BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I find it staggering the disregard for NI. The ignorance regarding the North from large swathes of the mainland is unbelievable given our recent history and the tragedy that was the troubles.tailwindhome said:
I assume the Conservative & Unionist party are going to have to rename themselves?
Sovereignty only seems to apply to the mainland.0 -
Over 80% of the UK economy does not trade with the EU apparently.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No dependencies required, any deal is a bad deal, as is no deal. But then, no-deal isn't a bad deal because it isn't a deal. Bug ger,First.Aspect said:Depends whether you are talking about no deal is a bad deal. Or no-deal is a bad deal. Or no deal is a bad deal. Or are they all the same?
1 -
So the only option would have been to steal some cake and then eat it. I see.darkhairedlord said:
No dependencies required, any deal is a bad deal, as is no deal. But then, no-deal isn't a bad deal because it isn't a deal. Bug ger,First.Aspect said:Depends whether you are talking about no deal is a bad deal. Or no-deal is a bad deal. Or no deal is a bad deal. Or are they all the same?
Do the BRIC nations make enough cake? Most of the US is gluten intolerant so that's not gonna work.0 -
How could it be worse? He missed 80% of the economy. I guess if I had missed services and fishing I could have got to 80.1%.david37 said:
Glass always totally empty still. I wish you were negotiating it would have gone swimmingly.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job
But I am genuinely interested how you feel it could have been worse.0 -
The UK has a free trade deal with itself. Perfect. Unless you like oranges. Or electronics. Or money.Stevo_666 said:
Over 80% of the UK economy does not trade with the EU apparently.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job0 -
morstar said:
I think a lot of Brexiteers would quite happily see an economy that was less focussed on FS.
Tbh, I’d agree. And don’t misrepresent that sentiment, we should continue to be good at something we are good at but not to the exclusion of all else.
How does being a world leader at FS hold back the rest of the economy?
I am sure I read that it contributes £65bn in tax each year1 -
I am not convinced that is correct, maybe sway UK for GBFirst.Aspect said:
The UK has a free trade deal with itself. Perfect. Unless you like oranges. Or electronics. Or money.Stevo_666 said:
Over 80% of the UK economy does not trade with the EU apparently.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job0 -
So we can set rules and policy to suit that large percentage of the economy. While still trading with the EU under our new trade agreement - you don't think it will stop, do you?First.Aspect said:
The UK has a free trade deal with itself. Perfect. Unless you like oranges. Or electronics. Or money.Stevo_666 said:
Over 80% of the UK economy does not trade with the EU apparently.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It does when a government gets myopically obsessed with it at the expense of other responsibilities.surrey_commuter said:morstar said:I think a lot of Brexiteers would quite happily see an economy that was less focussed on FS.
Tbh, I’d agree. And don’t misrepresent that sentiment, we should continue to be good at something we are good at but not to the exclusion of all else.
How does being a world leader at FS hold back the rest of the economy?
I am sure I read that it contributes £65bn in tax each year
If you have a successful child and put all your efforts and attention into that one, do your other children thrive.
It is possible to champion a skill without being singularly focussed.0 -
It’s not either or.
We can be great at FS and other things.0 -
Decent article here: arguanly closer to what we wanted rsther than what the EU wanted. It's now up to us to make the most of our new found freedom, clearly.
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/24/sacrifices-made-brexit-deal-closer-uk-wanted-europeans/
Quote:
Britain was forced to make concessions, but the final Brexit trade deal is far closer to the UK's demand for a Canada-style agreement than the trading partnership the EU wanted.
Sovereignty was baked into the British negotiating strategy for the trade deal from the moment Lord David Frost was appointed chief negotiator.
Britain could no longer be subject to any foreign power and must have the ability to autonomously set its own rules, independent of Brussels. Fail in this goal, Lord Frost made clear to his team, and the very point of Brexit would be lost.
That decision has consequences for the future trading relationship with the EU. It will never be as easy or frictionless as it was when the UK was a member. It also meant foregoing the temptation of becoming a rule-taker, with no say in the forming of EU rules and regulations, in return for easier trade and more money.
The dust around the negotiations is still settling, but several of Lord Frost's wins are already clear.
The European Court of Justice will have no role in the trade agreement or direct impact on British courts.
Future British governments will be free to diverge from EU standards, provided they accept that the EU can take remedial measures, such as tariffs, to preserve the level playing field of fair competition.
The UK has taken back control of access to its waters, at the cost of agreeing a transition period of five and a half years for EU fishermen to adapt. After that, its goal of annual negotiations of fishing opportunities in its seas will be achieved. Arguments will rage long and hard over the amount of quota guaranteed to EU fishermen, but it is undeniable that the British fishing industry will be given a shot in the arm.
Britain will, as promised, leave the Single Market and Customs Union, which means it can strike its own trade deals and end free movement.
The EU had reason to be confident after trouncing Theresa May's officials in the negotiations over the divorce treaty. Michel Barnier saw off no fewer than three Brexit Secretaries and one Prime Minister before the Withdrawal Agreement was finally ratified.
Mr Barnier's mandate, and his opening negotiating positions, were correspondingly strong. The EU called for the European Court of Justice to oversee the continuation of EU subsidy law in Britain. It demanded dynamic alignment on state aid, which would mean Britain accepting EU law wholesale, and evolution clauses on environment, tax and labour rights. These would see the UK update its laws to match Brussels over time.
These "level playing field" demands were seen as crucial to the EU member states. They were were wary that the UK would use Brexit to slash and burn EU regulation and undercut Brussels standards for an unfair competitive advantage.
Most egregiously, the EU member states insisted that their fishing boats should have continued access to UK waters, under exactly the same conditions as the Commons Fisheries Policy, as if Brexit had never happened. Even Mr Barnier found that position difficult to defend at times, describing it as "maximalist".
Lord Frost, no fan of the Withdrawal Agreement, was determined to shift the European Commission from its complacent view of the UK as a departing member state. He would not make the same mistake as his predecessors by allowing the EU to set the sequencing of the talks, which was the foundation of the commission's triumph in negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement.
From now on, he decided, the EU had to see the UK as a sovereign equal, regardless of the asymmetry in the tussle with the much larger bloc and the 460 million-strong Single Market behind it at the negotiating table.
The principle informed every decision made by the UK in the months of torturous trade talks and set the narrative for the negotiations. At times, it knocked a Brussels still fresh from its victory in the negotiations over the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement off its stride.
Brussels wanted the big three issues of fishing, "level playing field" guarantees and the deal's enforcement to be settled first. Britain argued that the big stuff was always left till last in trade talks. After an almighty tussle with Brussels, Lord Frost got his way in the end.
So successful was the messaging on sovereignty that it was co-opted by Michel Barnier. He argued that the EU had to have the sovereign right to govern access to its market.
This ultimately unlocked the deal. The UK would be able to diverge and would have control of its waters.
In return, the EU would have the power to hit back with trade measures, shutting off access to the Single Market, if it felt it was being undercut or frozen out of UK waters.
These actions will be governed through arbitration in independent committees, rather than unilateral decisions by the European Commission and rather than by decisions based on EU law. Both sides' sovereignty would be respected. It is a sign of how successfully Lord Frost set the narrative and shaped the second phase of the Brexit negotiations.
Brussels wanted a comprehensive and close trading relationship, covered by an overarching treaty, which would have preserved the supremacy of its regulatory tractor beam.
The final deal does not preserve the lingering legal ties binding the UK and EU over 47 years of membership.
Sacrifices were made. Britain would have preferred better access to criminal databases, the continued recognition of UK labs as hubs for testing for EU standards and rules that would have allowed products assembled with imported products to be counted as British.
Critics will always compare the new deal to EU membership, but that ship sailed at 11pm on January 31.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Interesting stat, how are you measuring that £s, employees are 80% of all businesses?Stevo_666 said:
Over 80% of the UK economy does not trade with the EU apparently.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job0 -
Second last sentence suggests we caved on rules of origin, is that confirmed?Stevo_666 said:Decent article here: arguanly closer to what we wanted rsther than what the EU wanted. It's now up to us to make the most of our new found freedom, clearly.
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/24/sacrifices-made-brexit-deal-closer-uk-wanted-europeans/
Quote:
Britain was forced to make concessions, but the final Brexit trade deal is far closer to the UK's demand for a Canada-style agreement than the trading partnership the EU wanted.
Sovereignty was baked into the British negotiating strategy for the trade deal from the moment Lord David Frost was appointed chief negotiator.
Britain could no longer be subject to any foreign power and must have the ability to autonomously set its own rules, independent of Brussels. Fail in this goal, Lord Frost made clear to his team, and the very point of Brexit would be lost.
That decision has consequences for the future trading relationship with the EU. It will never be as easy or frictionless as it was when the UK was a member. It also meant foregoing the temptation of becoming a rule-taker, with no say in the forming of EU rules and regulations, in return for easier trade and more money.
The dust around the negotiations is still settling, but several of Lord Frost's wins are already clear.
The European Court of Justice will have no role in the trade agreement or direct impact on British courts.
Future British governments will be free to diverge from EU standards, provided they accept that the EU can take remedial measures, such as tariffs, to preserve the level playing field of fair competition.
The UK has taken back control of access to its waters, at the cost of agreeing a transition period of five and a half years for EU fishermen to adapt. After that, its goal of annual negotiations of fishing opportunities in its seas will be achieved. Arguments will rage long and hard over the amount of quota guaranteed to EU fishermen, but it is undeniable that the British fishing industry will be given a shot in the arm.
Britain will, as promised, leave the Single Market and Customs Union, which means it can strike its own trade deals and end free movement.
The EU had reason to be confident after trouncing Theresa May's officials in the negotiations over the divorce treaty. Michel Barnier saw off no fewer than three Brexit Secretaries and one Prime Minister before the Withdrawal Agreement was finally ratified.
Mr Barnier's mandate, and his opening negotiating positions, were correspondingly strong. The EU called for the European Court of Justice to oversee the continuation of EU subsidy law in Britain. It demanded dynamic alignment on state aid, which would mean Britain accepting EU law wholesale, and evolution clauses on environment, tax and labour rights. These would see the UK update its laws to match Brussels over time.
These "level playing field" demands were seen as crucial to the EU member states. They were were wary that the UK would use Brexit to slash and burn EU regulation and undercut Brussels standards for an unfair competitive advantage.
Most egregiously, the EU member states insisted that their fishing boats should have continued access to UK waters, under exactly the same conditions as the Commons Fisheries Policy, as if Brexit had never happened. Even Mr Barnier found that position difficult to defend at times, describing it as "maximalist".
Lord Frost, no fan of the Withdrawal Agreement, was determined to shift the European Commission from its complacent view of the UK as a departing member state. He would not make the same mistake as his predecessors by allowing the EU to set the sequencing of the talks, which was the foundation of the commission's triumph in negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement.
From now on, he decided, the EU had to see the UK as a sovereign equal, regardless of the asymmetry in the tussle with the much larger bloc and the 460 million-strong Single Market behind it at the negotiating table.
The principle informed every decision made by the UK in the months of torturous trade talks and set the narrative for the negotiations. At times, it knocked a Brussels still fresh from its victory in the negotiations over the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement off its stride.
Brussels wanted the big three issues of fishing, "level playing field" guarantees and the deal's enforcement to be settled first. Britain argued that the big stuff was always left till last in trade talks. After an almighty tussle with Brussels, Lord Frost got his way in the end.
So successful was the messaging on sovereignty that it was co-opted by Michel Barnier. He argued that the EU had to have the sovereign right to govern access to its market.
This ultimately unlocked the deal. The UK would be able to diverge and would have control of its waters.
In return, the EU would have the power to hit back with trade measures, shutting off access to the Single Market, if it felt it was being undercut or frozen out of UK waters.
These actions will be governed through arbitration in independent committees, rather than unilateral decisions by the European Commission and rather than by decisions based on EU law. Both sides' sovereignty would be respected. It is a sign of how successfully Lord Frost set the narrative and shaped the second phase of the Brexit negotiations.
Brussels wanted a comprehensive and close trading relationship, covered by an overarching treaty, which would have preserved the supremacy of its regulatory tractor beam.
The final deal does not preserve the lingering legal ties binding the UK and EU over 47 years of membership.
Sacrifices were made. Britain would have preferred better access to criminal databases, the continued recognition of UK labs as hubs for testing for EU standards and rules that would have allowed products assembled with imported products to be counted as British.
Critics will always compare the new deal to EU membership, but that ship sailed at 11pm on January 31.0 -
morstar said:
It does when a government gets myopically obsessed with it at the expense of other responsibilities.surrey_commuter said:morstar said:I think a lot of Brexiteers would quite happily see an economy that was less focussed on FS.
Tbh, I’d agree. And don’t misrepresent that sentiment, we should continue to be good at something we are good at but not to the exclusion of all else.
How does being a world leader at FS hold back the rest of the economy?
I am sure I read that it contributes £65bn in tax each year
If you have a successful child and put all your efforts and attention into that one, do your other children thrive.
It is possible to champion a skill without being singularly focussed.
Can you give me some examples of this myopic obsession of the Govt that have a negative impact on other sectors.
It is a genuine question as your position is fairly mainstream but most point to market distortions like hoovering up talent and strengthening £.0 -
Not sure, not had time to read the details.surrey_commuter said:
Second last sentence suggests we caved on rules of origin, is that confirmed?Stevo_666 said:Decent article here: arguanly closer to what we wanted rsther than what the EU wanted. It's now up to us to make the most of our new found freedom, clearly.
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/24/sacrifices-made-brexit-deal-closer-uk-wanted-europeans/
Quote:
Britain was forced to make concessions, but the final Brexit trade deal is far closer to the UK's demand for a Canada-style agreement than the trading partnership the EU wanted.
Sovereignty was baked into the British negotiating strategy for the trade deal from the moment Lord David Frost was appointed chief negotiator.
Britain could no longer be subject to any foreign power and must have the ability to autonomously set its own rules, independent of Brussels. Fail in this goal, Lord Frost made clear to his team, and the very point of Brexit would be lost.
That decision has consequences for the future trading relationship with the EU. It will never be as easy or frictionless as it was when the UK was a member. It also meant foregoing the temptation of becoming a rule-taker, with no say in the forming of EU rules and regulations, in return for easier trade and more money.
The dust around the negotiations is still settling, but several of Lord Frost's wins are already clear.
The European Court of Justice will have no role in the trade agreement or direct impact on British courts.
Future British governments will be free to diverge from EU standards, provided they accept that the EU can take remedial measures, such as tariffs, to preserve the level playing field of fair competition.
The UK has taken back control of access to its waters, at the cost of agreeing a transition period of five and a half years for EU fishermen to adapt. After that, its goal of annual negotiations of fishing opportunities in its seas will be achieved. Arguments will rage long and hard over the amount of quota guaranteed to EU fishermen, but it is undeniable that the British fishing industry will be given a shot in the arm.
Britain will, as promised, leave the Single Market and Customs Union, which means it can strike its own trade deals and end free movement.
The EU had reason to be confident after trouncing Theresa May's officials in the negotiations over the divorce treaty. Michel Barnier saw off no fewer than three Brexit Secretaries and one Prime Minister before the Withdrawal Agreement was finally ratified.
Mr Barnier's mandate, and his opening negotiating positions, were correspondingly strong. The EU called for the European Court of Justice to oversee the continuation of EU subsidy law in Britain. It demanded dynamic alignment on state aid, which would mean Britain accepting EU law wholesale, and evolution clauses on environment, tax and labour rights. These would see the UK update its laws to match Brussels over time.
These "level playing field" demands were seen as crucial to the EU member states. They were were wary that the UK would use Brexit to slash and burn EU regulation and undercut Brussels standards for an unfair competitive advantage.
Most egregiously, the EU member states insisted that their fishing boats should have continued access to UK waters, under exactly the same conditions as the Commons Fisheries Policy, as if Brexit had never happened. Even Mr Barnier found that position difficult to defend at times, describing it as "maximalist".
Lord Frost, no fan of the Withdrawal Agreement, was determined to shift the European Commission from its complacent view of the UK as a departing member state. He would not make the same mistake as his predecessors by allowing the EU to set the sequencing of the talks, which was the foundation of the commission's triumph in negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement.
From now on, he decided, the EU had to see the UK as a sovereign equal, regardless of the asymmetry in the tussle with the much larger bloc and the 460 million-strong Single Market behind it at the negotiating table.
The principle informed every decision made by the UK in the months of torturous trade talks and set the narrative for the negotiations. At times, it knocked a Brussels still fresh from its victory in the negotiations over the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement off its stride.
Brussels wanted the big three issues of fishing, "level playing field" guarantees and the deal's enforcement to be settled first. Britain argued that the big stuff was always left till last in trade talks. After an almighty tussle with Brussels, Lord Frost got his way in the end.
So successful was the messaging on sovereignty that it was co-opted by Michel Barnier. He argued that the EU had to have the sovereign right to govern access to its market.
This ultimately unlocked the deal. The UK would be able to diverge and would have control of its waters.
In return, the EU would have the power to hit back with trade measures, shutting off access to the Single Market, if it felt it was being undercut or frozen out of UK waters.
These actions will be governed through arbitration in independent committees, rather than unilateral decisions by the European Commission and rather than by decisions based on EU law. Both sides' sovereignty would be respected. It is a sign of how successfully Lord Frost set the narrative and shaped the second phase of the Brexit negotiations.
Brussels wanted a comprehensive and close trading relationship, covered by an overarching treaty, which would have preserved the supremacy of its regulatory tractor beam.
The final deal does not preserve the lingering legal ties binding the UK and EU over 47 years of membership.
Sacrifices were made. Britain would have preferred better access to criminal databases, the continued recognition of UK labs as hubs for testing for EU standards and rules that would have allowed products assembled with imported products to be counted as British.
Critics will always compare the new deal to EU membership, but that ship sailed at 11pm on January 31."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Can we call any sparkling wine "champagne" now ?
And can we put the ingredients on too?
0 -
That’s a fair question but it’s a long and nuanced answer.surrey_commuter said:morstar said:
It does when a government gets myopically obsessed with it at the expense of other responsibilities.surrey_commuter said:morstar said:I think a lot of Brexiteers would quite happily see an economy that was less focussed on FS.
Tbh, I’d agree. And don’t misrepresent that sentiment, we should continue to be good at something we are good at but not to the exclusion of all else.
How does being a world leader at FS hold back the rest of the economy?
I am sure I read that it contributes £65bn in tax each year
If you have a successful child and put all your efforts and attention into that one, do your other children thrive.
It is possible to champion a skill without being singularly focussed.
Can you give me some examples of this myopic obsession of the Govt that have a negative impact on other sectors.
It is a genuine question as your position is fairly mainstream but most point to market distortions like hoovering up talent and strengthening £.
Are there policies that neatly say, we prefer FS to other areas? No, I’m not going to pretend there are.
For now, I’d leave it as our economy and government is focussed heavily towards the markets and simple measures of financial performance. This is heavily lobbied for and the focus also becomes self fulfilling.
You don’t hear MPs championing other private sectors (with the recent exception of fishing) in the same way.
To flip the discussion slightly, we have a sizeable proportion of the population that could be more productive who cannot/do not want to work in FS. Think of them as an asset rather than a cost. That requires you to champion other sectors. Why isn’t the government facilitating internet provision in areas where the market’s haven’t delivered?
How can you have a digital economy outside of urban areas with shocking internet?
0 -
The government have recently acknowledged the equation for measuring ROI has favoured the south east. I think it is the same type of thing with FS.0
-
Only 8% of our economy has an economic link to the EU. The other 92% of our economy has no link to EU trade.Stevo_666 said:
Over 80% of the UK economy does not trade with the EU apparently.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job
It's why the Project Fear GDP numbers were so fake as they assumed all trade with the EU would cease.0 -
Bit more complicated than thatStevo_666 said:
So we can set rules and policy to suit that large percentage of the economy. While still trading with the EU under our new trade agreement - you don't think it will stop, do you?First.Aspect said:
The UK has a free trade deal with itself. Perfect. Unless you like oranges. Or electronics. Or money.Stevo_666 said:
Over 80% of the UK economy does not trade with the EU apparently.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job0 -
Lol dangerous game asking a bean counter how they count the beans.surrey_commuter said:
Interesting stat, how are you measuring that £s, employees are 80% of all businesses?Stevo_666 said:
Over 80% of the UK economy does not trade with the EU apparently.surrey_commuter said:
Depending upon how you look at it this will come to be seen as the biggest omission or biggest accomplishment and in many ways symptomatic of the exclusion of 80% of the UK economy from Boris’s world beating FTA.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't have free movement of people either. Lots of things it doesn't have that weren't expected.rick_chasey said:
Worth reiterating.TheBigBean said:
Have you been following the last 9 months?rick_chasey said:No fs passporting
Makes a difference to my job
0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
I think I would argue that the main Govt policy towards FS has been deregulation.morstar said:
That’s a fair question but it’s a long and nuanced answer.surrey_commuter said:morstar said:
It does when a government gets myopically obsessed with it at the expense of other responsibilities.surrey_commuter said:morstar said:I think a lot of Brexiteers would quite happily see an economy that was less focussed on FS.
Tbh, I’d agree. And don’t misrepresent that sentiment, we should continue to be good at something we are good at but not to the exclusion of all else.
How does being a world leader at FS hold back the rest of the economy?
I am sure I read that it contributes £65bn in tax each year
If you have a successful child and put all your efforts and attention into that one, do your other children thrive.
It is possible to champion a skill without being singularly focussed.
Can you give me some examples of this myopic obsession of the Govt that have a negative impact on other sectors.
It is a genuine question as your position is fairly mainstream but most point to market distortions like hoovering up talent and strengthening £.
Are there policies that neatly say, we prefer FS to other areas? No, I’m not going to pretend there are.
For now, I’d leave it as our economy and government is focussed heavily towards the markets and simple measures of financial performance. This is heavily lobbied for and the focus also becomes self fulfilling.
You don’t hear MPs championing other private sectors (with the recent exception of fishing) in the same way.
To flip the discussion slightly, we have a sizeable proportion of the population that could be more productive who cannot/do not want to work in FS. Think of them as an asset rather than a cost. That requires you to champion other sectors. Why isn’t the government facilitating internet provision in areas where the market’s haven’t delivered?
How can you have a digital economy outside of urban areas with shocking internet?
As is well known, I am a firm believer that the markets will allocate resources more efficiently than central planning but would agree that if the Govt is to spend then doing so on infrastructure is a good place to start. However in practice they build a railway and invest in a bankrupt satellite system rather than broadband.
Pushing for the SM and luring in car companies was effective as was attracting the tech giants0 -
Anyways, as much as we try to play it down, it is relatively good news... at least we won't be facing a constant recession for the next decade.left the forum March 20231
-
Strong sense of WA-style deja vu. Wonder how long before Johnson declares this deal an intolerable restraint on UK. I mean he's already lied about there being no non-tariff barriers.
Not done yet.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I would agree seems like not to much upheaval fingers crossed it all works out.ugo.santalucia said:Anyways, as much as we try to play it down, it is relatively good news... at least we won't be facing a constant recession for the next decade.
So Far!0 -
Don't worry, there will be plenty of articles to appease the hardcore. The Guardian has a few already.rjsterry said:Strong sense of WA-style deja vu. Wonder how long before Johnson declares this deal an intolerable restraint on UK. I mean he's already lied about there being no non-tariff barriers.
Not done yet.
0 -
Compromised. Bits from the EU count, but not from Japan, Turkey etc. The UK wanted it all and the EU want it to be UK only.surrey_commuter said:
Second last sentence suggests we caved on rules of origin, is that confirmed?Stevo_666 said:Decent article here: arguanly closer to what we wanted rsther than what the EU wanted. It's now up to us to make the most of our new found freedom, clearly.
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/24/sacrifices-made-brexit-deal-closer-uk-wanted-europeans/
Quote:
Britain was forced to make concessions, but the final Brexit trade deal is far closer to the UK's demand for a Canada-style agreement than the trading partnership the EU wanted.
Sovereignty was baked into the British negotiating strategy for the trade deal from the moment Lord David Frost was appointed chief negotiator.
Britain could no longer be subject to any foreign power and must have the ability to autonomously set its own rules, independent of Brussels. Fail in this goal, Lord Frost made clear to his team, and the very point of Brexit would be lost.
That decision has consequences for the future trading relationship with the EU. It will never be as easy or frictionless as it was when the UK was a member. It also meant foregoing the temptation of becoming a rule-taker, with no say in the forming of EU rules and regulations, in return for easier trade and more money.
The dust around the negotiations is still settling, but several of Lord Frost's wins are already clear.
The European Court of Justice will have no role in the trade agreement or direct impact on British courts.
Future British governments will be free to diverge from EU standards, provided they accept that the EU can take remedial measures, such as tariffs, to preserve the level playing field of fair competition.
The UK has taken back control of access to its waters, at the cost of agreeing a transition period of five and a half years for EU fishermen to adapt. After that, its goal of annual negotiations of fishing opportunities in its seas will be achieved. Arguments will rage long and hard over the amount of quota guaranteed to EU fishermen, but it is undeniable that the British fishing industry will be given a shot in the arm.
Britain will, as promised, leave the Single Market and Customs Union, which means it can strike its own trade deals and end free movement.
The EU had reason to be confident after trouncing Theresa May's officials in the negotiations over the divorce treaty. Michel Barnier saw off no fewer than three Brexit Secretaries and one Prime Minister before the Withdrawal Agreement was finally ratified.
Mr Barnier's mandate, and his opening negotiating positions, were correspondingly strong. The EU called for the European Court of Justice to oversee the continuation of EU subsidy law in Britain. It demanded dynamic alignment on state aid, which would mean Britain accepting EU law wholesale, and evolution clauses on environment, tax and labour rights. These would see the UK update its laws to match Brussels over time.
These "level playing field" demands were seen as crucial to the EU member states. They were were wary that the UK would use Brexit to slash and burn EU regulation and undercut Brussels standards for an unfair competitive advantage.
Most egregiously, the EU member states insisted that their fishing boats should have continued access to UK waters, under exactly the same conditions as the Commons Fisheries Policy, as if Brexit had never happened. Even Mr Barnier found that position difficult to defend at times, describing it as "maximalist".
Lord Frost, no fan of the Withdrawal Agreement, was determined to shift the European Commission from its complacent view of the UK as a departing member state. He would not make the same mistake as his predecessors by allowing the EU to set the sequencing of the talks, which was the foundation of the commission's triumph in negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement.
From now on, he decided, the EU had to see the UK as a sovereign equal, regardless of the asymmetry in the tussle with the much larger bloc and the 460 million-strong Single Market behind it at the negotiating table.
The principle informed every decision made by the UK in the months of torturous trade talks and set the narrative for the negotiations. At times, it knocked a Brussels still fresh from its victory in the negotiations over the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement off its stride.
Brussels wanted the big three issues of fishing, "level playing field" guarantees and the deal's enforcement to be settled first. Britain argued that the big stuff was always left till last in trade talks. After an almighty tussle with Brussels, Lord Frost got his way in the end.
So successful was the messaging on sovereignty that it was co-opted by Michel Barnier. He argued that the EU had to have the sovereign right to govern access to its market.
This ultimately unlocked the deal. The UK would be able to diverge and would have control of its waters.
In return, the EU would have the power to hit back with trade measures, shutting off access to the Single Market, if it felt it was being undercut or frozen out of UK waters.
These actions will be governed through arbitration in independent committees, rather than unilateral decisions by the European Commission and rather than by decisions based on EU law. Both sides' sovereignty would be respected. It is a sign of how successfully Lord Frost set the narrative and shaped the second phase of the Brexit negotiations.
Brussels wanted a comprehensive and close trading relationship, covered by an overarching treaty, which would have preserved the supremacy of its regulatory tractor beam.
The final deal does not preserve the lingering legal ties binding the UK and EU over 47 years of membership.
Sacrifices were made. Britain would have preferred better access to criminal databases, the continued recognition of UK labs as hubs for testing for EU standards and rules that would have allowed products assembled with imported products to be counted as British.
Critics will always compare the new deal to EU membership, but that ship sailed at 11pm on January 31.
0 -
Is it too soon to post this?
1
