BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…15631564156615681569…2110

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:



    Of course, the changing of standards is different - that commits to maintaining standards.

    Quite. And the UK has accepted the above. An earlier draft of that clause hinted at it changing with time, but the final drafted removed the hint, so it is hard to argue the UK agree to it.

    Also, I see the regional stuff as more about empire building than competition. The EU wants to expand, but can only do that locally. Ultimately, a car built in Japan with low standards is going to compete with a car in the EU.
    Entirely depends on the terms of the free-trade deal japan has with the EU and if it covers cars or not, surely.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,926
    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It seems to me that the number of people who "act like they went to Oxbridge" greatly exceeds (a) the number of people who actually went to Oxbridge; and (b) the number of those who "act like they went to Oxbridge".

    There seems to be some confusion with the larger group who went to private school, which is where they really teach children to be more confident than their abilities merit... and to project their voice.

    Makes me wonder which people in Cake Stop went to Oxbridge.
    What about private school?
    One of things I learnt at university is that a lot more people went to private schools than I thought growing up, but it doesn't bother me at all.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,189
    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It seems to me that the number of people who "act like they went to Oxbridge" greatly exceeds (a) the number of people who actually went to Oxbridge; and (b) the number of those who "act like they went to Oxbridge".

    There seems to be some confusion with the larger group who went to private school, which is where they really teach children to be more confident than their abilities merit... and to project their voice.

    Makes me wonder which people in Cake Stop went to Oxbridge.
    What about private school?
    One of things I learnt at university is that a lot more people went to private schools than I thought growing up, but it doesn't bother me at all.
    It only bothers me to the extent that I have sensitive hearing and dislike blow-hards.

    This is not a sweeping generalisation.
  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    I'm confused. Surely London-based types who are into politics, read The Times and went to Oxbridge describes a large chunk of the Brexit supporting Tory Party rather than remainers?
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,155
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:



    Of course, the changing of standards is different - that commits to maintaining standards.

    Quite. And the UK has accepted the above. An earlier draft of that clause hinted at it changing with time, but the final drafted removed the hint, so it is hard to argue the UK agree to it.

    Also, I see the regional stuff as more about empire building than competition. The EU wants to expand, but can only do that locally. Ultimately, a car built in Japan with low standards is going to compete with a car in the EU.
    Oh, OK. I don't disagree about the "empire building" except the negative connotations of it. They're a European organisation - European countries joining is kind of their thing.

    I wouldn't say the UK did agree to abide by future EU standards - but they did agree to not reduce any standards, and have a mechanism for resolving these disputes (which is giving up sovereignty if you need to see it in those terms). It's difficult to square even that with the ambition of the right of the Conservative party.

    It's obviously a fudge in that document, saying "In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement." - The Union standards are obviously whatever the EU sets.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It seems to me that the number of people who "act like they went to Oxbridge" greatly exceeds (a) the number of people who actually went to Oxbridge; and (b) the number of those who "act like they went to Oxbridge".

    There seems to be some confusion with the larger group who went to private school, which is where they really teach children to be more confident than their abilities merit... and to project their voice.

    Makes me wonder which people in Cake Stop went to Oxbridge.
    What about private school?
    No and no for me
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,926
    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It seems to me that the number of people who "act like they went to Oxbridge" greatly exceeds (a) the number of people who actually went to Oxbridge; and (b) the number of those who "act like they went to Oxbridge".

    There seems to be some confusion with the larger group who went to private school, which is where they really teach children to be more confident than their abilities merit... and to project their voice.

    Makes me wonder which people in Cake Stop went to Oxbridge.
    What about private school?
    No and no for me
    Did you go to LSE or are you not prepared to say?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It seems to me that the number of people who "act like they went to Oxbridge" greatly exceeds (a) the number of people who actually went to Oxbridge; and (b) the number of those who "act like they went to Oxbridge".

    There seems to be some confusion with the larger group who went to private school, which is where they really teach children to be more confident than their abilities merit... and to project their voice.

    Makes me wonder which people in Cake Stop went to Oxbridge.
    What about private school?
    No and no for me
    Did you go to LSE or are you not prepared to say?
    I thought I had answered... nowhere near
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,926
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:



    Of course, the changing of standards is different - that commits to maintaining standards.

    Quite. And the UK has accepted the above. An earlier draft of that clause hinted at it changing with time, but the final drafted removed the hint, so it is hard to argue the UK agree to it.

    Also, I see the regional stuff as more about empire building than competition. The EU wants to expand, but can only do that locally. Ultimately, a car built in Japan with low standards is going to compete with a car in the EU.
    Oh, OK. I don't disagree about the "empire building" except the negative connotations of it. They're a European organisation - European countries joining is kind of their thing.

    I wouldn't say the UK did agree to abide by future EU standards - but they did agree to not reduce any standards, and have a mechanism for resolving these disputes (which is giving up sovereignty if you need to see it in those terms). It's difficult to square even that with the ambition of the right of the Conservative party.

    It's obviously a fudge in that document, saying "In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement." - The Union standards are obviously whatever the EU sets.
    The problem with empire building is that it should not be the reason for expansion, but frequently is. That's the reason for the negative connotations. If you make a comparison to businesses, M&A activity, on average, destroys value whilst spin-offs increase it. On that basis why does M&A continue? Because the leaders in charge want bigger empires.


  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,926
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It seems to me that the number of people who "act like they went to Oxbridge" greatly exceeds (a) the number of people who actually went to Oxbridge; and (b) the number of those who "act like they went to Oxbridge".

    There seems to be some confusion with the larger group who went to private school, which is where they really teach children to be more confident than their abilities merit... and to project their voice.

    Makes me wonder which people in Cake Stop went to Oxbridge.
    What about private school?
    No and no for me
    Did you go to LSE or are you not prepared to say?
    I thought I had answered... nowhere near
    I meant not prepared to say where you went.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,189
    elbowloh said:

    I'm confused. Surely London-based types who are into politics, read The Times and went to Oxbridge describes a large chunk of the Brexit supporting Tory Party rather than remainers?

    This is kind of my point. Proportionally, hardly anyone goes to Oxbridge. And a relatively small percentage of Brexit supporters are from London, because a minority if people are in the SE of England and a majority of thise voted Remain.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Chair of Vote leave "we probably need to accept that their commitment to how they define the Single Market is even more fundamental than we had appreciated"

    Loool.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,189
    rick_chasey said:

    Chair of Vote leave "we probably need to accept that their commitment to how they define the Single Market is even more fundamental than we had appreciated"

    Loool.

    It is breathtaking, isn't it. Almost as though none of them chatted with Dave Cameron and asked how his renegotiations went.

    What is really breathtaking is all the mindless, trusting sheep who voted for them.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    It’s still project fear till jan 1st I guess.

    And someone will say “look I bought an avocado see project fear”

    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It seems to me that the number of people who "act like they went to Oxbridge" greatly exceeds (a) the number of people who actually went to Oxbridge; and (b) the number of those who "act like they went to Oxbridge".

    There seems to be some confusion with the larger group who went to private school, which is where they really teach children to be more confident than their abilities merit... and to project their voice.

    Makes me wonder which people in Cake Stop went to Oxbridge.
    What about private school?
    No and no for me
    Did you go to LSE or are you not prepared to say?
    I thought I had answered... nowhere near
    I meant not prepared to say where you went.
    Usually best not to share too much personal info but it was very much 2nd rate as I flunked my A-levels after discovering drink/drugs/girls.

    In fairness 2nd rate is where I should have gone and instead got 3rd rate. For my school it was an awesome performance and made me one of only 3 kids (out of 200) who did a degree.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,155


  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited December 2020
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Chair of Vote leave "we probably need to accept that their commitment to how they define the Single Market is even more fundamental than we had appreciated"

    Loool.

    It is breathtaking, isn't it. Almost as though none of them chatted with Dave Cameron and asked how his renegotiations went.

    What is really breathtaking is all the mindless, trusting sheep who voted for them.
    I was listening to an analyst from Bocconi Uni who basically said what we all know which was the misunderstanding is that the UK sees it as political and that the outsized cost to Ireland, Ned (German car industry?) etc is leverage to a political solution, whereas the EU sees things almost entirely through a legal lens. The reason for the latter is as soon as there is an exception, the union or the other existing trade deals fall apart as they will say "can't we have that". So if the UK gets a concession that say, Canada doesn't have, they'll kick off etc.

    This is perceived as inflexibility in the UK, and in the EU it's practical to keep the whole thing together.

    On top of that it stuff that is properly delegated to the EU - trade etc, hence the British Head of State speaking to the chief EU negotiator or head of the EU and not other heads of state.

    I have a suspicion this misunderstanding slightly comes from the class of leaders where rules were always open to a level of flexibility, like when you trash a restaurant.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TL;DR exceptions can quite quickly become existential for the EU, so that is why they are loathe to offer up any that any other country can say "I want that too" to.
    _
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    The standards issues for goods is a red herring. Any company making things is going to pick up the current UK version of a European standard and comply with it. If they don't they will not be able to export much in the same way they will incorporate elements of a US standard if they want to sell the product there. In the issue of lowering standards this is typically not done in technical standards as once the benchmark is set then it is illogical to role back from that as lets face it who wants a more dangerous dangerous product. In short the UK might add to the requirements for EU standards but we won't be removing things as industry would then have limited market.

    On all the other regulations such as environmental or labour laws etc. the only changes that will be made will be ones that make the government of the day look good. We vote for this and therefore have greater control than we ever had in the EU. We have a long track record of being relatively environmentally aware and not big fans of state aid so I think the EU over reaction to this is pretty funny.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,334
    ^^^^
    That reads very much like the EU position. Try explaining it to BJ.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    I wonder if they have / will put Mays deal back in front of us before the week is out.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    john80 said:

    The standards issues for goods is a red herring. Any company making things is going to pick up the current UK version of a European standard and comply with it. If they don't they will not be able to export much in the same way they will incorporate elements of a US standard if they want to sell the product there. In the issue of lowering standards this is typically not done in technical standards as once the benchmark is set then it is illogical to role back from that as lets face it who wants a more dangerous dangerous product. In short the UK might add to the requirements for EU standards but we won't be removing things as industry would then have limited market.

    On all the other regulations such as environmental or labour laws etc. the only changes that will be made will be ones that make the government of the day look good. We vote for this and therefore have greater control than we ever had in the EU. We have a long track record of being relatively environmentally aware and not big fans of state aid so I think the EU over reaction to this is pretty funny.

    Your first para I wholeheartedly agree but Bojo is refusing to sign up to it because he wants to have the option of reducing standards even though as you suggest the EU standard tends to become the global standard.

    Your 2nd para I wholeheartedly agree but Bojo is refusing to sign because he wants the option of reducing standards.

    You have belatedly hit upon the inherent contradiction at the heart of what Brexit means. The leadership wants to create a freewheeling laissez faire economy free from as much legislation as possible. The "left behind" voted for Brexit because they were told that it would be good for jobs and wage growth.

    More succinctly this is known as "cake and eat it" and as we come to the crunch who do you think will get their way? the braying toffs or the loyal footsoldiers?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,155
    Daniel Finkelstein:

    During the 2016 referendum campaign, it struck me that the economics and politics of Brexit were pulling in different directions. A big part of the argument for leaving the EU was that it would set Britain free from a bureaucratic arrangement that burdened us with too many regulations and shut out trade from those who were not members of the bloc.

    There was, of course, a sovereignty argument and this was (and remains) important. But its attraction to most of its advocates was not theoretical — it was that it would enable us to plot a different course.

    And we would have to, anyway. Being outside the single market while still striving to be economically successful requires us to free businesses from excessive rules and costs. We’d have to do it sufficiently to offset the disadvantages of being outside the bloc. In other words, we’d have to offer firms lower taxes, fewer rules and reduced labour costs.

    This, then, was the economics of Brexit. But the politics of Brexit was quite different. Voting to leave the EU would be, and has been, interpreted as a rebellion by those who felt left out of Britain’s increasing prosperity. Satisfying their demands would lead the country towards higher social spending, a higher minimum wage, more regulations. In other words, in the opposite direction to the economics of Brexit.

    It has now been four years since the Brexit vote, and this tension seems more obvious than ever. Having won the freedom they campaigned for, it still isn’t clear to me how the advocates of Brexit wish to use it. Whenever it is spoken about, it’s discussed in terms of how to limit the damage it might do. But what about the advantages? Where are they?

    If our negotiations with the EU over a free trade deal didn’t have such serious implications, it would be tempting to find them funny. On the one hand, the British government insists that it should be free to depart from the European model if it, or a future government, wishes to do so. We cannot be bound to follow European rules we have no role in setting. This, it is argued, would make Brexit pointless. And it is absurd for the EU to insist on controlling a country that is intent on being independent.

    On the other hand, the EU is worried that Britain will sit on Europe’s borders undercutting its social policies by offering businesses lower costs and taxes. Britain’s departure from the European model might then be the model’s death. So they are insisting we agree to adhere to Europe’s standards even after Brexit.

    So here we are having a huge row, with serious implications for everyone’s prosperity, over the freedom of Britain to leave the European model. With us insisting we should be free and Europe insisting we should not be free. Yet all along Britain has no political intention to depart from the European model at all.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,926
    kingstongraham said:

    Daniel Finkelstein:

    During the 2016 referendum campaign, it struck me that the economics and politics of Brexit were pulling in different directions. A big part of the argument for leaving the EU was that it would set Britain free from a bureaucratic arrangement that burdened us with too many regulations and shut out trade from those who were not members of the bloc.

    There was, of course, a sovereignty argument and this was (and remains) important. But its attraction to most of its advocates was not theoretical — it was that it would enable us to plot a different course.

    And we would have to, anyway. Being outside the single market while still striving to be economically successful requires us to free businesses from excessive rules and costs. We’d have to do it sufficiently to offset the disadvantages of being outside the bloc. In other words, we’d have to offer firms lower taxes, fewer rules and reduced labour costs.

    This, then, was the economics of Brexit. But the politics of Brexit was quite different. Voting to leave the EU would be, and has been, interpreted as a rebellion by those who felt left out of Britain’s increasing prosperity. Satisfying their demands would lead the country towards higher social spending, a higher minimum wage, more regulations. In other words, in the opposite direction to the economics of Brexit.

    It has now been four years since the Brexit vote, and this tension seems more obvious than ever. Having won the freedom they campaigned for, it still isn’t clear to me how the advocates of Brexit wish to use it. Whenever it is spoken about, it’s discussed in terms of how to limit the damage it might do. But what about the advantages? Where are they?

    If our negotiations with the EU over a free trade deal didn’t have such serious implications, it would be tempting to find them funny. On the one hand, the British government insists that it should be free to depart from the European model if it, or a future government, wishes to do so. We cannot be bound to follow European rules we have no role in setting. This, it is argued, would make Brexit pointless. And it is absurd for the EU to insist on controlling a country that is intent on being independent.

    On the other hand, the EU is worried that Britain will sit on Europe’s borders undercutting its social policies by offering businesses lower costs and taxes. Britain’s departure from the European model might then be the model’s death. So they are insisting we agree to adhere to Europe’s standards even after Brexit.

    So here we are having a huge row, with serious implications for everyone’s prosperity, over the freedom of Britain to leave the European model. With us insisting we should be free and Europe insisting we should not be free. Yet all along Britain has no political intention to depart from the European model at all.
    There is a good chance the UK will use its new found freedom to increase standards. We have seen evidence of this already in terms of live animal transport. However, an important factor at play is that no parliament should be able to bind its successor, so the UK would like to retain the ability to remove such law if the democratically elected government of the day decides to.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    The standards issues for goods is a red herring. Any company making things is going to pick up the current UK version of a European standard and comply with it. If they don't they will not be able to export much in the same way they will incorporate elements of a US standard if they want to sell the product there. In the issue of lowering standards this is typically not done in technical standards as once the benchmark is set then it is illogical to role back from that as lets face it who wants a more dangerous dangerous product. In short the UK might add to the requirements for EU standards but we won't be removing things as industry would then have limited market.

    On all the other regulations such as environmental or labour laws etc. the only changes that will be made will be ones that make the government of the day look good. We vote for this and therefore have greater control than we ever had in the EU. We have a long track record of being relatively environmentally aware and not big fans of state aid so I think the EU over reaction to this is pretty funny.

    Your first para I wholeheartedly agree but Bojo is refusing to sign up to it because he wants to have the option of reducing standards even though as you suggest the EU standard tends to become the global standard.

    Your 2nd para I wholeheartedly agree but Bojo is refusing to sign because he wants the option of reducing standards.

    You have belatedly hit upon the inherent contradiction at the heart of what Brexit means. The leadership wants to create a freewheeling laissez faire economy free from as much legislation as possible. The "left behind" voted for Brexit because they were told that it would be good for jobs and wage growth.

    More succinctly this is known as "cake and eat it" and as we come to the crunch who do you think will get their way? the braying toffs or the loyal footsoldiers?
    There are a large number of things that could be done to get a better UK. Things such as looking at why we are paying second generation landed gentry to set aside UK farmland which coincidentally we all pay for in our food prices for their cushy life to continue. You can't do any of this if you don't have control. The public have a much better voice through our democracy than we ever had through MEP's and the EU to get stuff sorted.

    To give you one example. I live behind a nature reserve where Natural England want to make and are of bog wetter. Unfortunately this is surrounded by farmland. NE have blocked drainage to flood the farmers fields and even written a document explaining their plan. I have a septic tank in one of these fields that now does not work as the water table has risen and am getting letters from the environment agency to sort out the issue. So essentially I have one government agency wanting to take me to court for the actions of another government agency and when you point this out to them NE then start to lie about the publicly available information they have already put out. We have literally lost the plot as a nation.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,155
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Daniel Finkelstein:

    During the 2016 referendum campaign, it struck me that the economics and politics of Brexit were pulling in different directions. A big part of the argument for leaving the EU was that it would set Britain free from a bureaucratic arrangement that burdened us with too many regulations and shut out trade from those who were not members of the bloc.

    There was, of course, a sovereignty argument and this was (and remains) important. But its attraction to most of its advocates was not theoretical — it was that it would enable us to plot a different course.

    And we would have to, anyway. Being outside the single market while still striving to be economically successful requires us to free businesses from excessive rules and costs. We’d have to do it sufficiently to offset the disadvantages of being outside the bloc. In other words, we’d have to offer firms lower taxes, fewer rules and reduced labour costs.

    This, then, was the economics of Brexit. But the politics of Brexit was quite different. Voting to leave the EU would be, and has been, interpreted as a rebellion by those who felt left out of Britain’s increasing prosperity. Satisfying their demands would lead the country towards higher social spending, a higher minimum wage, more regulations. In other words, in the opposite direction to the economics of Brexit.

    It has now been four years since the Brexit vote, and this tension seems more obvious than ever. Having won the freedom they campaigned for, it still isn’t clear to me how the advocates of Brexit wish to use it. Whenever it is spoken about, it’s discussed in terms of how to limit the damage it might do. But what about the advantages? Where are they?

    If our negotiations with the EU over a free trade deal didn’t have such serious implications, it would be tempting to find them funny. On the one hand, the British government insists that it should be free to depart from the European model if it, or a future government, wishes to do so. We cannot be bound to follow European rules we have no role in setting. This, it is argued, would make Brexit pointless. And it is absurd for the EU to insist on controlling a country that is intent on being independent.

    On the other hand, the EU is worried that Britain will sit on Europe’s borders undercutting its social policies by offering businesses lower costs and taxes. Britain’s departure from the European model might then be the model’s death. So they are insisting we agree to adhere to Europe’s standards even after Brexit.

    So here we are having a huge row, with serious implications for everyone’s prosperity, over the freedom of Britain to leave the European model. With us insisting we should be free and Europe insisting we should not be free. Yet all along Britain has no political intention to depart from the European model at all.
    There is a good chance the UK will use its new found freedom to increase standards. We have seen evidence of this already in terms of live animal transport. However, an important factor at play is that no parliament should be able to bind its successor, so the UK would like to retain the ability to remove such law if the democratically elected government of the day decides to.
    And the EU wants the ability to respond immediately if that happens, don't they?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,926
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Daniel Finkelstein:

    During the 2016 referendum campaign, it struck me that the economics and politics of Brexit were pulling in different directions. A big part of the argument for leaving the EU was that it would set Britain free from a bureaucratic arrangement that burdened us with too many regulations and shut out trade from those who were not members of the bloc.

    There was, of course, a sovereignty argument and this was (and remains) important. But its attraction to most of its advocates was not theoretical — it was that it would enable us to plot a different course.

    And we would have to, anyway. Being outside the single market while still striving to be economically successful requires us to free businesses from excessive rules and costs. We’d have to do it sufficiently to offset the disadvantages of being outside the bloc. In other words, we’d have to offer firms lower taxes, fewer rules and reduced labour costs.

    This, then, was the economics of Brexit. But the politics of Brexit was quite different. Voting to leave the EU would be, and has been, interpreted as a rebellion by those who felt left out of Britain’s increasing prosperity. Satisfying their demands would lead the country towards higher social spending, a higher minimum wage, more regulations. In other words, in the opposite direction to the economics of Brexit.

    It has now been four years since the Brexit vote, and this tension seems more obvious than ever. Having won the freedom they campaigned for, it still isn’t clear to me how the advocates of Brexit wish to use it. Whenever it is spoken about, it’s discussed in terms of how to limit the damage it might do. But what about the advantages? Where are they?

    If our negotiations with the EU over a free trade deal didn’t have such serious implications, it would be tempting to find them funny. On the one hand, the British government insists that it should be free to depart from the European model if it, or a future government, wishes to do so. We cannot be bound to follow European rules we have no role in setting. This, it is argued, would make Brexit pointless. And it is absurd for the EU to insist on controlling a country that is intent on being independent.

    On the other hand, the EU is worried that Britain will sit on Europe’s borders undercutting its social policies by offering businesses lower costs and taxes. Britain’s departure from the European model might then be the model’s death. So they are insisting we agree to adhere to Europe’s standards even after Brexit.

    So here we are having a huge row, with serious implications for everyone’s prosperity, over the freedom of Britain to leave the European model. With us insisting we should be free and Europe insisting we should not be free. Yet all along Britain has no political intention to depart from the European model at all.
    There is a good chance the UK will use its new found freedom to increase standards. We have seen evidence of this already in terms of live animal transport. However, an important factor at play is that no parliament should be able to bind its successor, so the UK would like to retain the ability to remove such law if the democratically elected government of the day decides to.
    And the EU wants the ability to respond immediately if that happens, don't they?
    Yes in the case where the EU has increased the rules and the UK hasn't. They don't want to have to evidence a loss or take it to arbitration.

    No idea what happens if the UK bans live animal transport and then says the EU has a competitive advantage, because it hasn't, so slaps tariffs on all meats.

  • elbowloh
    elbowloh Posts: 7,078
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Daniel Finkelstein:

    During the 2016 referendum campaign, it struck me that the economics and politics of Brexit were pulling in different directions. A big part of the argument for leaving the EU was that it would set Britain free from a bureaucratic arrangement that burdened us with too many regulations and shut out trade from those who were not members of the bloc.

    There was, of course, a sovereignty argument and this was (and remains) important. But its attraction to most of its advocates was not theoretical — it was that it would enable us to plot a different course.

    And we would have to, anyway. Being outside the single market while still striving to be economically successful requires us to free businesses from excessive rules and costs. We’d have to do it sufficiently to offset the disadvantages of being outside the bloc. In other words, we’d have to offer firms lower taxes, fewer rules and reduced labour costs.

    This, then, was the economics of Brexit. But the politics of Brexit was quite different. Voting to leave the EU would be, and has been, interpreted as a rebellion by those who felt left out of Britain’s increasing prosperity. Satisfying their demands would lead the country towards higher social spending, a higher minimum wage, more regulations. In other words, in the opposite direction to the economics of Brexit.

    It has now been four years since the Brexit vote, and this tension seems more obvious than ever. Having won the freedom they campaigned for, it still isn’t clear to me how the advocates of Brexit wish to use it. Whenever it is spoken about, it’s discussed in terms of how to limit the damage it might do. But what about the advantages? Where are they?

    If our negotiations with the EU over a free trade deal didn’t have such serious implications, it would be tempting to find them funny. On the one hand, the British government insists that it should be free to depart from the European model if it, or a future government, wishes to do so. We cannot be bound to follow European rules we have no role in setting. This, it is argued, would make Brexit pointless. And it is absurd for the EU to insist on controlling a country that is intent on being independent.

    On the other hand, the EU is worried that Britain will sit on Europe’s borders undercutting its social policies by offering businesses lower costs and taxes. Britain’s departure from the European model might then be the model’s death. So they are insisting we agree to adhere to Europe’s standards even after Brexit.

    So here we are having a huge row, with serious implications for everyone’s prosperity, over the freedom of Britain to leave the European model. With us insisting we should be free and Europe insisting we should not be free. Yet all along Britain has no political intention to depart from the European model at all.
    There is a good chance the UK will use its new found freedom to increase standards. We have seen evidence of this already in terms of live animal transport. However, an important factor at play is that no parliament should be able to bind its successor, so the UK would like to retain the ability to remove such law if the democratically elected government of the day decides to.
    Well, that's literally how treaties work.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    The standards issues for goods is a red herring. Any company making things is going to pick up the current UK version of a European standard and comply with it. If they don't they will not be able to export much in the same way they will incorporate elements of a US standard if they want to sell the product there. In the issue of lowering standards this is typically not done in technical standards as once the benchmark is set then it is illogical to role back from that as lets face it who wants a more dangerous dangerous product. In short the UK might add to the requirements for EU standards but we won't be removing things as industry would then have limited market.

    On all the other regulations such as environmental or labour laws etc. the only changes that will be made will be ones that make the government of the day look good. We vote for this and therefore have greater control than we ever had in the EU. We have a long track record of being relatively environmentally aware and not big fans of state aid so I think the EU over reaction to this is pretty funny.

    Your first para I wholeheartedly agree but Bojo is refusing to sign up to it because he wants to have the option of reducing standards even though as you suggest the EU standard tends to become the global standard.

    Your 2nd para I wholeheartedly agree but Bojo is refusing to sign because he wants the option of reducing standards.

    You have belatedly hit upon the inherent contradiction at the heart of what Brexit means. The leadership wants to create a freewheeling laissez faire economy free from as much legislation as possible. The "left behind" voted for Brexit because they were told that it would be good for jobs and wage growth.

    More succinctly this is known as "cake and eat it" and as we come to the crunch who do you think will get their way? the braying toffs or the loyal footsoldiers?
    There are a large number of things that could be done to get a better UK. Things such as looking at why we are paying second generation landed gentry to set aside UK farmland which coincidentally we all pay for in our food prices for their cushy life to continue. You can't do any of this if you don't have control. The public have a much better voice through our democracy than we ever had through MEP's and the EU to get stuff sorted.

    To give you one example. I live behind a nature reserve where Natural England want to make and are of bog wetter. Unfortunately this is surrounded by farmland. NE have blocked drainage to flood the farmers fields and even written a document explaining their plan. I have a septic tank in one of these fields that now does not work as the water table has risen and am getting letters from the environment agency to sort out the issue. So essentially I have one government agency wanting to take me to court for the actions of another government agency and when you point this out to them NE then start to lie about the publicly available information they have already put out. We have literally lost the plot as a nation.
    Again I agree with your first para but I don’t see how that and your second para lead to an answer of leaving the EU to hand more power to a bunch of incompetents in the pockets of the landed gentry
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,155
    edited December 2020
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Daniel Finkelstein:

    During the 2016 referendum campaign, it struck me that the economics and politics of Brexit were pulling in different directions. A big part of the argument for leaving the EU was that it would set Britain free from a bureaucratic arrangement that burdened us with too many regulations and shut out trade from those who were not members of the bloc.

    There was, of course, a sovereignty argument and this was (and remains) important. But its attraction to most of its advocates was not theoretical — it was that it would enable us to plot a different course.

    And we would have to, anyway. Being outside the single market while still striving to be economically successful requires us to free businesses from excessive rules and costs. We’d have to do it sufficiently to offset the disadvantages of being outside the bloc. In other words, we’d have to offer firms lower taxes, fewer rules and reduced labour costs.

    This, then, was the economics of Brexit. But the politics of Brexit was quite different. Voting to leave the EU would be, and has been, interpreted as a rebellion by those who felt left out of Britain’s increasing prosperity. Satisfying their demands would lead the country towards higher social spending, a higher minimum wage, more regulations. In other words, in the opposite direction to the economics of Brexit.

    It has now been four years since the Brexit vote, and this tension seems more obvious than ever. Having won the freedom they campaigned for, it still isn’t clear to me how the advocates of Brexit wish to use it. Whenever it is spoken about, it’s discussed in terms of how to limit the damage it might do. But what about the advantages? Where are they?

    If our negotiations with the EU over a free trade deal didn’t have such serious implications, it would be tempting to find them funny. On the one hand, the British government insists that it should be free to depart from the European model if it, or a future government, wishes to do so. We cannot be bound to follow European rules we have no role in setting. This, it is argued, would make Brexit pointless. And it is absurd for the EU to insist on controlling a country that is intent on being independent.

    On the other hand, the EU is worried that Britain will sit on Europe’s borders undercutting its social policies by offering businesses lower costs and taxes. Britain’s departure from the European model might then be the model’s death. So they are insisting we agree to adhere to Europe’s standards even after Brexit.

    So here we are having a huge row, with serious implications for everyone’s prosperity, over the freedom of Britain to leave the European model. With us insisting we should be free and Europe insisting we should not be free. Yet all along Britain has no political intention to depart from the European model at all.
    There is a good chance the UK will use its new found freedom to increase standards. We have seen evidence of this already in terms of live animal transport. However, an important factor at play is that no parliament should be able to bind its successor, so the UK would like to retain the ability to remove such law if the democratically elected government of the day decides to.
    And the EU wants the ability to respond immediately if that happens, don't they?
    Yes in the case where the EU has increased the rules and the UK hasn't. They don't want to have to evidence a loss or take it to arbitration.

    No idea what happens if the UK bans live animal transport and then says the EU has a competitive advantage, because it hasn't, so slaps tariffs on all meats.

    The EU proposal as I understand it is "don't do that".

Categories