Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Herzlos wrote: That's the thing; "leaving the EU" means different things to different people, and however we chose to leave the EU, most of them will be unhappy.
Especially when the expecations are so impossible, like a reset to pre-1970's Britain.
Like I said earlier, there are a number of templates Britain could adopt.
The trade deals that Australia and Japan have with the EU don't involve free movement, and yet, these two countries happily trade with the EU.
What's to stop Britain having something similar?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Nothing at all. Will people be happy with that outcome though?
How does the trading agreement with Japan differ from ours? I can't find anything offhand beyond trading amounts. Do they have financial passporting or customs-free shipping? Are there any differences in tariff?
I import a lot of stuff from Japan, but it's all been for under £15 soI've no idea if there are meant to be duties or customs charges.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 10:46:06
The 16th round of negotiations took place in Tokyo in April 2016. The round addressed issues such as trade in goods, services and trade barriers, but also investment and public procurement. The next round of negotiations will be held in Brussels in September 2016.
The EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement negotiations were officially launched on 25 March 2013, after the release of an impact assessment of the future Free Trade Agreement in July 2012.
A Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) of the EU-Japan FTA was carried out for the European Commission and was published in 2016.
A Strategic Partnership Agreement between the EU and Japan is being negotiated in parallel with the Free Trade Agreement.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
The 16th round of negotiations took place in Tokyo in April 2016. The round addressed issues such as trade in goods, services and trade barriers, but also investment and public procurement. The next round of negotiations will be held in Brussels in September 2016.
The EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement negotiations were officially launched on 25 March 2013, after the release of an impact assessment of the future Free Trade Agreement in July 2012.
A Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) of the EU-Japan FTA was carried out for the European Commission and was published in 2016.
A Strategic Partnership Agreement between the EU and Japan is being negotiated in parallel with the Free Trade Agreement.
These are just fine tuning what was already happening. Even as we post, cars will be on their way from Japan to Europe, or being made in a Japanese owned factory in Europe. You'll find that these 'trade deals' are nothing more than dotting I's or crossing T's.
For example, in the case of cars, it'll just be some small print about Japanese cars complying with EU emission levels or something, but the general principal of Japan selling cars to the EU, will not be impeded...
The show must go on
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Stranger83 wrote: I keep reading how there was no plan for leave, but I think there was a plan, at least as much as the remain one.
Remain plan – stay in the EU as now, try to sway policy as much as possible and stop the EU from its intended aim of being a super state
Leave Plan – Leave the EU, strike a good negotiation with them, implement boarder controls and strike trade deals with the rest of the world that the EU has been unable to do.
These two plans seem fairly similar in the amount of detail as to how they would achieve what they wanted to me. You may argue that Leave didn’t say HOW it was going to make these trade deals, but then remain never said HOW it was going to stop the EU from integrating more and more.
And as for the remain side had a plan and leave didn’t – lets not forget that the remain side refused to allow any government department to do any planning for what might happen if we were to leave, whilst remain had the full government machine working to it’s plan – hardly surprising that leave couldn’t come up with a full plan considering it wasn’t allowed to use the resources of the people in the know to make said plan.
Rubbish.
Leave couldn't come up with a plan because they are grumbling backbench malcontent euro-phobes, not leaders. They had plenty of experienced politicians and resources available, Farage was an MEP FFS, and had been for years, and should be thoroughly conversant with EU mechanisms and have an idea how we could extricate ourselves.
They didn't come up with a plan because it would have been enormously damaging to their campaign, because they would have been obliged to explain reality, not just bang on about immigration. Their message would have been diluted and torn to shreds by Remain, and they would have lost, badly.
A plan would have been too difficult for them to do, it's much easier to just shout OUT! OUT! OUT! Kick up a fuss, and let someone else sort out the mess afterwards. This has been proven by the actions of their "leadership" immediately following this campaign.
You honestly believe that the government departments being told that they could not in any way do any investigation into what Brexit might look like had no impact on leaves ability to say how they would action Brexit? In that case why do we even have a government departments at all, apparently none of it is relevant to making a plan of action.
Also, again you claim that they had NO plan - this simply isn't true:
1) An Australian style points system
2) Trade agreements with the rest of the world
3) A trade agreement with Europe without the political union.
4) Removal of the EU red tape
This sounds like a plan to me, you might not agree with the plan but it is a plan none the same - it may be lacking the detail of how they would do this - but of cause it'll be done by the government departments who were told that they cannot do any preparation work for Brexit - thus how could they say how they would achieve this?
As for the calls of 'where is Farage now' even if he was still head of UKIP what would you expect him to do? He's not part of the government so couldn't influence the details of Brexit anyway. (As a note I'm not a fan of Farage, but the claims that he has abandoned the ship are crazy considering he wasn't in charge of anything anyway).
The EU in its current form has existed, since, what, Lisbon? That's 10 - 15 years, plus Maastricht before that, and the EEC before that.
Modern Japan, in its post WW2 form, has been trading with Europe and the UK since the 1950s, so that predates the EU or the EEC.
So the idea that Japanese trade with Europe hinges on these links you cite, is obviously not true...
Pragmatism usually trumps most things. Japan has cars for sale, Europe wants to buy them, a deal is struck, and that's been happening for decades.;
We know why these trade deals drag on, because the EU bogs them down with small print and red tape.
Big corporations, who fear innovation and enterprise from small to medium sized businesses, lobby hard to have all this stuff included, because they know it will stifle competition from their smaller rivals...
That's one reason for the time drag...
But to address my original point, pragmatism will dictate any deal struck between Britain and the EU, just as it did between the EU and Japan...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Also, again you claim that they had NO plan - this simply isn't true:
1) An Australian style points system
2) Trade agreements with the rest of the world
3) A trade agreement with Europe without the political union.
4) Removal of the EU red tape
This sounds like a plan to me, you might not agree with the plan but it is a plan none the same - it may be lacking the detail of how they would do this - but of cause it'll be done by the government departments who were told that they cannot do any preparation work for Brexit - thus how could they say how they would achieve this?
None of that was presented as a plan, only "possible promises". Aus style points system was floated as one idea for changing migration, and the rest was suitably vague. It's better than nothing but it's by no stretch of the imagination a plan. I deal with plans and proposals at work, and if I tried to pass that off as a plan I'd be laughed out of the building.
A plan would include things like timescales, which red tape to get rid, of what trade terms they want with the EU/ROW.
If the SNP can do that, why can't the Remain side? I genuinely suspect it's because none of them thought that they'd actually win, and the whole thing was just to try and boost their personal status in Parliament.
As for the calls of 'where is Farage now' even if he was still head of UKIP what would you expect him to do? He's not part of the government so couldn't influence the details of Brexit anyway. (As a note I'm not a fan of Farage, but the claims that he has abandoned the ship are crazy considering he wasn't in charge of anything anyway).
This is his political lifes work, you'd think he'd be trying to get involved with making proposals, plans, meeting people, showboating, making sure the government does it's job. Instead, he's stood down, whilst keeping his pretty generous (considering his attendance) MEPs salary.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/24 12:10:02
Herzlos wrote: That's the thing; "leaving the EU" means different things to different people, and however we chose to leave the EU, most of them will be unhappy.
Especially when the expecations are so impossible, like a reset to pre-1970's Britain.
Like I said earlier, there are a number of templates Britain could adopt.
The trade deals that Australia and Japan have with the EU don't involve free movement, and yet, these two countries happily trade with the EU.
What's to stop Britain having something similar?
Trade deals are not the same as free trade and a common market. If we want to come to a deal equivalent to what we have now we will have to accept something much the same as the current situation with all the free movement. The EU have been quite clear about this. If we want a normal trade deal (as places like Japan and Australia have) it will be nothing like the same as today. Tarriffs may be removed, but there will be tax issues, import and customs issues etc. If a person or company in the UK goes to buy something from a supplier in France or Greece they can do so just the same as a supplier in London or Doncaster. This is not the case with a supplier in Japan or Australia.
Also, again you claim that they had NO plan - this simply isn't true:
1) An Australian style points system
2) Trade agreements with the rest of the world
3) A trade agreement with Europe without the political union.
4) Removal of the EU red tape
This sounds like a plan to me, you might not agree with the plan but it is a plan none the same - it may be lacking the detail of how they would do this - but of cause it'll be done by the government departments who were told that they cannot do any preparation work for Brexit - thus how could they say how they would achieve this?
None of that was presented as a plan, only "possible promises". Aus style points system was floated as one idea for changing migration, and the rest was suitably vague. It's better than nothing but it's by no stretch of the imagination a plan. I deal with plans and proposals at work, and if I tried to pass that off as a plan I'd be laughed out of the building.
A plan would include things like timescales, which red tape to get rid, of what trade terms they want with the EU/ROW.
If the SNP can do that, why can't the Remain side? I genuinely suspect it's because none of them thought that they'd actually win, and the whole thing was just to try and boost their personal status in Parliament.
As for the calls of 'where is Farage now' even if he was still head of UKIP what would you expect him to do? He's not part of the government so couldn't influence the details of Brexit anyway. (As a note I'm not a fan of Farage, but the claims that he has abandoned the ship are crazy considering he wasn't in charge of anything anyway).
This is his political lifes work, you'd think he'd be trying to get involved with making proposals, plans, meeting people, showboating, making sure the government does it's job. Instead, he's stood down, whilst keeping his pretty generous (considering his attendance) MEPs salary.
Presumable the plans and proposals you deal with at work require you to speak to departments and other employees and see how you might go ahead with executing said plans? Let me ask you how detailed a plan you could come up with if everyone but you was told that they could not provide any input into your plan? Would you be able to list in intricate detail how you would go about implementing the changes you're suggesting or would it be a more general list of bullet points with the details to be filled in at a later point?
The SNP plan was more in depth, but of cause there the Scottish Parliament put the full weight of it's machinery into developing a plan - which is the point I'm making. Leave gave the best plan they could considering that the people who would be in charge of implementing the process were told that under no circumstance were they to do anything that might show how Brexit would work.
As for Farage, he may have stood down from UKIP but he's still fairly active in campaigning for Article 50 to be enacted - honestly considering that he wouldn't have had any say it in anyway (not being part of government) I'm not entirely sure what more he could have done had he stayed on as UKIP leader that he isn't doing now anyway.
Stranger83 wrote: I keep reading how there was no plan for leave, but I think there was a plan, at least as much as the remain one.
Remain plan – stay in the EU as now, try to sway policy as much as possible and stop the EU from its intended aim of being a super state
Leave Plan – Leave the EU, strike a good negotiation with them, implement boarder controls and strike trade deals with the rest of the world that the EU has been unable to do.
These two plans seem fairly similar in the amount of detail as to how they would achieve what they wanted to me. You may argue that Leave didn’t say HOW it was going to make these trade deals, but then remain never said HOW it was going to stop the EU from integrating more and more.
And as for the remain side had a plan and leave didn’t – lets not forget that the remain side refused to allow any government department to do any planning for what might happen if we were to leave, whilst remain had the full government machine working to it’s plan – hardly surprising that leave couldn’t come up with a full plan considering it wasn’t allowed to use the resources of the people in the know to make said plan.
Rubbish.
Leave couldn't come up with a plan because they are grumbling backbench malcontent euro-phobes, not leaders. They had plenty of experienced politicians and resources available, Farage was an MEP FFS, and had been for years, and should be thoroughly conversant with EU mechanisms and have an idea how we could extricate ourselves.
They didn't come up with a plan because it would have been enormously damaging to their campaign, because they would have been obliged to explain reality, not just bang on about immigration. Their message would have been diluted and torn to shreds by Remain, and they would have lost, badly.
A plan would have been too difficult for them to do, it's much easier to just shout OUT! OUT! OUT! Kick up a fuss, and let someone else sort out the mess afterwards. This has been proven by the actions of their "leadership" immediately following this campaign.
You honestly believe that the government departments being told that they could not in any way do any investigation into what Brexit might look like had no impact on leaves ability to say how they would action Brexit? In that case why do we even have a government departments at all, apparently none of it is relevant to making a plan of action.
Also, again you claim that they had NO plan - this simply isn't true:
1) An Australian style points system
2) Trade agreements with the rest of the world
3) A trade agreement with Europe without the political union.
4) Removal of the EU red tape
This sounds like a plan to me, you might not agree with the plan but it is a plan none the same - it may be lacking the detail of how they would do this - but of cause it'll be done by the government departments who were told that they cannot do any preparation work for Brexit - thus how could they say how they would achieve this?
As for the calls of 'where is Farage now' even if he was still head of UKIP what would you expect him to do? He's not part of the government so couldn't influence the details of Brexit anyway. (As a note I'm not a fan of Farage, but the claims that he has abandoned the ship are crazy considering he wasn't in charge of anything anyway).
That's not a plan, that's a wishlist.
So, where do we stand on Free trade, human rights, employment law, etc etc? You do understand that 27 other countries will have their say during negotiations? We can't just "feth this gak", tear everything up and saunter off? Or are you like the tearful old biddy who just wants the nasty old EU to go away?
As was stated before, the SNP were obliged to come up with a detailed white paper, whilst there was no obligation on Leave to do the same, but they singularly failed to produce anything at all, except provide a wishlist, which differs from individual to individual.
As to Farage, that despicable piece of human waste has slithered off after completing his life's work of being an uncomfortable, pustulant boil on the arsehole of British politics. As a man determined to lead UKIP and the country out of Europe, I would have expected him to provide something, but that's beyond him.
There's a reason people keep repeating the mantra Brexit means Brexit, is because no one has the faintest clue what to do, and even leave voters, so keen to do something else, have not one clear idea of what to get.
Which is why I asked, thanks for providing the wishlist, but that's all it is. It's likely that the majority of that wishlist will be compromised during negotiations, especially red tape, if we're to continue trading with them in any way whatsoever.
So I'll ask again, what plan do you have, what compromises are you willing to accept as a Leaver? If the Govt come back from negotiations and you're not happy with the result, what do we do then? Have another vote?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
As to Farage, that despicable piece of human waste has slithered off after completing his life's work of being an uncomfortable, pustulant boil on the arsehole of British politics. As a man determined to lead UKIP and the country out of Europe, I would have expected him to provide something, but that's beyond him.
We've disagreed on lot of things, but I think we can agree on this:
Farage is not gone. I'm not buying this 'retirement' and I doubt if anybody else is, either. He'll be back - his ego wouldn't allow anything else.
Expect a 'reluctant' Farage to return sometime in the near future...
Herzlos wrote: That's the thing; "leaving the EU" means different things to different people, and however we chose to leave the EU, most of them will be unhappy.
Especially when the expecations are so impossible, like a reset to pre-1970's Britain.
Like I said earlier, there are a number of templates Britain could adopt.
The trade deals that Australia and Japan have with the EU don't involve free movement, and yet, these two countries happily trade with the EU.
What's to stop Britain having something similar?
Trade deals are not the same as free trade and a common market. If we want to come to a deal equivalent to what we have now we will have to accept something much the same as the current situation with all the free movement. The EU have been quite clear about this. If we want a normal trade deal (as places like Japan and Australia have) it will be nothing like the same as today. Tarriffs may be removed, but there will be tax issues, import and customs issues etc. If a person or company in the UK goes to buy something from a supplier in France or Greece they can do so just the same as a supplier in London or Doncaster. This is not the case with a supplier in Japan or Australia.
We know why these trade deals drag on, because the EU bogs them down with small print and red tape.
No, trade deals drag on because they are complex and politicly charged. They drag on all over the world.
This goes to the heart of what I'm saying - why do we have to have a 'common market' deal with the EU that involves free movement? Why is Britain being singled out when other countries trade with the EU without free movement? Canada being another example.
We know why these trade deals drag on, because the EU bogs them down with small print and red tape.
From my dealings with Defra I can tell you I'd rather deal with the whole EU servant cadre on their worst day than with them.
Not as bad as the Ministère de l'Agriculture, though, but several rungs worse than the Dutch or Italian (yes, Italian) relevant bodies.
Bureaucracy the world over is never good, regardless of country.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/24 12:43:39
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Presumable the plans and proposals you deal with at work require you to speak to departments and other employees and see how you might go ahead with executing said plans? Let me ask you how detailed a plan you could come up with if everyone but you was told that they could not provide any input into your plan? Would you be able to list in intricate detail how you would go about implementing the changes you're suggesting or would it be a more general list of bullet points with the details to be filled in at a later point?
The plans* I work with involve other departments within a multinational company, in different parts of the world with different management and political affiliations.
My plan still involve what I intend to do, with as much detail as possible, and what I expect them to do, with as much detail as possible, and deadlines. They can then negotiate, but they don't need to be involved in the initial draft.
The SNP plan was more in depth, but of cause there the Scottish Parliament put the full weight of it's machinery into developing a plan - which is the point I'm making. Leave gave the best plan they could considering that the people who would be in charge of implementing the process were told that under no circumstance were they to do anything that might show how Brexit would work.
Indeed the SNP plan involved a lot of staff, but a high school student could crap out a better plan in an afternoon than the Leave campaign managed in however many years of planning. We've had more thoughtful proposals on here than I've seen from the Leave campaign.
As for Farage, he may have stood down from UKIP but he's still fairly active in campaigning for Article 50 to be enacted - honestly considering that he wouldn't have had any say it in anyway (not being part of government) I'm not entirely sure what more he could have done had he stayed on as UKIP leader that he isn't doing now anyway.
Is he providing any meaningful plan for article 50 or is he just screaming about triggering it now whatever happens?
He should still be heading up UKIP** and trying to steer things as best he can whilst keeping pressure up in Parliament to get things done.
*Admittedly, the plans I deal with are microscopic compared to a major member of a trading union trying to detach itself.
**And I say that as someone who wouldn't object if Farage and UKIP were to feth off entirely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 13:05:07
So, where do we stand on Free trade, human rights, employment law, etc etc? You do understand that 27 other countries will have their say during negotiations? We can't just "feth this gak", tear everything up and saunter off? Or are you like the tearful old biddy who just wants the nasty old EU to go away?
As was stated before, the SNP were obliged to come up with a detailed white paper, whilst there was no obligation on Leave to do the same, but they singularly failed to produce anything at all, except provide a wishlist, which differs from individual to individual.
As to Farage, that despicable piece of human waste has slithered off after completing his life's work of being an uncomfortable, pustulant boil on the arsehole of British politics. As a man determined to lead UKIP and the country out of Europe, I would have expected him to provide something, but that's beyond him.
There's a reason people keep repeating the mantra Brexit means Brexit, is because no one has the faintest clue what to do, and even leave voters, so keen to do something else, have not one clear idea of what to get.
Which is why I asked, thanks for providing the wishlist, but that's all it is. It's likely that the majority of that wishlist will be compromised during negotiations, especially red tape, if we're to continue trading with them in any way whatsoever.
So I'll ask again, what plan do you have, what compromises are you willing to accept as a Leaver? If the Govt come back from negotiations and you're not happy with the result, what do we do then? Have another vote?
So you wanted leave to complete the entire negotiations before the vote and without any input from government departments?
Of cause the other 27 nations will have their say, that's why a fully detailed plan was impossible, the best we could do is say ‘This is what we want and what we will negotiate for’ How could we possible say ‘This is what we will get’ when we haven’t even had the negotiation yet?
And I repeat again as it seems some people do not get it – The SNP had the full weight of the Scottish parliament working on what independence would look like, whilst leave had a government that told it’s employees that under no circumstance were they to look into what Brexit would look like – it’s hardly surprising that they were unable to come up with a detailed plan of how the process would work if nobody was allowed to look at how the process would work.
As for what would I accept, I’d accept a reasonable trade deal with some tariffs and restrictions on free movement on both sides in line with what’s best for each area. I’d even accept continuation of payment into the EU budget – albeit at a reduced rate – if this allowed us to keep open things like cooperation on scientific work. Not everything about the EU was bad, I never claimed it was but I think there are more bad than good parts.
Human rights act – have you ever read it? It essentially guarantees Human Rights as long as an individual countries government doesn't decided it is in the nations interest not to provide them (I forget the exact wording but it is all in there) so I don’t mind too much if we lose that, it’s not like I see the UK government breaching Human Rights anyway and if they truly wanted to they can under the act as it stands now so it’s not really protecting us.
Free Trade, it's good for some, bad for others. Reasonable trade agreement I think work better for the working class than free trade ever did, you may disagree but there is no hard and fast rule that one is better than the other.
employment law - we have protections far in advance of that required by EU law, so I doubt leaving will impact these all that much in all honesty.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Why is Britain being singled out when other countries trade with the EU without free movement? Canada being another example.
welll.... geography might be a factor here ...
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Geography is a big one. I doubt there'd be any demand for free movement to Canada. It's hard to deny that with the free trade agreement we get a better trading deal with the EU than Canada does without it.
We've disagreed on lot of things, but I think we can agree on this:
Farage is not gone. I'm not buying this 'retirement' and I doubt if anybody else is, either. He'll be back - his ego wouldn't allow anything else.
Expect a 'reluctant' Farage to return sometime in the near future...
Definitely. He still won't provide anything of value though.
This goes to the heart of what I'm saying - why do we have to have a 'common market' deal with the EU that involves free movement? Why is Britain being singled out when other countries trade with the EU without free movement? Canada being another example.
Because the free trade agreement cuts down massively on red tape. I can buy/sell goods to/from Europe exactly as I can do to London; No additional paperwork, customs declarations, taxes, etc. I pay a bit more for shipping due to distance which is fair enough, but that's it. To ROW I need to fill out customs paperwork (I do this to the US and it's a total pain in the nethers), then potentially have to refund UK tax and pay target country tax, plus any tariffs. Even if it's free of additional charges there's still a significant overhead in terms of compliance. It's maybe a small overhead in terms of percentage (it might only add 5 mins per order) but it's enough of an overhead that it might completely sink smaller companies. Take the 1-man mini's manufacturers, will they absorb the cost of compliance or just refuse to ship to EU/UK? Will they try and figure out all of the compliance issues themselves or hire someone to verify it for them?
Will we be happy with this deal when everything coming from the EU costs a few percent more?
I'm still to be convinced that free movement of people within the EU is a bad thing; we need migrants to keep things running. Sure, there's the illegals issue, but that's not caused by free movement for us - we're not in Shengen so passports are still required. If there's an issue, it's at the external borders and we should be trying to fix that rather than closing the gates and pretending the problem doesn't exist. Then there's the VISA thing - whilst it'll be a technicality, are we going to be able to maintain VISA free travel to/from the EU as part of this closing down of migration? Will that circumvent the problem? Whilst I imagine the VISA process will be a technicality, will we be happy that we have to pay for one every time we visit Europe?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/24 13:13:23
As to Farage, that despicable piece of human waste has slithered off after completing his life's work of being an uncomfortable, pustulant boil on the arsehole of British politics. As a man determined to lead UKIP and the country out of Europe, I would have expected him to provide something, but that's beyond him.
We've disagreed on lot of things, but I think we can agree on this:
Farage is not gone. I'm not buying this 'retirement' and I doubt if anybody else is, either. He'll be back - his ego wouldn't allow anything else.
Expect a 'reluctant' Farage to return sometime in the near future...
I agree, that chinless, boggle eyed twerp will doubtless rear his scrawny neck again.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This goes to the heart of what I'm saying - why do we have to have a 'common market' deal with the EU that involves free movement? Why is Britain being singled out when other countries trade with the EU without free movement? Canada being another example.
The Canadian deal would be an excellent template, we're it not for the fact that it excludes provisions for services, the core of the UK economy. We'd need something tacked on similar to the Swiss model, which enforces free movement as part of the deal. The Swiss would likely chuck a fit if we were allowed unfettered access, and no free movement.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Human rights act – have you ever read it? It essentially guarantees Human Rights as long as an individual countries government doesn't decided it is in the nations interest not to provide them (I forget the exact wording but it is all in there) so I don’t mind too much if we lose that, it’s not like I see the UK government breaching Human Rights anyway and if they truly wanted to they can under the act as it stands now so it’s not really protecting us.
The UK government has already done things that have violated it, like not allowing prisoners to vote, and indefinite holding of suspects.
employment law - we have protections far in advance of that required by EU law, so I doubt leaving will impact these all that much in all honesty.
So that's why the Tories are proposing vastly weakening employee protections like reducing the minimum wage in some parts of the country, making it easier to dismiss staff?
That said, the HRA is a NATO/UN thing rather than an EU thing? And it's something that the EU will still insist we follow if we are to have a favourable trade deal.
This goes to the heart of what I'm saying - why do we have to have a 'common market' deal with the EU that involves free movement? Why is Britain being singled out when other countries trade with the EU without free movement? Canada being another example.
You clearly don't know the diffrence between a common market and a free trade agreement, which, when you are arguing about trade agreements is worrying. Non of these countries you have shown have common market agreements, they have free trade agreements. Totaly diffrent things. Britain is not being singled out.
This strikes right to the heart of the discussion. The remain camp failed to explain the diffrence between free trade and common market (or failed to explain it well). Unfortunatly I think they assumed people understood the terminology.
Human rights act – have you ever read it? It essentially guarantees Human Rights as long as an individual countries government doesn't decided it is in the nations interest not to provide them (I forget the exact wording but it is all in there) so I don’t mind too much if we lose that, it’s not like I see the UK government breaching Human Rights anyway and if they truly wanted to they can under the act as it stands now so it’s not really protecting us.
The Human rights act is the UK law. It is the UK implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, other than being a signatory of it is a prerequisite of becoming a member of the EU. Leaving the EU is seperate to leaving the ECHR. We are very unlikly to leave the ECHR.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 13:27:00
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
This strikes right to the heart of the discussion. The remain camp failed to explain the diffrence between free trade and common market (or failed to explain it well). Unfortunatly I think they assumed people understood the terminology.
The cynic in me might suggest that they were relying on people not understanding the terminology.
This goes to the heart of what I'm saying - why do we have to have a 'common market' deal with the EU that involves free movement? Why is Britain being singled out when other countries trade with the EU without free movement? Canada being another example.
You clearly don't know the diffrence between a common market and a free trade agreement, which, when you are arguing about trade agreements is worrying. Non of these countries you have shown have common market agreements, they have free trade agreements. Totaly diffrent things. Britain is not being singled out.
This strikes right to the heart of the discussion. The remain camp failed to explain the diffrence between free trade and common market (or failed to explain it well). Unfortunatly I think they assumed people understood the terminology.
How dare you!
I know what I'm saying, and I certainly know the difference between a fre trade deal, and a common market.
I'd be happy to have a free trade deal with Europe, but there are elements who are trying to convince us that trade with Europe = free movement of people, when it's clearly not the case with other countries.
The fault was mine for not making the point clearer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: Geography is a big one. I doubt there'd be any demand for free movement to Canada. It's hard to deny that with the free trade agreement we get a better trading deal with the EU than Canada does without it.
We've disagreed on lot of things, but I think we can agree on this:
Farage is not gone. I'm not buying this 'retirement' and I doubt if anybody else is, either. He'll be back - his ego wouldn't allow anything else.
Expect a 'reluctant' Farage to return sometime in the near future...
Definitely. He still won't provide anything of value though.
This goes to the heart of what I'm saying - why do we have to have a 'common market' deal with the EU that involves free movement? Why is Britain being singled out when other countries trade with the EU without free movement? Canada being another example.
Because the free trade agreement cuts down massively on red tape. I can buy/sell goods to/from Europe exactly as I can do to London; No additional paperwork, customs declarations, taxes, etc. I pay a bit more for shipping due to distance which is fair enough, but that's it. To ROW I need to fill out customs paperwork (I do this to the US and it's a total pain in the nethers), then potentially have to refund UK tax and pay target country tax, plus any tariffs. Even if it's free of additional charges there's still a significant overhead in terms of compliance. It's maybe a small overhead in terms of percentage (it might only add 5 mins per order) but it's enough of an overhead that it might completely sink smaller companies. Take the 1-man mini's manufacturers, will they absorb the cost of compliance or just refuse to ship to EU/UK? Will they try and figure out all of the compliance issues themselves or hire someone to verify it for them?
Will we be happy with this deal when everything coming from the EU costs a few percent more?
I'm still to be convinced that free movement of people within the EU is a bad thing; we need migrants to keep things running. Sure, there's the illegals issue, but that's not caused by free movement for us - we're not in Shengen so passports are still required. If there's an issue, it's at the external borders and we should be trying to fix that rather than closing the gates and pretending the problem doesn't exist. Then there's the VISA thing - whilst it'll be a technicality, are we going to be able to maintain VISA free travel to/from the EU as part of this closing down of migration? Will that circumvent the problem? Whilst I imagine the VISA process will be a technicality, will we be happy that we have to pay for one every time we visit Europe?
I don't like Farage, but I've never underestimated him. He did after all manage to panic the Tories into having a referendum, and there is no politician on the other side who matches his effectiveness at firing up the general public IMO
Automatically Appended Next Post: Before I head off for lunch, I thought I'd leave some classic Farage for r_squared
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/24 13:30:20
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Stranger83 wrote: ...So you wanted leave to complete the entire negotiations before the vote and without any input from government departments?
Of cause the other 27 nations will have their say, that's why a fully detailed plan was impossible, the best we could do is say ‘This is what we want and what we will negotiate for’ How could we possible say ‘This is what we will get’ when we haven’t even had the negotiation yet?
Why not? Leave were happy to plaster all sorts of rubbish on the sides of buses, why not a little imaginative flair on what they imagined the UK could do after leaving?
Stranger83 wrote: And I repeat again as it seems some people do not get it – The SNP had the full weight of the Scottish parliament working on what independence would look like, whilst leave had a government that told it’s employees that under no circumstance were they to look into what Brexit would look like – it’s hardly surprising that they were unable to come up with a detailed plan of how the process would work if nobody was allowed to look at how the process would work.
There was a moratorium on Govt departments working on a plan, civil servants etc, there was no restriction on any Leave campaigners doing some research and coming up with a plan. They had all the time in the world to come up with some proposals.
Stranger83 wrote: As for what would I accept, I’d accept a reasonable trade deal with some tariffs and restrictions on free movement on both sides in line with what’s best for each area. I’d even accept continuation of payment into the EU budget – albeit at a reduced rate – if this allowed us to keep open things like cooperation on scientific work. Not everything about the EU was bad, I never claimed it was but I think there are more bad than good parts.
Sounds a bit like Brexit light, there many Leavers and EU members who wouldn't accept some of this. Restrictions on free movement? In what way? Everyone coming into the country facing a points based system, or a fast tracked points based system for EU members, or what we had before, but with temporary work VISAS? How much do you think we should pay towards the EU for cooperation on scientific work?
Stranger83 wrote: Human rights act – have you ever read it? It essentially guarantees Human Rights as long as an individual countries government doesn't decided it is in the nations interest not to provide them (I forget the exact wording but it is all in there) so I don’t mind too much if we lose that, it’s not like I see the UK government breaching Human Rights anyway and if they truly wanted to they can under the act as it stands now so it’s not really protecting us.
Well the Tories seem to be keen on building a British Bill of rights, whatever that means. I think it'll involve us being able to kick people out when we don't want them anymore, lock people up for longer while we investigate their terroist links, and allow people to go hunting using whatever happens to be lying around, in a kennel for example.
Stranger83 wrote: Free Trade, it's good for some, bad for others. Reasonable trade agreement I think work better for the working class than free trade ever did, you may disagree but there is no hard and fast rule that one is better than the other.
I'm not sure what a reasonable trade agreement is tbh. But it's one of the most complicated and crucial parts of the negotiations. We better be absolutely clear on what this should be.
Stranger83 wrote: employment law - we have protections far in advance of that required by EU law, so I doubt leaving will impact these all that much in all honesty.
Well, for a start, the working time directive will likely be binned, which isn't a terrible thing for me personally, but maybe for many others. The UK, particularly the Tory govt, has a tendency to ensure that growth and employer rights are protected at all costs. That does mean we may face more delightful ideas like zero hour contracts, offering people a bounty of "choice" when it comes to eating and paying rent etc.
To be clear as there seems to be some confusion – I’m not abdicating the removal of the Human Rights Act, I was simply asked how I felt on it and thus said that I wouldn’t be too bothered if we revoked it as it doesn’t really provide much protection anyway since it can be ignored if the government wants, and I don’t see the UK government removing human rights either way.
Again, I was asked what I would accept, this is what I would accept. I’ve never claimed that every single thing about the EU is bad, just that on balance I think there is more bad than good – if I had to choose between fully in or fully out I’d pick fully out, but I truly believe we’ll get a good common ground instead, again this is just what I would accept, which is what I was asked maybe others view this as EU light, I don't – removal of their overburdonsome regulations, stopping free movement and allowing us to strike our own trade deals with the rest of the world, that’ll do me nicely thank you very much.
Restrictions on free movement – I’d like us to go back to a system that treats everyone in the world the same, all subject to the same rules and only allowed in if they are a benefit to the country, everyone subject to a points based system with no points added just cause you come from the EU (though as most of the EU has a working use of English and it’s reasonable for this to be given ‘points’ then they probably will have some advantage over the rest of the world anyway)
How much should we pay towards the EU for cooperation on things like scientific research – It’s not really my place to say, I’m not a scientist and have no idea how much we need this cooperation, I simply said I would be happy for this to continue if it was a requirement, but it’d be a damn sight less than £160Milluion a week we paid net now.
A reasonable trade agreement to me is one where both sides feel they can still trade with each other without needing to slap punitive taxes on things. In this instance ever WTO rules isn't too bad so (and again this is just my opinion) a reasonable deal is pretty much anything other than ‘We’re gonna prevent you from trading with a 1000% tariff to your trade’
Working time directive – maybe it’s good for some people but personally I’ve never worked at a company that hasn’t as part of the offer of employment made me agree to waive my rights under this (and this IS allowed within the regulation anyway) so honestly I don’t see it making that big an impact, employers who are likely to make people work longer than the directive are most likely those who already do this.
Apologies if you thought I was accusing you of wanting to remove human rights, I realise you were just asking questions, which I probably responded to in a more accusatory tone than intended.
I agree the working time directive is pointless, though.
Herzlos wrote: That's the thing; "leaving the EU" means different things to different people, and however we chose to leave the EU, most of them will be unhappy.
Especially when the expecations are so impossible, like a reset to pre-1970's Britain.
Like I said earlier, there are a number of templates Britain could adopt.
The trade deals that Australia and Japan have with the EU don't involve free movement, and yet, these two countries happily trade with the EU.
What's to stop Britain having something similar?
I like free movement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Working Time Directive is pointless in the UK because the UK government was able to negotiate a special get out clause that meant the UK government did not have to implement it in full.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 16:04:32
Free movement is not the issue here. I'm asking if it's possible to have a trade deal with the EU without free movement, and the answer is clearly, yes.
Some people on the Remain side, (not the people on here) seem to be peddling the idea that trade with the EU = free movement as a condition, when the examples of Australia and Japan clearly demonstrate otherwise...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Free movement is not the issue here. I'm asking if it's possible to have a trade deal with the EU without free movement, and the answer is clearly, yes.
Some people on the Remain side, (not the people on here) seem to be peddling the idea that trade with the EU = free movement as a condition, when the examples of Australia and Japan clearly demonstrate otherwise...
With the same free trade terms as before yes. EU is not willing to budge on that. Your trade terms won't be near as good as before. You know why? To get same benefits as others you need to follow same rules...
Why you think UK deserves special snowflake treatment and get same benefits as everybody else without doing same thing back? Newsflash: UK isn't so special. And now you have decided to go away from EU. That means you are COMPETING WITH EU. That means you fight for wealth EU wants. More wealth UK has the less EU countries have. Why would EU want to benefit one sidedly UK?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Free movement is not the issue here. I'm asking if it's possible to have a trade deal with the EU without free movement, and the answer is clearly, yes.
Some people on the Remain side, (not the people on here) seem to be peddling the idea that trade with the EU = free movement as a condition, when the examples of Australia and Japan clearly demonstrate otherwise...
With the same free trade terms as before yes. EU is not willing to budge on that. Your trade terms won't be near as good as before. You know why? To get same benefits as others you need to follow same rules...
Why you think UK deserves special snowflake treatment and get same benefits as everybody else without doing same thing back? Newsflash: UK isn't so special. And now you have decided to go away from EU. That means you are COMPETING WITH EU. That means you fight for wealth EU wants. More wealth UK has the less EU countries have. Why would EU want to benefit one sidedly UK?
I wasn't asking for special treatment for the UK, and yes, I do agree with you that the EU will be in competition with the UK.
A trade deal that is fair for both sides, is all I'm asking for.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My position is perfectly clear, if my avatar hasn't already made it clear.
The quicker we get this sorted out, the better in my book.
I'm comparing it to dental work - you can stall and put it off, but sooner or later, you need to sit in that chair and get it done...
Lets grasp the nettle and be done with it...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 16:44:50
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
