normally err on the side of optimism, so believe there is still a possibility of an outcome from this that will benefit all parties.
The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK. Juncker's intransigence and Verhofstadt's federal beliefs will not last - Barnier and Macron have far more sensible views concerning the future of the EU, and both would prefer to work with the UK.
I was a little concerned about the involvement of Martin Schulz but, now he has gone, we shall see what happens with Andrea Nahles.
So there we are. It seems that you and I could have largely agreed after a while on what a "better Europe" looks like. That think-tank by the way, while UK led, is staffed by people from across the EU, all of whom think Brexit is a huge mistake.
In a more sane world, instead of you and I debating it, UK politicians would be thrashing it out with EU country counterparts, and with Macron, and with the increasingly vocal CEE voices, would have had a good chance of winning a fair few arguments.
We surely know why that has not happened. It's because of the existence of the swivel-eyed nutter wing within the Tory party, feeding in to (and sustained by) the insular, xenophobic element of British society (shall we call that the Lord Nelson element?).
The referendum caused people like you to get into bed with those politicians and the Lord Nelson element, and taking an entrenched stance on a naked in-out question, against people like me.
And now here we are.
As I have always said, views of remainers and leavers are not necessarily miles apart. For that reason, I have avoided ... most of the time ... getting into ridiculous arguments with extremists on either side.
Bearing in mind that I have frequently stated the basis on which I would not have a problem in staying in the EU (as exemplified by these last few posts), I certainly do not have an 'entrenched stance'.
Repeating my former post: "However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU."
If, as a result of the referendum, there had been more willingness to negotiate - from BOTH sides - we could have seen, as you state, 'UK politicians thrashing it out with EU country counterparts'.
The pity is that, as yet, this has not happened - however, there is still time.
I normally err on the side of optimism, so believe there is still a possibility of an outcome from this that will benefit all parties.
The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK. Juncker's intransigence and Verhofstadt's federal beliefs will not last - Barnier and Macron have far more sensible views concerning the future of the EU, and both would prefer to work with the UK.
I was a little concerned about the involvement of Martin Schulz but, now he has gone, we shall see what happens with Andrea Nahles.
Is he really being intransigent? If the UKs position was "we really don't want to leave, but politically we can only remain if we at least start discussing certain changes to the structure of the EU that we believe would have wide support if put on the table" then I can't see why negotiations wouldn't happen.
Instead our position seems to be "We're leaving, no matter how much it harms us or you, like it or lump it, and we want this list of mutually exclusive things, and we want you to suggest solutions to all the problems because we can't be bothered, now be a good boy and give us a great deal". How do you even begin to negotiate when the other side is holding that position, and spouting infantile nonsense like "if we told you what we want it'd weaken our negotiating position"?
So there we are. It seems that you and I could have largely agreed after a while on what a "better Europe" looks like. That think-tank by the way, while UK led, is staffed by people from across the EU, all of whom think Brexit is a huge mistake.
In a more sane world, instead of you and I debating it, UK politicians would be thrashing it out with EU country counterparts, and with Macron, and with the increasingly vocal CEE voices, would have had a good chance of winning a fair few arguments.
We surely know why that has not happened. It's because of the existence of the swivel-eyed nutter wing within the Tory party, feeding in to (and sustained by) the insular, xenophobic element of British society (shall we call that the Lord Nelson element?).
The referendum caused people like you to get into bed with those politicians and the Lord Nelson element, and taking an entrenched stance on a naked in-out question, against people like me.
And now here we are.
As I have always said, views of remainers and leavers are not necessarily miles apart. For that reason, I have avoided ... most of the time ... getting into ridiculous arguments with extremists on either side.
Bearing in mind that I have frequently stated the basis on which I would not have a problem in staying in the EU (as exemplified by these last few posts), I certainly do not have an 'entrenched stance'.
Repeating my former post: "However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU."
If, as a result of the referendum, there had been more willingness to negotiate - from BOTH sides - we could have seen, as you state, 'UK politicians thrashing it out with EU country counterparts'.
The pity is that, as yet, this has not happened - however, there is still time.
I normally err on the side of optimism, so believe there is still a possibility of an outcome from this that will benefit all parties.
The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK. Juncker's intransigence and Verhofstadt's federal beliefs will not last - Barnier and Macron have far more sensible views concerning the future of the EU, and both would prefer to work with the UK.
I was a little concerned about the involvement of Martin Schulz but, now he has gone, we shall see what happens with Andrea Nahles.
Is he really being intransigent? If the UKs position was "we really don't want to leave, but politically we can only remain if we at least start discussing certain changes to the structure of the EU that we believe would have wide support if put on the table" then I can't see why negotiations wouldn't happen.
Instead our position seems to be "We're leaving, no matter how much it harms us or you, like it or lump it, and we want this list of mutually exclusive things, and we want you to suggest solutions to all the problems because we can't be bothered, now be a good boy and give us a great deal". How do you even begin to negotiate when the other side is holding that position, and spouting infantile nonsense like "if we told you what we want it'd weaken our negotiating position"?
The whole idea of Brexit is based on infantile nonsense. The many shortcomings of the EU that Brexit supporters constantly whine about are totally trivial and insignificant compared to the benefits we enjoy by belonging to the biggest and most affluent free trading Bloc in the world.
So there we are. It seems that you and I could have largely agreed after a while on what a "better Europe" looks like. That think-tank by the way, while UK led, is staffed by people from across the EU, all of whom think Brexit is a huge mistake.
In a more sane world, instead of you and I debating it, UK politicians would be thrashing it out with EU country counterparts, and with Macron, and with the increasingly vocal CEE voices, would have had a good chance of winning a fair few arguments.
We surely know why that has not happened. It's because of the existence of the swivel-eyed nutter wing within the Tory party, feeding in to (and sustained by) the insular, xenophobic element of British society (shall we call that the Lord Nelson element?).
The referendum caused people like you to get into bed with those politicians and the Lord Nelson element, and taking an entrenched stance on a naked in-out question, against people like me.
And now here we are.
As I have always said, views of remainers and leavers are not necessarily miles apart. For that reason, I have avoided ... most of the time ... getting into ridiculous arguments with extremists on either side.
Bearing in mind that I have frequently stated the basis on which I would not have a problem in staying in the EU (as exemplified by these last few posts), I certainly do not have an 'entrenched stance'.
Repeating my former post: "However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU."
If, as a result of the referendum, there had been more willingness to negotiate - from BOTH sides - we could have seen, as you state, 'UK politicians thrashing it out with EU country counterparts'.
The pity is that, as yet, this has not happened - however, there is still time.
I normally err on the side of optimism, so believe there is still a possibility of an outcome from this that will benefit all parties.
The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK. Juncker's intransigence and Verhofstadt's federal beliefs will not last - Barnier and Macron have far more sensible views concerning the future of the EU, and both would prefer to work with the UK.
I was a little concerned about the involvement of Martin Schulz but, now he has gone, we shall see what happens with Andrea Nahles.
Is he really being intransigent? If the UKs position was "we really don't want to leave, but politically we can only remain if we at least start discussing certain changes to the structure of the EU that we believe would have wide support if put on the table" then I can't see why negotiations wouldn't happen.
Instead our position seems to be "We're leaving, no matter how much it harms us or you, like it or lump it, and we want this list of mutually exclusive things, and we want you to suggest solutions to all the problems because we can't be bothered, now be a good boy and give us a great deal". How do you even begin to negotiate when the other side is holding that position, and spouting infantile nonsense like "if we told you what we want it'd weaken our negotiating position"?
Read my post again - "The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK"
So there we are. It seems that you and I could have largely agreed after a while on what a "better Europe" looks like. That think-tank by the way, while UK led, is staffed by people from across the EU, all of whom think Brexit is a huge mistake.
In a more sane world, instead of you and I debating it, UK politicians would be thrashing it out with EU country counterparts, and with Macron, and with the increasingly vocal CEE voices, would have had a good chance of winning a fair few arguments.
We surely know why that has not happened. It's because of the existence of the swivel-eyed nutter wing within the Tory party, feeding in to (and sustained by) the insular, xenophobic element of British society (shall we call that the Lord Nelson element?).
The referendum caused people like you to get into bed with those politicians and the Lord Nelson element, and taking an entrenched stance on a naked in-out question, against people like me.
And now here we are.
As I have always said, views of remainers and leavers are not necessarily miles apart. For that reason, I have avoided ... most of the time ... getting into ridiculous arguments with extremists on either side.
Bearing in mind that I have frequently stated the basis on which I would not have a problem in staying in the EU (as exemplified by these last few posts), I certainly do not have an 'entrenched stance'.
Repeating my former post: "However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU."
If, as a result of the referendum, there had been more willingness to negotiate - from BOTH sides - we could have seen, as you state, 'UK politicians thrashing it out with EU country counterparts'.
The pity is that, as yet, this has not happened - however, there is still time.
I normally err on the side of optimism, so believe there is still a possibility of an outcome from this that will benefit all parties.
The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK. Juncker's intransigence and Verhofstadt's federal beliefs will not last - Barnier and Macron have far more sensible views concerning the future of the EU, and both would prefer to work with the UK.
I was a little concerned about the involvement of Martin Schulz but, now he has gone, we shall see what happens with Andrea Nahles.
Is he really being intransigent? If the UKs position was "we really don't want to leave, but politically we can only remain if we at least start discussing certain changes to the structure of the EU that we believe would have wide support if put on the table" then I can't see why negotiations wouldn't happen.
Instead our position seems to be "We're leaving, no matter how much it harms us or you, like it or lump it, and we want this list of mutually exclusive things, and we want you to suggest solutions to all the problems because we can't be bothered, now be a good boy and give us a great deal". How do you even begin to negotiate when the other side is holding that position, and spouting infantile nonsense like "if we told you what we want it'd weaken our negotiating position"?
Read my post again - "The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK"
So there we are. It seems that you and I could have largely agreed after a while on what a "better Europe" looks like. That think-tank by the way, while UK led, is staffed by people from across the EU, all of whom think Brexit is a huge mistake.
In a more sane world, instead of you and I debating it, UK politicians would be thrashing it out with EU country counterparts, and with Macron, and with the increasingly vocal CEE voices, would have had a good chance of winning a fair few arguments.
We surely know why that has not happened. It's because of the existence of the swivel-eyed nutter wing within the Tory party, feeding in to (and sustained by) the insular, xenophobic element of British society (shall we call that the Lord Nelson element?).
The referendum caused people like you to get into bed with those politicians and the Lord Nelson element, and taking an entrenched stance on a naked in-out question, against people like me.
And now here we are.
As I have always said, views of remainers and leavers are not necessarily miles apart. For that reason, I have avoided ... most of the time ... getting into ridiculous arguments with extremists on either side.
Bearing in mind that I have frequently stated the basis on which I would not have a problem in staying in the EU (as exemplified by these last few posts), I certainly do not have an 'entrenched stance'.
Repeating my former post: "However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU."
If, as a result of the referendum, there had been more willingness to negotiate - from BOTH sides - we could have seen, as you state, 'UK politicians thrashing it out with EU country counterparts'.
The pity is that, as yet, this has not happened - however, there is still time.
I normally err on the side of optimism, so believe there is still a possibility of an outcome from this that will benefit all parties.
The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK. Juncker's intransigence and Verhofstadt's federal beliefs will not last - Barnier and Macron have far more sensible views concerning the future of the EU, and both would prefer to work with the UK.
I was a little concerned about the involvement of Martin Schulz but, now he has gone, we shall see what happens with Andrea Nahles.
Is he really being intransigent? If the UKs position was "we really don't want to leave, but politically we can only remain if we at least start discussing certain changes to the structure of the EU that we believe would have wide support if put on the table" then I can't see why negotiations wouldn't happen.
Instead our position seems to be "We're leaving, no matter how much it harms us or you, like it or lump it, and we want this list of mutually exclusive things, and we want you to suggest solutions to all the problems because we can't be bothered, now be a good boy and give us a great deal". How do you even begin to negotiate when the other side is holding that position, and spouting infantile nonsense like "if we told you what we want it'd weaken our negotiating position"?
Read my post again - "The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK"
Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law. No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
When I contemplate no border (a soft border, whatever that is, is still a border) I imagine travelling from one London borough to another, or going to Glasgow or Cardiff or Leeds. What you have described seems to require checks, however honest you may think the overwhelming majority may be. As you have said 'breaking the law' which implies enforcement. Ergo a hard border.
Of course there will be enforcement if the law is broken, but not by the creation of a border with customs checks, immigration checks etc. The enforcement would be before and after the event. Obviously this is not ideal and there will be some law breaking but you asked how the agreement with the Irish could be retained while we leave the EU and this is broadly how it would have to be.
I imagine the EU would resist this solution by the way as they are using the Irish question to try to force the UK to accept that it has to stay in the EU in all but name.
You have described (I think) a situation where in a sense the border is moved elsewhere, and it sounds aspirational, and you seem to be accepting there will be 'some law breaking'. Are you essentially saying that the authorities will simply turn a blind eye to whatever happens at the land border? Apart from the can of worms aspect of this, would no control of the border be brexit? Would every country demand the same terms?
A few more relevant extracts from the excellent article to which @Rothko refers:
Truly, this is the age of political cowardice dressed up as strategy.
I used to think that Jeremy Paxman’s interviewing credo – “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?” – was needlessly unfair to politicians, most of whom work long hours, put up with a lot of grief, and are motivated by a genuine desire to serve the public. But right now they are lying, almost all of them, almost all the time. And they’re doing it because they are frightened: of the press, of their own party members, of killing their own ambitions, of a rising tide of thoughtless populism.
I’ve been writing about politics for seven years now, and it’s double that since I first became politically active thanks to the disastrous Iraq War. In that time, I’ve never felt so depressed about my country and the quality of the people who want to lead it. Previous governments in my adult lifetime have been variously wrong, and cruel, and misguided, and deluded, and complacent. But I can’t remember a time when Britain’s problems seemed so large and the politicians confronting them felt so small.
Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law. No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
When I contemplate no border (a soft border, whatever that is, is still a border) I imagine travelling from one London borough to another, or going to Glasgow or Cardiff or Leeds. What you have described seems to require checks, however honest you may think the overwhelming majority may be. As you have said 'breaking the law' which implies enforcement. Ergo a hard border.
Of course there will be enforcement if the law is broken, but not by the creation of a border with customs checks, immigration checks etc. The enforcement would be before and after the event. Obviously this is not ideal and there will be some law breaking but you asked how the agreement with the Irish could be retained while we leave the EU and this is broadly how it would have to be.
I imagine the EU would resist this solution by the way as they are using the Irish question to try to force the UK to accept that it has to stay in the EU in all but name.
As @Bournemouth Addick mentioned, tariffs are not the only factor that requires controls on any border between different markets/customs regimes.
The UK Government is making noises about both buccaneering free trade (incidentally buccaneering, being a word from the French, boucanier, itself taken from the native Taino language in what is now Haiti, is not a particularly British activity) and regulatory divergence from the EU.
Leaving aside the possibility of there being a deep and wide trade agreement negotiated between the UK and EU27 any time soon (which I doubt), and, in the absence of such an agreement, there can be no preferential treatment granted to one party over any others in the WTO, there are some basic trade issues that make the UK Government's expressed desire for a frictionless, nay invisible, border, as now, incompatible for its desire to extract the UK from both the Customs Union and the Single Market.
Both sides of any customs border need, under WTO rules, to control access across the border and, where standards and regulations have diverged, to inspect imports to ensure that they meet the relevant standards for their own markets.
In addition, a significant proportion of the cross border in Ireland (including across the Irish Sea) will be foodstuffs, as both raw materials and finished products. There is a clear requirement for both sides to ensure that they protect their populations by rigorous sanitary and phyto-sanitary testing. As the UK is seeking trade agreements with countries, not just the USA, that allow for different animal welfare and food production standards, and very different rules on the use of pharmaceuticals (growth hormone, antibiotics, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides), it is only reasonable that, at the Irish border, just as with all of its external borders, the EU will stringently monitor such foodstuffs (just as they will electronic goods, etc.).
In an ideal world, the relationship across the Irish Border would be as today, and would be the same as with the EU as a whole. However, this cannot happen with the UK being outside the Single Market and Customs Union.
It is disingenuous on the part of some to argue that any border will be created because the EU wants it, as if the EU decides that it must erect controls just to spite the UK for voting for Brexit. Unless the UK can achieve the agreement of those countries with whom it has, by virtue of its membership of the EU, free trade arrangements, those countries will also have to put in place greater controls. The nature of the UK's relationship with all of these countries is being changed because of the UK's decision to leave the EU.
Personally, I do not believe that a Free Trade Agreement will be agreed between the UK and EU by the time that the transition period is due to end - a stated desire for divergence makes it difficult to agree a mutually acceptable deal, there is, I fear, remarkably little trust (many, in the EU, will have noted how quickly David Davis sought to, speaking charitably, creatively reinterpret the agreement between the UK and EU27 in December). There is no reason to believe that any of the EU27 would accept the UK view that the border can be addressed by a mix of trusted traders, technological wizardry and turning the occasional blind eye to SMEs.
@NornIrishAddick The UK has a noble history of privateering, which followed on from the buccaneering, with legendary names such as Henry Morgan, Captain Kidd, Blackbeard, Calico Jack, even, apparently, Francis Drake.
Just been reading an article speculating on what has been discussed by the Brexit inner cabinet this week.
Extract below:
“One option being talked about would see the UK remaining compliant with European rules and regulations on all goods other than agriculture. (To put it in technical language, the UK would remain fully aligned with the EU acquis on tariff chapters 25 to 99.) On services, the UK would reserve the right to regulate in its own way. This would lead to divergence from EU rules in fairly short order. In crude terms, this approach could be described as Norway for goods and TTIP — the abandoned US-EU trade deal — for services. The UK would, effectively, be trying to stay in the single market for goods while leaving it, to the extent that it exists, for services.”
“How would the EU respond to such an offer? On the one hand, it is cherry–picking — which the EU has repeatedly said it is against. But the EU would do well out of this deal. The UK would be effectively staying in the single market for goods, where it has a £96 billion trade deficit with the EU. Even so, Europe’s leaders know that insisting on free movement rights would scupper the deal. The EU’s understandable concern is to show that there isn’t a deal that is better than membership. It would be able to point out that the UK is only being allowed to trade in goods in this manner because it is committing to accepting rules over which it has no say. But whether that compensates for the blow to the unity of the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, capital and people — that this deal would represent is the crux of the matter. Even proponents of this approach inside government accept that there is huge uncertainty about whether the EU would entertain this kind of arrangement. But they also argue that it is only through negotiation that they will find out. Mrs May, however, can only properly start those conversations once she has finished negotiating with her own side on what the UK position should be.”
@NornIrishAddick The UK has a noble history of privateering, which followed on from the buccaneering, with legendary names such as Henry Morgan, Captain Kidd, Blackbeard, Calico Jack, even, apparently, Francis Drake.
Not many Spanish Galleons left to plunder I’m afraid.
@NornIrishAddick The UK has a noble history of privateering, which followed on from the buccaneering, with legendary names such as Henry Morgan, Captain Kidd, Blackbeard, Calico Jack, even, apparently, Francis Drake.
Also quite ironic because The Royal Navy couldn’t muster enough firepower to sink or board anything on the Princess of Wales pond on blackheath.
@NornIrishAddick The UK has a noble history of privateering, which followed on from the buccaneering, with legendary names such as Henry Morgan, Captain Kidd, Blackbeard, Calico Jack, even, apparently, Francis Drake.
@stonemuse, im not really sure that any if those mentioned had a "noble history of privateering", or even piracy (though, in fairness, a really successful pirate could, for a consideration, be declared a privateer after the event). Francis Drake and Henry Morgan, I will grant you were successful at piracy, with what might be considered dubious privateering commissions (but they were brutal and, in Morgan's case at least, prepared to betray his comrades).
Calico Jack Rackham was really only notable for having Anne Bonny and Mary Reade in his crew, they certainly had more balls than him when it came to the fight where they were captured (though they could avoid death by "pleading the belly").
The degree to which Captain Kidd was successful as a either a privateer or as a pirate is debatable (as is the legality of both his privateering commission and the actions of his backers), he is mostly famous because of his trial, which was much political as anything else.
Edward Teach, if that was Blackbeard's name, was more famous than successful, largely because of Captain Johnson's General History, he operated at a time when pamphlets made his fearsome reputation, most of his prizes were modest, and, as his log indicate, he was mostly interested in getting pissed, as well as being a bit unhinged.
Come to think of it, your examples are, in a Brexit context, beginning to make sense. What would have made the analogy complete would have been including Major Stede Bonnet, possibly the only pirate to have bought his ship, and one of the least successful.
On the other hand, if you'd mentioned Bartholomew Roberts (Black Bart), Christopher Condent, even poor old Thomas Tew, or, my personal favorite, Henry Avery/Every, I'd have been more impressed
The Dutch government plans to hire at least 750 new customs agents in preparation for Britain’s exit from the European Union.
The Dutch parliament’s Brexit rapporteur, Pieter Omtzigt, who had recommended the move, said both sides of the English Channel had been slow to wake up to the reality that Britain was on course to leave the EU in 14 months’ time.
“If we need hundreds of new customs and agricultural inspectors, the British are going to need thousands,” he said.
Omtzigt warned that “for a trading nation like the Netherlands, you just cannot afford for customs not to work, it would be a disaster”.
The Dutch government plans to hire at least 750 new customs agents in preparation for Britain’s exit from the European Union.
The Dutch parliament’s Brexit rapporteur, Pieter Omtzigt, who had recommended the move, said both sides of the English Channel had been slow to wake up to the reality that Britain was on course to leave the EU in 14 months’ time.
“If we need hundreds of new customs and agricultural inspectors, the British are going to need thousands,” he said.
Omtzigt warned that “for a trading nation like the Netherlands, you just cannot afford for customs not to work, it would be a disaster”.
The Dutch government plans to hire at least 750 new customs agents in preparation for Britain’s exit from the European Union.
The Dutch parliament’s Brexit rapporteur, Pieter Omtzigt, who had recommended the move, said both sides of the English Channel had been slow to wake up to the reality that Britain was on course to leave the EU in 14 months’ time.
“If we need hundreds of new customs and agricultural inspectors, the British are going to need thousands,” he said.
Omtzigt warned that “for a trading nation like the Netherlands, you just cannot afford for customs not to work, it would be a disaster”.
I wonder how much that is going to cost?
£350m a week?
What with the other costs of leaving, where an earth will we find that? Perhaps we can take it out of the NHS's budget.
“How would the EU respond to such an offer? On the one hand, it is cherry–picking — which the EU has repeatedly said it is against. But the EU would do well out of this deal. The UK would be effectively staying in the single market for goods, where it has a £96 billion trade deficit with the EU. Even so, Europe’s leaders know that insisting on free movement rights would scupper the deal. The EU’s understandable concern is to show that there isn’t a deal that is better than membership. It would be able to point out that the UK is only being allowed to trade in goods in this manner because it is committing to accepting rules over which it has no say. But whether that compensates for the blow to the unity of the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, capital and people — that this deal would represent is the crux of the matter. Even proponents of this approach inside government accept that there is huge uncertainty about whether the EU would entertain this kind of arrangement. But they also argue that it is only through negotiation that they will find out. Mrs May, however, can only properly start those conversations once she has finished negotiating with her own side on what the UK position should be.”
And that negotiation process should have started the day after the dozy bint triggered Article 50. This the first time I have heard such an intelligent proposal from the UK side. Why only now? Oh yes, because it was more important to have a General Election...
“How would the EU respond to such an offer? On the one hand, it is cherry–picking — which the EU has repeatedly said it is against. But the EU would do well out of this deal. The UK would be effectively staying in the single market for goods, where it has a £96 billion trade deficit with the EU. Even so, Europe’s leaders know that insisting on free movement rights would scupper the deal. The EU’s understandable concern is to show that there isn’t a deal that is better than membership. It would be able to point out that the UK is only being allowed to trade in goods in this manner because it is committing to accepting rules over which it has no say. But whether that compensates for the blow to the unity of the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, capital and people — that this deal would represent is the crux of the matter. Even proponents of this approach inside government accept that there is huge uncertainty about whether the EU would entertain this kind of arrangement. But they also argue that it is only through negotiation that they will find out. Mrs May, however, can only properly start those conversations once she has finished negotiating with her own side on what the UK position should be.”
And that negotiation process should have started the day after the dozy bint triggered Article 50. This the first time I have heard such an intelligent proposal from the UK side. Why only now? Oh yes, because it was more important to have a General Election...
If you get a chance, take a look at this week’s New Statesman. The NS Essay on Macron is a good read.
“How would the EU respond to such an offer? On the one hand, it is cherry–picking — which the EU has repeatedly said it is against. But the EU would do well out of this deal. The UK would be effectively staying in the single market for goods, where it has a £96 billion trade deficit with the EU. Even so, Europe’s leaders know that insisting on free movement rights would scupper the deal. The EU’s understandable concern is to show that there isn’t a deal that is better than membership. It would be able to point out that the UK is only being allowed to trade in goods in this manner because it is committing to accepting rules over which it has no say. But whether that compensates for the blow to the unity of the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, capital and people — that this deal would represent is the crux of the matter. Even proponents of this approach inside government accept that there is huge uncertainty about whether the EU would entertain this kind of arrangement. But they also argue that it is only through negotiation that they will find out. Mrs May, however, can only properly start those conversations once she has finished negotiating with her own side on what the UK position should be.”
And that negotiation process should have started the day after the dozy bint triggered Article 50. This the first time I have heard such an intelligent proposal from the UK side. Why only now? Oh yes, because it was more important to have a General Election...
If you get a chance, take a look at this week’s New Statesman. The NS Essay on Macron is a good read.
I will take a look during the second half this afternoon, as we know how that will go..
Meanwhile, regarding why the politicians are so afraid...it seems to me that the extremists have successfully captured the media to the point where their voices appear to be representative. I'm thinking particularly of the BBC. Right now on Any Questions I am obliged to listen the views of Daniel Hannan on a range of subjects. His views could most kindly be described as unremarkable, and the audience seem to agree. From 300 or so Tory backbenchers to choose from, why is he chosen by the BBC to appear? Similarly I read that Question Time ended with the information that next week Farage would be on. It was apparently met with significant booing. What is he? The founder of UKIP. And UKIP in the polls has 2%. And they have a leader, it is not Farage. Why is Farage on?
The extremists have successfully bullied the BBC, and moderate mature politicians cannot get a look in
“How would the EU respond to such an offer? On the one hand, it is cherry–picking — which the EU has repeatedly said it is against. But the EU would do well out of this deal. The UK would be effectively staying in the single market for goods, where it has a £96 billion trade deficit with the EU. Even so, Europe’s leaders know that insisting on free movement rights would scupper the deal. The EU’s understandable concern is to show that there isn’t a deal that is better than membership. It would be able to point out that the UK is only being allowed to trade in goods in this manner because it is committing to accepting rules over which it has no say. But whether that compensates for the blow to the unity of the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, capital and people — that this deal would represent is the crux of the matter. Even proponents of this approach inside government accept that there is huge uncertainty about whether the EU would entertain this kind of arrangement. But they also argue that it is only through negotiation that they will find out. Mrs May, however, can only properly start those conversations once she has finished negotiating with her own side on what the UK position should be.”
And that negotiation process should have started the day after the dozy bint triggered Article 50. This the first time I have heard such an intelligent proposal from the UK side. Why only now? Oh yes, because it was more important to have a General Election...
If you get a chance, take a look at this week’s New Statesman. The NS Essay on Macron is a good read.
I will take a look during the second half this afternoon, as we know how that will go..
Meanwhile, regarding why the politicians are so afraid...it seems to me that the extremists have successfully captured the media to the point where their voices appear to be representative. I'm thinking particularly of the BBC. Right now on Any Questions I am obliged to listen the views of Daniel Hannan on a range of subjects. His views could most kindly be described as unremarkable, and the audience seem to agree. From 300 or so Tory backbenchers to choose from, why is he chosen by the BBC to appear? Similarly I read that Question Time ended with the information that next week Farage would be on. It was apparently met with significant booing. What is he? The founder of UKIP. And UKIP in the polls has 2%. And they have a leader, it is not Farage. Why is Farage on?
The extremists have successfully bullied the BBC, and moderate mature politicians cannot get a look in
There is probably an element of truth in that. Bottom line, they have no bottle: toe the party line, don't upset the media, avoid being revolutionary, think about yourself before the country.
In the UK, two politicians stand out for being different and going their own way (I discount Boris because he is now a caricature) - Corbyn and Rees-Mogg - both seem to be building up a 'cult'. I do not believe either would be good for the country - in fact I believe they could both be disastrous.
And yet, you can be different and go your own way in a positive fashion. I am still unsure to a certain extent about Macron, but I do admire the way is is looking to make change domestically and internationally. Whether he will succeed depends on many factors, but he is certainly not an insular man.
Just been reading an article speculating on what has been discussed by the Brexit inner cabinet this week.
Extract below:
“One option being talked about would see the UK remaining compliant with European rules and regulations on all goods other than agriculture. (To put it in technical language, the UK would remain fully aligned with the EU acquis on tariff chapters 25 to 99.) On services, the UK would reserve the right to regulate in its own way. This would lead to divergence from EU rules in fairly short order. In crude terms, this approach could be described as Norway for goods and TTIP — the abandoned US-EU trade deal — for services. The UK would, effectively, be trying to stay in the single market for goods while leaving it, to the extent that it exists, for services.”
Worth adding, in order to address the issue always raised by @seth plum that this, in respect of goods, may go some way to solving the Irish border issue.
Agriculture? Ireland is a heavily agrarian economy, so if all goods flow back and forth unhindered except agriculture, then a hard border will be required, am I right in assuming this? Then of course there is the free movement of people to consider.
Agriculture? Ireland is a heavily agrarian economy, so if all goods flow back and forth unhindered except agriculture, then a hard border will be required, am I right in assuming this? Then of course there is the free movement of people to consider.
I did not say it was a complete solution - '...may go some way...'.
It's a start - you have been saying that nothing is on the table - if this goes forward, then we may see a positive outcome.
Agriculture? Ireland is a heavily agrarian economy, so if all goods flow back and forth unhindered except agriculture, then a hard border will be required, am I right in assuming this? Then of course there is the free movement of people to consider.
I did not say it was a complete solution - '...may go some way...'.
It's a start - you have been saying that nothing is on the table - if this goes forward, then we may see a positive outcome.
I have asked for solutions much more than declaring nothing is on the table. Solutions that will have legs in the long term. So far at the very best there are tentative feelers being put out. Why didn't those who voted for brexit even put out those tentative feelers, let alone have a thought through Irish border solution before the brexit vote? I suspect the answer to that is for many it was not something they considered, and for others it has been waved away with the back of the hand in the hope they can blag it.
Agriculture? Ireland is a heavily agrarian economy, so if all goods flow back and forth unhindered except agriculture, then a hard border will be required, am I right in assuming this? Then of course there is the free movement of people to consider.
I did not say it was a complete solution - '...may go some way...'.
It's a start - you have been saying that nothing is on the table - if this goes forward, then we may see a positive outcome.
I have asked for solutions much more than declaring nothing is on the table. Solutions that will have legs in the long term. So far at the very best there are tentative feelers being put out. Why didn't those who voted for brexit even put out those tentative feelers, let alone have a thought through Irish border solution before the brexit vote? I suspect the answer to that is for many it was not something they considered, and for others it has been waved away with the back of the hand in the hope they can blag it.
This has been stated by others on numerous occasions - those who voted Brexit do not get to decide the solution. That is for our defective political class. My only reason for posting was to point out that ... finally ... someone at that level is looking at it.
It's a start - which I thought was what you have been seeking? Surely its better than nothing happening?
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
Comments
Bearing in mind that I have frequently stated the basis on which I would not have a problem in staying in the EU (as exemplified by these last few posts), I certainly do not have an 'entrenched stance'.
Repeating my former post: "However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU."
If, as a result of the referendum, there had been more willingness to negotiate - from BOTH sides - we could have seen, as you state, 'UK politicians thrashing it out with EU country counterparts'.
The pity is that, as yet, this has not happened - however, there is still time.
I normally err on the side of optimism, so believe there is still a possibility of an outcome from this that will benefit all parties.
The problem is, of course, the current defective political class in the UK. Juncker's intransigence and Verhofstadt's federal beliefs will not last - Barnier and Macron have far more sensible views concerning the future of the EU, and both would prefer to work with the UK.
I was a little concerned about the involvement of Martin Schulz but, now he has gone, we shall see what happens with Andrea Nahles.
Instead our position seems to be "We're leaving, no matter how much it harms us or you, like it or lump it, and we want this list of mutually exclusive things, and we want you to suggest solutions to all the problems because we can't be bothered, now be a good boy and give us a great deal". How do you even begin to negotiate when the other side is holding that position, and spouting infantile nonsense like "if we told you what we want it'd weaken our negotiating position"?
Are you essentially saying that the authorities will simply turn a blind eye to whatever happens at the land border?
Apart from the can of worms aspect of this, would no control of the border be brexit? Would every country demand the same terms?
Truly, this is the age of political cowardice dressed up as strategy.
I used to think that Jeremy Paxman’s interviewing credo – “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?” – was needlessly unfair to politicians, most of whom work long hours, put up with a lot of grief, and are motivated by a genuine desire to serve the public. But right now they are lying, almost all of them, almost all the time. And they’re doing it because they are frightened: of the press, of their own party members, of killing their own ambitions, of a rising tide of thoughtless populism.
I’ve been writing about politics for seven years now, and it’s double that since I first became politically active thanks to the disastrous Iraq War. In that time, I’ve never felt so depressed about my country and the quality of the people who want to lead it. Previous governments in my adult lifetime have been variously wrong, and cruel, and misguided, and deluded, and complacent. But I can’t remember a time when Britain’s problems seemed so large and the politicians confronting them felt so small.
The UK Government is making noises about both buccaneering free trade (incidentally buccaneering, being a word from the French, boucanier, itself taken from the native Taino language in what is now Haiti, is not a particularly British activity) and regulatory divergence from the EU.
Leaving aside the possibility of there being a deep and wide trade agreement negotiated between the UK and EU27 any time soon (which I doubt), and, in the absence of such an agreement, there can be no preferential treatment granted to one party over any others in the WTO, there are some basic trade issues that make the UK Government's expressed desire for a frictionless, nay invisible, border, as now, incompatible for its desire to extract the UK from both the Customs Union and the Single Market.
Both sides of any customs border need, under WTO rules, to control access across the border and, where standards and regulations have diverged, to inspect imports to ensure that they meet the relevant standards for their own markets.
In addition, a significant proportion of the cross border in Ireland (including across the Irish Sea) will be foodstuffs, as both raw materials and finished products. There is a clear requirement for both sides to ensure that they protect their populations by rigorous sanitary and phyto-sanitary testing. As the UK is seeking trade agreements with countries, not just the USA, that allow for different animal welfare and food production standards, and very different rules on the use of pharmaceuticals (growth hormone, antibiotics, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides), it is only reasonable that, at the Irish border, just as with all of its external borders, the EU will stringently monitor such foodstuffs (just as they will electronic goods, etc.).
In an ideal world, the relationship across the Irish Border would be as today, and would be the same as with the EU as a whole. However, this cannot happen with the UK being outside the Single Market and Customs Union.
It is disingenuous on the part of some to argue that any border will be created because the EU wants it, as if the EU decides that it must erect controls just to spite the UK for voting for Brexit. Unless the UK can achieve the agreement of those countries with whom it has, by virtue of its membership of the EU, free trade arrangements, those countries will also have to put in place greater controls. The nature of the UK's relationship with all of these countries is being changed because of the UK's decision to leave the EU.
Personally, I do not believe that a Free Trade Agreement will be agreed between the UK and EU by the time that the transition period is due to end - a stated desire for divergence makes it difficult to agree a mutually acceptable deal, there is, I fear, remarkably little trust (many, in the EU, will have noted how quickly David Davis sought to, speaking charitably, creatively reinterpret the agreement between the UK and EU27 in December). There is no reason to believe that any of the EU27 would accept the UK view that the border can be addressed by a mix of trusted traders, technological wizardry and turning the occasional blind eye to SMEs.
Extract below:
“One option being talked about would see the UK remaining compliant with European rules and regulations on all goods other than agriculture. (To put it in technical language, the UK would remain fully aligned with the EU acquis on tariff chapters 25 to 99.)
On services, the UK would reserve the right to regulate in its own way. This would lead to divergence from EU rules in fairly short order.
In crude terms, this approach could be described as Norway for goods and TTIP — the abandoned US-EU trade deal — for services. The UK would, effectively, be trying to stay in the single market for goods while leaving it, to the extent that it exists, for services.”
The EU’s understandable concern is to show that there isn’t a deal that is better than membership. It would be able to point out that the UK is only being allowed to trade in goods in this manner because it is committing to accepting rules over which it has no say. But whether that compensates for the blow to the unity of the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, capital and people — that this deal would represent is the crux of the matter. Even proponents of this approach inside government accept that there is huge uncertainty about whether the EU would entertain this kind of arrangement. But they also argue that it is only through negotiation that they will find out. Mrs May, however, can only properly start those conversations once she has finished negotiating with her own side on what the UK position should be.”
https://spectator.co.uk/2018/02/there-can-be-no-brexit-deal-without-tory-unity/
Calico Jack Rackham was really only notable for having Anne Bonny and Mary Reade in his crew, they certainly had more balls than him when it came to the fight where they were captured (though they could avoid death by "pleading the belly").
The degree to which Captain Kidd was successful as a either a privateer or as a pirate is debatable (as is the legality of both his privateering commission and the actions of his backers), he is mostly famous because of his trial, which was much political as anything else.
Edward Teach, if that was Blackbeard's name, was more famous than successful, largely because of Captain Johnson's General History, he operated at a time when pamphlets made his fearsome reputation, most of his prizes were modest, and, as his log indicate, he was mostly interested in getting pissed, as well as being a bit unhinged.
Come to think of it, your examples are, in a Brexit context, beginning to make sense. What would have made the analogy complete would have been including Major Stede Bonnet, possibly the only pirate to have bought his ship, and one of the least successful.
On the other hand, if you'd mentioned Bartholomew Roberts (Black Bart), Christopher Condent, even poor old Thomas Tew, or, my personal favorite, Henry Avery/Every, I'd have been more impressed
The Dutch government plans to hire at least 750 new customs agents in preparation for Britain’s exit from the European Union.
The Dutch parliament’s Brexit rapporteur, Pieter Omtzigt, who had recommended the move, said both sides of the English Channel had been slow to wake up to the reality that Britain was on course to leave the EU in 14 months’ time.
“If we need hundreds of new customs and agricultural inspectors, the British are going to need thousands,” he said.
Omtzigt warned that “for a trading nation like the Netherlands, you just cannot afford for customs not to work, it would be a disaster”.
I wonder how much that is going to cost?
This the first time I have heard such an intelligent proposal from the UK side. Why only now? Oh yes, because it was more important to have a General Election...
Meanwhile, regarding why the politicians are so afraid...it seems to me that the extremists have successfully captured the media to the point where their voices appear to be representative. I'm thinking particularly of the BBC. Right now on Any Questions I am obliged to listen the views of Daniel Hannan on a range of subjects. His views could most kindly be described as unremarkable, and the audience seem to agree. From 300 or so Tory backbenchers to choose from, why is he chosen by the BBC to appear? Similarly I read that Question Time ended with the information that next week Farage would be on. It was apparently met with significant booing. What is he? The founder of UKIP. And UKIP in the polls has 2%. And they have a leader, it is not Farage. Why is Farage on?
The extremists have successfully bullied the BBC, and moderate mature politicians cannot get a look in
In the UK, two politicians stand out for being different and going their own way (I discount Boris because he is now a caricature) - Corbyn and Rees-Mogg - both seem to be building up a 'cult'. I do not believe either would be good for the country - in fact I believe they could both be disastrous.
And yet, you can be different and go your own way in a positive fashion. I am still unsure to a certain extent about Macron, but I do admire the way is is looking to make change domestically and internationally. Whether he will succeed depends on many factors, but he is certainly not an insular man.
Ireland is a heavily agrarian economy, so if all goods flow back and forth unhindered except agriculture, then a hard border will be required, am I right in assuming this?
Then of course there is the free movement of people to consider.
It's a start - you have been saying that nothing is on the table - if this goes forward, then we may see a positive outcome.
So far at the very best there are tentative feelers being put out.
Why didn't those who voted for brexit even put out those tentative feelers, let alone have a thought through Irish border solution before the brexit vote?
I suspect the answer to that is for many it was not something they considered, and for others it has been waved away with the back of the hand in the hope they can blag it.
It's a start - which I thought was what you have been seeking? Surely its better than nothing happening?
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".