BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Never mind, this has lost its way. It’s hypothetical anyway.surrey_commuter said:
is it possible, legally, to have lower standards for imports than home grown? is this common?morstar said:
In that case replying to me.Longshot said:
Sorry, I misquoted. I was referring to the second category of food comment. It seemed to suggest that it was fine for it to be imported but not OK to consume.tailwindhome said:
What can?Longshot said:tailwindhome said:
I'm led to believe that the risk of crossing the border relates to the reclaiming of tariffs NOT the regulatory and compliance costs --- but we've quickly reached the limit of my knowledgetailwindhome said:
The starting assumption in the Protocol is that goods ARE at risk of crossing the border the Joint Committee determines what isn't.TheBigBean said:
That's certainly the EU's starting point, but it is not the UK's hence the disagreement. They should be checking goods that are at risk of being taken across the border. I can see strong arguments that that wouldn't apply to large surpermarket chains that will sell stuff to individuals. I can see how a wholesaler would be affected though.tailwindhome said:
It would be hugely helpful if the UKgov were to be properly engaged in the process, with all stakeholders, and not playing silly beggars over their clever messaging.TheBigBean said:
That's why the joint committee are incentivised to not do a full Barnier. For all the criticism, it is the clever part of the deal and one of the significant changes made to the withdrawal agreement.tailwindhome said:
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
Worth considering that the starting point for costs to business of the GB>NI trade will be that endured by businesses trading GB>EU
Preumably it can sit in a warehouse and go off?
I agree it’s nonsense but the regulations are not singular.
You ‘could’ lower our regulations for allowable consumption whilst upholding higher regulations for animal husbandry and welfare for UK produced food.
But I’m not suggesting this will happen, merely stating the US aren’t seeking regulatory alignment as a direct objective.
They don’t care what our regs are if we will buy their stuff on their terms.
The EU do care about directly about our regs.
GB farmers are in a difficult spot either way if we import US meat. They simply cannot compete. The industry will become niche and high value.
I guess it would be interesting if the US export market for high quality products could compensate. I doubt it would.
The point was that regulatory alignment is not the US direct objective unlike the EU.
I can’t even recall why the point came up without going back.
However, I’d argue it will be easier to get consumers to agree to lower food standards than producers as their impacts are very different on two different groups.
Consumers are cost driven. Farmers and animal rights lobbies would share common ground for very different reasons.
0 -
I was thinking more of food standards,would seem strange to ban UK farmers from injecting animals with hormones and insisting on minimum hygiene levels yet let other people sell into the same market. And when I say strange surely it would be challenged in the courts.rick_chasey said:
Well we buy phones and clothes to name but two types of products that are manufactured in conditions that would be illegal in the UK.surrey_commuter said:
is it possible, legally, to have lower standards for imports than home grown? is this common?0 -
Foie Grassurrey_commuter said:
I was thinking more of food standards,would seem strange to ban UK farmers from injecting animals with hormones and insisting on minimum hygiene levels yet let other people sell into the same market. And when I say strange surely it would be challenged in the courts.rick_chasey said:
Well we buy phones and clothes to name but two types of products that are manufactured in conditions that would be illegal in the UK.surrey_commuter said:
is it possible, legally, to have lower standards for imports than home grown? is this common?0 -
Always worth a trip to the dordogneTheBigBean said:
Foie Grassurrey_commuter said:
I was thinking more of food standards,would seem strange to ban UK farmers from injecting animals with hormones and insisting on minimum hygiene levels yet let other people sell into the same market. And when I say strange surely it would be challenged in the courts.rick_chasey said:
Well we buy phones and clothes to name but two types of products that are manufactured in conditions that would be illegal in the UK.surrey_commuter said:
is it possible, legally, to have lower standards for imports than home grown? is this common?0 -
Which underlines my point that as consumers we don’t care.rick_chasey said:
Well we buy phones and clothes to name but two types of products that are manufactured in conditions that would be illegal in the UK.surrey_commuter said:
is it possible, legally, to have lower standards for imports than home grown? is this common?
Personally, I do try to make ethical choices but I would be a liar if I suggested there is any robustness and consistency in them.0 -
-
Just made it more applicable to Cake Stop.tailwindhome said:
Yeah. You didn't really improve it though.Stevo_666 said:
FTFY.TheBigBean said:
There must be a corollary to Godwin's law that states any bad news story will eventually be linked to Brexit if an online discussion continues long enough.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We definitely have said we wanted a Canada style deal. And it definitely was on the Barnier chart as one of the options, depending on our red lines - see upthread.antonyfromoz said:
We said we didn't want a Canadian style deal - we ruled it out even as an option and it was never offered in a negotiation setting.Stevo_666 said:
Untrustworthy? Who's just offered a deal then reneged on it? The EU, not us.antonyfromoz said:We have indicated that we are not to be trusted so why should they make it easy on us? Of course they want protections built into the agreement - it's not really about control but protection of the single market. It is, of course, up to the UK government to agree or not to agree with the conditions the EU are seeking. And we will have to suffer the consequences of obtaining our fantastic sovreignty.
How does controlling the areas the EU wants to control protect the single market?
As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
After we had previously ruled it out. Both sides have shifted their positions. I seem to remember that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.Stevo_666 said:
We definitely have said we wanted a Canada style deal. And it definitely was on the Barnier chart as one of the options, depending on our red lines - see upthread.antonyfromoz said:
We said we didn't want a Canadian style deal - we ruled it out even as an option and it was never offered in a negotiation setting.Stevo_666 said:
Untrustworthy? Who's just offered a deal then reneged on it? The EU, not us.antonyfromoz said:We have indicated that we are not to be trusted so why should they make it easy on us? Of course they want protections built into the agreement - it's not really about control but protection of the single market. It is, of course, up to the UK government to agree or not to agree with the conditions the EU are seeking. And we will have to suffer the consequences of obtaining our fantastic sovreignty.
How does controlling the areas the EU wants to control protect the single market?
As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don't think that is necessarily true for a lot of things e.g. bike lights sold in the UK only need to meet the regulations in any EU country.rick_chasey said:The products however do obviously meet UK regulations.
It is definitely not true for services e.g. financial passporting0 -
They have definitely offered it to at least one other country haven't they. The proximity argument is bollox, as illustrated by the NAFTA example I mentioned upthread.rjsterry said:
After we had previously ruled it out. Both sides have shifted their positions. I seem to remember that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.Stevo_666 said:
We definitely have said we wanted a Canada style deal. And it definitely was on the Barnier chart as one of the options, depending on our red lines - see upthread.antonyfromoz said:
We said we didn't want a Canadian style deal - we ruled it out even as an option and it was never offered in a negotiation setting.Stevo_666 said:
Untrustworthy? Who's just offered a deal then reneged on it? The EU, not us.antonyfromoz said:We have indicated that we are not to be trusted so why should they make it easy on us? Of course they want protections built into the agreement - it's not really about control but protection of the single market. It is, of course, up to the UK government to agree or not to agree with the conditions the EU are seeking. And we will have to suffer the consequences of obtaining our fantastic sovreignty.
How does controlling the areas the EU wants to control protect the single market?
As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
I really don't understand why you are whining about this so much. They offered it; we d***ed around; they changed their offer. We're apparently now not that bothered about either an EU or US trade deal so what's the problem?Stevo_666 said:
They have definitely offered it to at least one other country haven't they. The proximity argument is bollox, as illustrated by the NAFTA example I mentioned upthread.rjsterry said:
After we had previously ruled it out. Both sides have shifted their positions. I seem to remember that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.Stevo_666 said:
We definitely have said we wanted a Canada style deal. And it definitely was on the Barnier chart as one of the options, depending on our red lines - see upthread.antonyfromoz said:
We said we didn't want a Canadian style deal - we ruled it out even as an option and it was never offered in a negotiation setting.Stevo_666 said:
Untrustworthy? Who's just offered a deal then reneged on it? The EU, not us.antonyfromoz said:We have indicated that we are not to be trusted so why should they make it easy on us? Of course they want protections built into the agreement - it's not really about control but protection of the single market. It is, of course, up to the UK government to agree or not to agree with the conditions the EU are seeking. And we will have to suffer the consequences of obtaining our fantastic sovreignty.
How does controlling the areas the EU wants to control protect the single market?
As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You seem very angry - I really think you are over-thinking it. With Boris tearing up the deal that he negotiated and signed in December it seems highly unlikely that he is genuinely trying to get any meaningful trade deal.Stevo_666 said:
They have definitely offered it to at least one other country haven't they. The proximity argument is bollox, as illustrated by the NAFTA example I mentioned upthread.rjsterry said:
After we had previously ruled it out. Both sides have shifted their positions. I seem to remember that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.Stevo_666 said:
We definitely have said we wanted a Canada style deal. And it definitely was on the Barnier chart as one of the options, depending on our red lines - see upthread.antonyfromoz said:
We said we didn't want a Canadian style deal - we ruled it out even as an option and it was never offered in a negotiation setting.Stevo_666 said:
Untrustworthy? Who's just offered a deal then reneged on it? The EU, not us.antonyfromoz said:We have indicated that we are not to be trusted so why should they make it easy on us? Of course they want protections built into the agreement - it's not really about control but protection of the single market. It is, of course, up to the UK government to agree or not to agree with the conditions the EU are seeking. And we will have to suffer the consequences of obtaining our fantastic sovreignty.
How does controlling the areas the EU wants to control protect the single market?
As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?0 -
Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
0 -
As one well known forumite recently told me on another subject: I've posted it several times, so go searchrick_chasey said:
Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No anger, just stating the case.surrey_commuter said:
You seem very angry - I really think you are over-thinking it. With Boris tearing up the deal that he negotiated and signed in December it seems highly unlikely that he is genuinely trying to get any meaningful trade deal.Stevo_666 said:
They have definitely offered it to at least one other country haven't they. The proximity argument is bollox, as illustrated by the NAFTA example I mentioned upthread.rjsterry said:
After we had previously ruled it out. Both sides have shifted their positions. I seem to remember that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.Stevo_666 said:
We definitely have said we wanted a Canada style deal. And it definitely was on the Barnier chart as one of the options, depending on our red lines - see upthread.antonyfromoz said:
We said we didn't want a Canadian style deal - we ruled it out even as an option and it was never offered in a negotiation setting.Stevo_666 said:
Untrustworthy? Who's just offered a deal then reneged on it? The EU, not us.antonyfromoz said:We have indicated that we are not to be trusted so why should they make it easy on us? Of course they want protections built into the agreement - it's not really about control but protection of the single market. It is, of course, up to the UK government to agree or not to agree with the conditions the EU are seeking. And we will have to suffer the consequences of obtaining our fantastic sovreignty.
How does controlling the areas the EU wants to control protect the single market?
As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
The reaction from you and RJS does tell me that I have made a point though
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
what point is that - that we were fooked when we caved in on sequencing?Stevo_666 said:
No anger, just stating the case.surrey_commuter said:
You seem very angry - I really think you are over-thinking it. With Boris tearing up the deal that he negotiated and signed in December it seems highly unlikely that he is genuinely trying to get any meaningful trade deal.Stevo_666 said:
They have definitely offered it to at least one other country haven't they. The proximity argument is bollox, as illustrated by the NAFTA example I mentioned upthread.rjsterry said:
After we had previously ruled it out. Both sides have shifted their positions. I seem to remember that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.Stevo_666 said:
We definitely have said we wanted a Canada style deal. And it definitely was on the Barnier chart as one of the options, depending on our red lines - see upthread.antonyfromoz said:
We said we didn't want a Canadian style deal - we ruled it out even as an option and it was never offered in a negotiation setting.Stevo_666 said:
Untrustworthy? Who's just offered a deal then reneged on it? The EU, not us.antonyfromoz said:We have indicated that we are not to be trusted so why should they make it easy on us? Of course they want protections built into the agreement - it's not really about control but protection of the single market. It is, of course, up to the UK government to agree or not to agree with the conditions the EU are seeking. And we will have to suffer the consequences of obtaining our fantastic sovreignty.
How does controlling the areas the EU wants to control protect the single market?
As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
The reaction from you and RJS does tell me that I have made a point though0 -
Stevo slippery tactic #17: either through ignorance or deliberately, fail to understand what the question is really asking, then swerve from answering the question you know wasn't really being asked.Stevo_666 said:
As one well known forumite recently told me on another subject: I've posted it several times, so go searchrick_chasey said:
Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
0 -
Ah just indulge me Stevo, because tbh, the search function doesn't work anymore and I am genuinely interested in how you square that with your current position.0
-
https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/19887002/#Comment_19887002
https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/19887896/#Comment_19887896
I've been in a meeting that didn't require my full attention.0 -
It clearly works for some people. Now I'm a busy lad; as you know tax doesn't just mitigate itself so it's time to practice what you preach.rick_chasey said:Ah just indulge me Stevo, because tbh, the search function doesn't work anymore and I am genuinely interested in how you square that with your current position.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Even if I've answered it already? As a teacher, you should know that multiple answers of the same question is bad exam technique.bompington said:
Stevo slippery tactic #17: either through ignorance or deliberately, fail to understand what the question is really asking, then swerve from answering the question you know wasn't really being asked.Stevo_666 said:
As one well known forumite recently told me on another subject: I've posted it several times, so go searchrick_chasey said:
Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
Do tell me what the other 16 are...could some of them be related to the chip on your shoulder? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You need to go and look up what having a chip on your shoulder means.Stevo_666 said:
Even if I've answered it already? As a teacher, you should know that multiple answers of the same question is bad exam technique.bompington said:
Stevo slippery tactic #17: either through ignorance or deliberately, fail to understand what the question is really asking, then swerve from answering the question you know wasn't really being asked.Stevo_666 said:
As one well known forumite recently told me on another subject: I've posted it several times, so go searchrick_chasey said:
Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
Do tell me what the other 16 are...could some of them be related to the chip on your shoulder?
You're right, you don't need to answer the question: but if your goal was to have a mutually beneficial discussion, you would.
If, on the other hand, your goal was to sit at your computer thinking "hehe, I owned those libtards that time" , then yes, I guess you might see some advantage in a snarky refusal to answer.0 -
Thanks.kingstongraham said:https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/19887002/#Comment_19887002
https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/19887896/#Comment_19887896
I've been in a meeting that didn't require my full attention.
So this is the post which I guess helps us guess what Stevo was thinking.Stevo_666 said:ddraver wrote:Gregger wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:this is probably the best precis of the issues - well written and concise
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/
My annual post
That is a good summary, thanks for that link
Damned if we stay in, more damned if we leave?Yep, thanks, that was good!Not a million miles from my overall views on the subject.
Already stuck my vote in the post.
Specifically, this blog (if you expand the post) http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/05/27/dear-friends-this-is-why-i-will-vote-remain-in-the-referendum.
So in that blog, he lists a number of reasons.
Here's the first:There is little dispute that leaving would create short-term losses. A Treasury report (BBC 23 May 2016) on the short-run effects suggests a recession, a view confirmed by the respected independent Institute for Fiscal Studies who point to the resulting increase in the budget deficit and argue that ‘It is unlikely that government would respond with bigger spending cuts and tax rises in the short run. More likely “austerity” would be extended by another year (optimistic scenario) or another two years.’
There is also widespread agreement among economists that leaving would reduce economic growth over a longer time horizon, and that the loss could be large.
So I guess at the time, Stevo did believe in the value of forecasts. But let's carry on.How large a loss depends critically on which trade regime is in place after we leave. The Treasury’s medium-term assessment models three options: ‘Norway’(remain in the single market); ‘Canada’ (a bilateral agreement with the EU); or based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules without any specific agreement with the EU.
the inference being that 'canada' is more costly than Norway; - now if we believe Stevo felt that the economic case for staying was strong, presumably then he would be in favour of a 'Norway' style deal over a 'Canada' deal, as Canada is more costly. But nowadays he appears to be more concerned with the sovereignty challenges around that.
Let's carry on.The argument that the UK will be able to negotiate good trade deals quickly is implausible.
The EU is more important to the UK than vice versa, so our bargaining power is limited.
Brexit risks a chain reaction, given rising nationalism across the EU (on which more below). Thus the EU’s rational response is to make a horrible example of the UK.
For non-EU countries (e.g. USA, China), negotiating with the EU offers access to a market of 500 million. The UK is much less of a magnet.
Thus,
‘The claim that the outcome will be fine because Britain is the fifth-largest economy in the world is technically wrong, a non sequitur and a fundamental misreading of history. It is hard to think of a worse argument’ (Chris Giles, Economics Editor, Financial Times, 4 May 2016).
I thin I've had this argument with Stevo a number of times, usually in the form of ' you don't understand proportions'. It's curious that Stevo would repeat such arguments when the blog he agreed with enough to summarise why he voted for Remain puts the argument to bed.
There's a section about international effects and status, but, to be fair ,Stevo doesn't really argue those points, so I'll skip those.
next bit: Sovereignty:Economic sovereignty. The Westminster government has less sovereignty than in the past. First, globalisation has reduced the independence of all countries. For example, the internet makes national boundaries more porous (music downloads, Netflix), making competition global and reducing the freedom of any country to have taxes and regulations too different from competing countries. That said, the UK retains significant sovereignty over fiscal policy (taxes and government spending) because of the opt-out from the Euro.
In addition, the UK shares sovereignty with the UN, NATO, the World Trade Organisation, etc. (the UK has signed 14,000 treaties (Financial Times, 3 May 2016)); and within the UK, central government has devolved significant powers to regions and cities.
This feels like it runs against his more recent arguments suggesting the EU *wants to control* the UK, but lets carry on.International reach. Though there is room for disagreement about how strong the effect would be, it hard to see how the UK becomes a more powerful global actor by separating itself from its own continent.
Migration. For many, this issue is the crux. The question is not whether the issue is real (it is) but the choice of policies to address it.
In 2015, ‘Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)’ (Office for National Statistics 26 May 2016).
Historically there have been great benefits from waves of immigration, from the Huguenots to today’s NHS workers. The best available evidence shows that current immigrants are net fiscal contributors and ‘[t]he contributions of those who stay in Britain may well increase. It is a new form of foreign direct investment’ (Economist, 8 November 2014).
Research by LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance (see Independent, 12 May 2016) finds that immigration from the EU does not harm wages, jobs or public services. The view that there is a fixed number of jobs, and hence that immigration reduces the number of jobs for Brits, is widely believed but mistaken (what economists call the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy). Immigrants to the UK add to domestic demand for goods and services which helps to generate employment.
Those findings, however, do not rule out local problems if numbers increase rapidly. The case for targeted action is strong; it does not follow that leaving the EU is a good answer.
Even if the UK were outside the EU, reducing immigration would not be easy.
So we've seen Stevo argue at various points that reducing migration would benefit the UK, specifically in relation wages as restricting supply of labour would, in his eyes, increase the price. Have a quick search and you'll see myself I've accused stevo of using the 'lump of labour' fallacy in his thinking (see here: https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/20040235/#Comment_20040235)
0 -
Odd since that contradicts what the blog says.
It goes onto a couple points on security and how democratic the EU is, which I don't remember Stevo discussing but please feel free to say whether he agrees with the points there or not.
Regulation. It is argued that the EU imposes heavy and unhelpful regulation.
OECD studies show that the UK has the second least-regulated product markets among industrial countries and the least-regulated labour markets in the EU.
Regulation has benefits. Co-ordination (for example, common safety standards for electrical products) is a necessary part of a single market, making it easier to trade. It also provides consumer protection, e.g. cheaper air fares, lower roaming charges, cleaner beaches.
What many regard as the most burdensome regulations – planning – are self-inflicted.
Leaving the EU would not reduce regulation substantially. The issue is not regulation as a whole, but removing or revising the bad regulations that undoubtedly exist. That is a highly worthwhile task, but not a reason for leaving.
So if you agree with this bit Stevo, what's so wrong with being part of the single market?0 -
-
It was in an attempt to not destabilise the EU?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe more revolution than evolution, but I take your point.
I am currently minded to vote 'in' for similar reasons as Bally and a couple of others gave previously - recognising that we are in a badly flawed club but on balance we may make it worse by leaving. Looking at this with my business hat on as well, this where I am coming out overall. That said, if we do stay in we still need to agitate like hell for change and also hope that the fundamental pressures on the EU cause a revolution/evolution of the type above. It will also annoy the French
However it's still a while to go and I am keeping an open mind.0 -
Whilst that's great work Rick (no sarcasm), I feel iike the final piece of the quotes - "However it's still a while to go and I am keeping an open mind." - provides enough of an out to negate most of your efforts.
Can you please add a follow up question - "So what changed your mind?".You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
That was an earlier post. The analysis Rick did was on the post ending "Already stuck my vote in the post."Longshot said:Whilst that's great work Rick (no sarcasm), I feel iike the final piece of the quotes - "However it's still a while to go and I am keeping an open mind." - provides enough of an out to negate most of your efforts.
Can you please add a follow up question - "So what changed your mind?".0
