EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

The logistics people have criticised the Transport secretary for being clueless about their industry, which is critical to the movement of goods across the UK and borders. They raised the issue of certification in the case of no-deal, and the minister "looked at me like I was talking in a foreign language." This was, as anyone who's listened to Joe the trucker would know, one of the key issues that said trucker noted that would make logistics post-no-deal practical or not. Oh, and said haulage reps deem Operation Brock, the post-Brexit update of Operation Stack, to be unworkable. They also raised various other issues with Grayling that Joe the trucker had already talked about on that clip I pointed you to.

Do you want to listen to what Joe the trucker has to say now? Or do you reckon that all haulage people, even those who represent the whole industry, to be unworthy of your attention, unlike your IEA think tanks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

What is not to understand? I was responding to this:
"See, this is what I mean. You talk in Platonic ideals even as you admit elsewhere that they will not and can not be instantiated. What you say you prefer doesn't matter!"
The implicit suggestion that we are in a take it or leave it situation. I disagree; I believe we are in a negotiation, and that valuable compromise can emerge.
Is this confusing?

---

I'm not referring to the very availability of compromise but of the foreclosure on specific scenarios or features of compromise by this time. You don't think whatever seemed possible in 2016 must be available now, do you?

Quote:

---

Politics is my hobby, I enjoy analysing it. It helps no-one (least of all me), if i am hugely emotionally invested in the things I am trying to analyse. I appreciate Pan is in a different place, he just wants things tomorrow to be broadly the same as today. So our current situation with all its poised potential energy must be very distressing.

---

I get it, it's what all of us do here in the end. But you have to realize at some point that the policies one advocates for can have significant repercussions and affect millions of lives. It's not just something that happens on paper or to satisfy an ideological preference, even if the way we talk about things can sometimes suggest that impression.

Quote:

---

I think the Gov't already did that, they counter-proposed chequers. Now we have to see how that is received.

---

Doesn't tell us much about Flexcit. Did the government make an argument on the basis of Flexcit? And what is "chequers"? If you're referring to the PM, isn't the PM a member of the government? Clarify your terminology please.

Quote:

---

Like staying in the EU to the point where we are so enmeshed politically socially and economically that it is impossible to leave... even thought it is constitutionally just a formal letter away?

---

You're technically on point in that, as I argued on the basis of the construction of a "single economy" being so complex an undertaking, that attempting to extricate one party should have been understood from the outset as too frictional to contemplate naively. Clearly the longer one is a member the more difficult departure becomes. But then if one believes in the value of not continuing in the EU one should be willing to accept the articulation of whatever costs there may be to Exit and 'take it like an adult'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I'm not referring to the very availability of compromise but of the foreclosure on specific scenarios or features of compromise by this time. You don't think whatever seemed possible in 2016 must be available now, do you?

I get it, it's what all of us do here in the end. But you have to realize at some point that the policies one advocates for can have significant repercussions and affect millions of lives. It's not just something that happens on paper or to satisfy an ideological preference, even if the way we talk about things can sometimes suggest that impression.

Doesn't tell us much about Flexcit. Did the government make an argument on the basis of Flexcit? And what is "chequers"? If you're referring to the PM, isn't the PM a member of the government? Clarify your terminology please.

You're technically on point in that, as I argued on the basis of the construction of a "single economy" being so complex an undertaking, that attempting to extricate one party should have been understood from the outset as too frictional to contemplate naively. Clearly the longer one is a member the more difficult departure becomes. But then if one believes in the value of not continuing in the EU one should be willing to accept the articulation of whatever costs there may be to Exit and 'take it like an adult'.

---

"Chequers" is the recent supposedly final position from the PM, thrashed out over a weekend at the PM's retreat, with all cabinet ministers locked in until they could agree on a position. 3 ministers resigned as a result of that, and the ERG forced the supposedly final position to move towards the ERG's position, with demands that make any compromise with the EU27 impossible, and no-deal more likely. So when Furunculus talks about "Chequers", he might mean May's Chequers position, or Rees-Mogg's Chequers position. I suspect the latter.

And while Furunculus has disdained listening to "Joe the trucker" as his weltanshaung is far too close to the ground to be of use, the reps of the logistics industry, on whom the UK's food supply depends, have made clear their contempt for the Transport minister, who does not understand the issues that "Joe the trucker" raised, which are central to the workability of the logistics industry. NB. anyone talking about tariffs and nothing else is completely missing the point. Tariffs is the easiest bit to work around. It's everything else, especially the bits raised by "Joe the trucker", that is impossible in the case of no-deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I'm not referring to the very availability of compromise but of the foreclosure on specific scenarios or features of compromise by this time. You don't think whatever seemed possible in 2016 must be available now, do you?

---

I continue to [hope] that a satisfactory compromise can be found for both parties. I have always known that this would be a classic geopolitical power-struggle, with the EU keen to keep britain firmly within its sphere of power. I accept that the consequence may be that there is no acceptable compromise. Nothing is decided until everything is decided, that is the EU mantra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I get it, it's what all of us do here in the end. But you have to realize at some point that the policies one advocates for can have significant repercussions and affect millions of lives. It's not just something that happens on paper or to satisfy an ideological preference, even if the way we talk about things can sometimes suggest that impression.

---

I get that too, but I have always had the decency to accept the choice to remain (and yes; even to go full federal), as a legitimate and moral choice. One that I do not agree with, but so what. That common decency has rarely been reciprocated, so forgive me for being a little blase after x number of wasted pages in this thread playing your game defending my legitimate political preferences.
Preferring more or less tax/regulation are legitimate choice in national politics, it is no less legitimate in european politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Doesn't tell us much about Flexcit. Did the government make an argument on the basis of Flexcit? And what is "chequers"? If you're referring to the PM, isn't the PM a member of the government? Clarify your terminology please.

---

As already explained:
1. "it [flexcit] covers these complex trade and border issues in an ENORMOUS amount more detail than joe the trucker, which you keep on asking me to watch. It is in that context I bring it up."
2. "Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?"
Flexcit is a deep look at the complexities of a post brexit world, it's worth reading and understanding, but I don't hold it against the government for trying to do better than eea+cu for the reasons I mentioned in the last page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You're technically on point in that, as I argued on the basis of the construction of a "single economy" being so complex an undertaking, that attempting to extricate one party should have been understood from the outset as too frictional to contemplate naively. Clearly the longer one is a member the more difficult departure becomes. But then if one believes in the value of not continuing in the EU one should be willing to accept the articulation of whatever costs there may be to Exit and 'take it like an adult'.

---

I think I have done exactly that.

p.s. an excellent watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUhj...ature=youtu.be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

p.s. an excellent watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUhj...ature=youtu.be

---

Not known to you? The trade outside the Eurozone is bigger than the trade in it for you Brits. If you squueze numbers the EU is holding you back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not known to you? The trade outside the Eurozone is bigger than the trade in it for you Brits. If you squueze numbers the EU is holding you back

---

Exactly. Let's say oyu have a pie and 60% of that pie is lemon pie from your aunt and 40% of that pie is strawberry pie from your uncle. If you throw the 40% of strawberry pie into the trash, your pie is unshackled and there is more pie for everyone because now you have 100% lemon pie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not known to you? The trade outside the Eurozone is bigger than the trade in it for you Brits. If you squueze numbers the EU is holding you back

---

If you think the UK post-Brexit is going to be such a lovely place to live in, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and join us? The leading Brexiteering politicians have certainly put their money where their mouth is; by looking for exit plans for themselves and their money inside the EU27. Even Rees-Mogg's company is advising clients on how to "protect them from the effects of Brexit".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Exactly. Let's say oyu have a pie and 60% of that pie is lemon pie from your aunt and 40% of that pie is strawberry pie from your uncle. If you throw the 40% of strawberry pie into the trash, your pie is unshackled and there is more pie for everyone because now you have 100% lemon pie!

---

All I ask from you is to read that out loud three times without feeling stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Exactly. Let's say oyu have a pie and 60% of that pie is lemon pie from your aunt and 40% of that pie is strawberry pie from your uncle. If you throw the 40% of strawberry pie into the trash, your pie is unshackled and there is more pie for everyone because now you have 100% lemon pie!

---

Give me the recipe of the pie that is partly lemon and partly strawberry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Give me the recipe of the pie that is partly lemon and partly strawberry.

---

Actually, a good dash of lemon juice while macerating the berries enhances the flavor of the pie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, a good dash of lemon juice while macerating the berries enhances the flavor of the pie.

---

A sprinkling of lemon juice is also standard procedure when drying or otherwise processing other fruit, to help preserve the colour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

All I ask from you is to read that out loud three times without feeling stupid

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Give me the recipe of the pie that is partly lemon and partly strawberry.

---

I'd ask the IEA, they appear to be the experts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Exactly.

I'd ask the IEA, they appear to be the experts.

---

The answer would depend on which sponsor they're plugging though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The answer would depend on which sponsor they're plugging though.

---

So far they appear to be sponsored by Big Lemon...

According to Husar, you can't mix 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

According to Husar, you can't mix 'em.

---

Don't confuse me with Fragony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Don't confuse me with Fragony.

---

That on tops huh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That on tops huh

---

Yes, if you throw a paper plane from Ukraine over here, it's very easy to miss my place and hit yours instead.
We're practically neighbors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, if you throw a paper plane from Ukraine over here, it's very easy to miss my place and hit yours instead.
We're practically neighbors.

---

I hope the paper landing isn't the bill of any humour contest that was meant for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I hope the paper landing isn't the bill of any humour contest that was meant for you

---

You should know, it landed on your lawn.

Why don't we discussxit from this thread together so it can get back on topic?
I don't think we're getting anywhere with this anymore.

Yeah it said something about eating cake, who does that really, eatingcakelol what's next a tsunami

what the referendum debate should have been talking about:

“The European Union: Supranational or Intergovernmental?” https://medium.com/@jskrase/the-euro...l-7980f7b5b4a1 …

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

what the referendum debate should have been talking about:

“The European Union: Supranational or Intergovernmental?” https://medium.com/@jskrase/the-euro...l-7980f7b5b4a1 …

---

Which would you prefer, supranational or intergovernmental? Do you think the EU should be more or less democratically accountable?

intergovernmental, in a heartbeat.

because there isn't sufficient closeness of social and cultural aims to justify a single governance among the 28.

i care about accountability and representation, something the EU is poorly set up to achieve.

it is the gradual encorachment of supranationalism at the same time as the eu competences move into core government activities that has necessitated our departure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

intergovernmental, in a heartbeat.

because there isn't sufficient closeness of social and cultural aims to justify a single governance among the 28.

i care about accountability and representation, something the EU is poorly set up to achieve.

it is the gradual encorachment of supranationalism at the same time as the eu competences move into core government activities that has necessitated our departure.

---

Aren't your demands mutually contradictory? If you want the EU to be intragovernmental, then the EU interacts via representatives appointed by nationally elected governments. If you want the EU to be democratically accountable, then the EU interacts via directly elected representatives. Your demands make it possible for you to lambast the EU for lacking whatever you want to accuse the EU of lacking.

Me, I'm consistent, and I follow through with my logic. I want the EU to be intragovernmental, and I see no problem in the EU having powerful government figures that aren't directly elected, but are appointed by their national governments.

Many a prommilage say you are right about that, hi juncker good morning, yes it is saturday, no sunday is tomorow you old git monday comes after it remember

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Aren't your demands mutually contradictory? If you want the EU to be intragovernmental, then the EU interacts via representatives appointed by nationally elected governments. If you want the EU to be democratically accountable, then the EU interacts via directly elected representatives. Your demands make it possible for you to lambast the EU for lacking whatever you want to accuse the EU of lacking.

Me, I'm consistent, and I follow through with my logic. I want the EU to be intragovernmental, and I see no problem in the EU having powerful government figures that aren't directly elected, but are appointed by their national governments.

---

It might seem contradictory if i was complaining that the eu wasn't democratic enough. but that is not a position i have taken.
I have not taken this position, because i have never had the expectation that the eu should be a fit and proper form of governance that I would assent to be governed by.

The eu is:
1. functionally incoherent as a form of government - in attempting to achieve the power it needs to possess by successive 'useful' crises.
2. practically illegitimate in my opinion - in not being representative of my interest, and incapable of being accountable to such diverse interests.
3. constitutionally incompatible with the UK - in constraining the fundamental principles of english democracy: parliamentary supremacy and the common law.

That it might be deemed "not democratic enough" is someone else's problem, not mine, since I have NEVER assented to governance by Brussels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

...The eu is:
1. functionally incoherent as a form of government - in attempting to achieve the power it needs to possess by successive 'useful' crises....

---

To be fair, using a crisis as a means of leveraging more power for one's self/organization/government is par for the course pretty much globally throughout the course of human history. And your first point is just as readily addressed by granting EU leadership power to truly enforce its choices as it is by discarding the EU. I don't think you want coherence restored using that approach (with which I agree, old-school nationalist that I am).

A fair cop. I'm entirely convinced of the principal assertion, but happy to admit the flaws in the given example.
It should perhaps read:

The eu is:
1. functionally incoherent as a form of government - in removing the functions of sovereign action in response to calamity, and yet being entirely absent the political will/mechanisms to enact those same responses on behalf of the nation.

What has been wrought on southern europe is a catastrophe of europes making, by which I include both the EU and european governments complicit in the idiocy of the single currency.

This example still falls under the aegis of your suggested solution, but I feel entirely free to reject it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

A fair cop. I'm entirely convinced of the principal assertion, but happy to admit the flaws in the given example.
It should perhaps read:

The eu is:
1. functionally incoherent as a form of government - in removing the functions of sovereign action in response to calamity, and yet being entirely absent the political will/mechanisms to enact those same responses on behalf of the nation.

What has been wrought on southern europe is a catastrophe of europes making, by which I include both the EU and european governments complicit in the idiocy of the single currency.

This example still falls under the aegis of your suggested solution, but I feel entirely free to reject it. :)

---

It's the national governments' choice to participate in the single currency though. Those that didn't want to weren't forced to.

And on your claim that the EU has steadily gained power through exploitation of crises: the major revolutions in my lifetime were created through sober negotiations by national government, under no coercion. Schengen was a local initiative popular to businesses that was adopted by entire countries. The single market was a British-led project that integrated numerous levels of openness to create a true single market. The single currency was a Core 6 project that was adoptable by other countries if their economies were sufficiently in synch with the standards of the Core 6. The expansion to the east was part of the price demanded by the UK in return for allowing the Core 6 to go ahead with the euro. Which crises caused the above to happen? Or were there greater, even more revolutionary changes in the EU's form than the above?

Also, what do you think of those Brexiteers who complain about unelected EU commissioners?

"choice" is an interesting word.
the only two nations that have a 'choice' are the uk and denmark, and only then because they fought for it.

the eu is functionally incoherent as a form of go't:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...holds-the-keys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ03CiyTVqQ

belong only to China

So many questions:

1. Why do they show the studio reporter from behind? Why show him at all then?

2. Why is their reporter in Scotland a priest with a sinister facial expression?

3. Why would anyone ask Michael Gove about anything?

4. What about environmental protection? How does it help anyone if the British fish every last fish away and then there is nothing to fish afterwards?

5. Crying about throwing rocks? BECOME A REAL MAN! You know, like the French fishermen...

6. Does the fisher lady (MP of Cornwall) blink every time she lies? Is that her tell?

7. How does it compute that one guy says the French were always tolerating the British in their area, someone else talks about international waters and the fisher lady talks about the UK economic zone, being protected by the Royal Navy when the moderator talks about it having happened off the coast of Normandy? Clearly some are full of it or don't even seem to know where the incident happened.

8. Did she just say that it's unfair that the scallops are swimming mostly in French waters? Maybe she should complain to the scallops then?

9. There might be more, but do I really care enough?

I tend to the last point. No I don't care. It is a stupid problem - and I'm shocked, shocked I tell you - that anything can have been made worse by the EU!

So, I await the EU to do nothing about the fact that the UK fishermen are fishing legally and the french are getting pissy about having to follow their own laws.

Perhaps we could use one of our aircraft carriers to fish since it would be impervious against rocks and without planes has no function in a war (and only really had one to try and buy Scottish votes for Labour).

~:smoking:

Oh fishing, Dutch fishers spend a lot into not tearing the sea-bottom apart, it was all for nothing

A conclusion that would be obvious to anyone that read Tim Shipman's All Out War:
https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/h...unfit-purpose/

I haven't been catching up with The Economist which is my only source of news for Brexit. But I take it May is still going to beg for the EU this fall to accept her Chequer's plan on the basis UK will practice single market "best practices" let's call them...

Then she is going to shove the plan down the throat of her Tory MP's who will flip a coin on whether they want to approve the plan or go through a civil war to put Boris in charge.

Meanwhile Corbyn... just sits and waits for the next election to sweep him to PM position?

Did I get everything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I haven't been catching up with The Economist which is my only source of news for Brexit. But I take it May is still going to beg for the EU this fall to accept her Chequer's plan on the basis UK will practice single market "best practices" let's call them...

Then she is going to shove the plan down the throat of her Tory MP's who will flip a coin on whether they want to approve the plan or go through a civil war to put Boris in charge.

Meanwhile Corbyn... just sits and waits for the next election to sweep him to PM position?

Did I get everything?

---

Gove has assured the party they can always go back on their promises. The last time a minister said something similar, the EU27 immediately dismissed an agreement made with the UK just 24 hours previous as being made in bad faith, reminding these idiots that Europeans can read English and they're aware of what these twunts say in the UK media.

Edit: Oh, and Corbyn's attack dogs were organised in the last party conference to ensure that nothing would be said to counter their leader's pro-Brexit position. Momentum actually celebrated stopping Brexit from being formally discussed.

Does Corbyn want to be PM? Weekly meetings with someone he doesn't want to exist, and needing to have his ideals abut reality. That would be an extremely painful process for all of them - enacting the vast list of plans that require money whilst desperately trying to find the money - historically increasing taxes tends to produce little more revenue since the very ones that could pay more are the quickest to leave the country - or invest in complex schemes to protect their money.

Momentum protecting a democratic decisions by undemocratic means - what an odd world we live in.

~:smoking:

The IEA produces dodgy research.

Not news I guess. Except that this is the kind of guff Brexit plans will be based on, the kind of guff Furunculus is fond of citing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The IEA produces dodgy research.

Not news I guess. Except that this is the kind of guff Brexit plans will be based on, the kind of guff Furunculus is fond of citing.

---

An economist with a model that predicts more than 10 years out. Good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The IEA produces dodgy research.

Not news I guess. Except that this is the kind of guff Brexit plans will be based on, the kind of guff Furunculus is fond of citing.

---

Come on, he already said he considers it fine unless you take every assumption and bit of math in their 90 page report and prove it wrong. Actually, I found barely any math in there, mostly just assumptions and numbers pulled from these assumptions and other sources. So go ahad and prove the 90 pages plus all the cited sources wrong beyond any of Furunculus' doubt, and maybe then he will turn, or decide that your proof does not prove anything to him.

It's a piece of cake, you could be done by 2025...well in time for it to be too late anyway. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

An economist with a model that predicts more than 10 years out. Good luck with that.

---

The arch proponent of No Deal has said that it will take up to 50 years for the benefits to show, meaning all negatives can be excused until he is dead and doesn't have to answer any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The IEA produces dodgy research.

Not news I guess. Except that this is the kind of guff Brexit plans will be based on, the kind of guff Furunculus is fond of citing.

---

Still whining about teh neoliberals?

Shanker Singham had a good reputation, and has a long history before he recently joined the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The arch proponent of No Deal has said that it will take up to 50 years for the benefits to show, meaning all negatives can be excused until he is dead and doesn't have to answer any more.

---

I understand your snark here. The 'convenience' of the length of such a prediction, regardless of its efficacy.

My earlier post though, was really more of a shot at economists. I am fairly firmly of the belief that if you ask 5 economists for their predictions of future economic conditions, you will receive 7 different answers -- all of them contradictory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I understand your snark here. The 'convenience' of the length of such a prediction, regardless of its efficacy.

My earlier post though, was really more of a shot at economists. I am fairly firmly of the belief that if you ask 5 economists for their predictions of future economic conditions, you will receive 7 different answers -- all of them contradictory.

---

The massive majority of economists agree that Brexit will be a disaster though, citing established models, actual laws, overwhelming evidence of economic tendencies, etc. This is backed by representatives of numerous industries who have a deep understanding of how their industries work. It is also backed by studies by relevant government bodies who will have to deal with Brexit. If 19 out of 20 expert sources tell you something is a bad idea, how likely is it that the 1 in 20 is correct? When the 1 in 20 is not backed by evidence, and the 19 in 20 are.

A great argument against democratic self governance, puzzled why more don't follow this logic....

n.b. https://www.economist.com/essay/2018...onomist-at-175

With the issue of immigration, it would be solved by investment within those regions. Though for this to be effective, there also needs to be some resemblance of global order there too, as handing money to tinpot dictators is a terrible idea, but investing in a like-minded nation would produce very fruitful returns. These fruitful returns mean people in those nations no longer feel the need to migrate too, as it is not worth the value of moving away from family and loved ones.

Unfortunately, some people are against said win-win investment due to jealousy which rears its ugly head politically in the parties of the right (though can appear in the left due to envy).

how important was immigration?

plus, we already spend a small fortune, how much more is needed?

Remember the ridicule over the notion that food supplies may be at risk in the event of no deal? The government have appointed a minister dealing with exactly that. Just about everything said by Brexiteers is shown to be wrong according to the people who have to deal with the reality.

Question for Americans, Europeans, and any other inhabitants of developed countries. Who is your Minister of Food Supplies? Do you even have a department dedicated to the sole purpose of ensuring that your country has adequate food supplies?

So... Taiwan should join China, Cuba should want to become part of the USA, Gibraltar should become part of Spain - since this is purely an economic view and when one is threatened by a larger power, capitulation is the only realistic solution.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... Taiwan should join China, Cuba should want to become part of the USA, Gibraltar should become part of Spain - since this is purely an economic view and when one is threatened by a larger power, capitulation is the only realistic solution.

~:smoking:

---

Threatened by a larger power? We're already part of the EU. We are part of that large power.

Tell me, how do you propose to solve the problems with borders and frictioned trade? Have you listened to that Mr. Trucker I linked to a couple of pages back that Furunculus derided, or read the Parliamentary report that transcribed it? How do you propose to make your idea, as you've voted for and continue to defend, meet reality, as described by experts in their field such as Mr. Trucker? Or does reality not matter in the face of The Democratic Will of The People?

Britain wants unicorns and leprechauns. Britain will not bow in the face of those who tell us we cannot have them. To accept their arguments is just capitulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Threatened by a larger power? We're already part of the EU. We are part of that large power.

Tell me, how do you propose to solve the problems with borders and frictioned trade? Have you listened to that Mr. Trucker I linked to a couple of pages back that Furunculus derided, or read the Parliamentary report that transcribed it? How do you propose to make your idea, as you've voted for and continue to defend, meet reality, as described by experts in their field such as Mr. Trucker? Or does reality not matter in the face of The Democratic Will of The People?

Britain wants unicorns and leprechauns. Britain will not bow in the face of those who tell us we cannot have them. To accept their arguments is just capitulation.

---

Ah, so this is more of a Tibet situation? They should just be happy that things are the way they are and be aware that to try to change them would be really terrible.

It's rather funny that we were forced to join the EU as an ideal and now on wanting to leave it is purely about economic reality.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... Taiwan should join China, Cuba should want to become part of the USA, Gibraltar should become part of Spain - since this is purely an economic view and when one is threatened by a larger power, capitulation is the only realistic solution.

~:smoking:

---

So China should give Taiwan trade conditions that don't even exist between the various regions inside China? Something, like, say, free trade of goods, but no free movement of people? Perhaps the UK should in return forbid people from moving between England and Ireland and between Northern and Southern Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So China should give Taiwan trade conditions that don't even exist between the various regions inside China? Something, like, say, free trade of goods, but no free movement of people? Perhaps the UK should in return forbid people from moving between England and Ireland and between Northern and Southern Ireland.

---

Oh right, like the "Two systems one China" approach that is with Hong Kong and the Mainland and pretty much with Macau. - two completely different sets of laws... Like that? Or perhaps the restrictions of movement they have with the Xinjiang province?

No, those examples are definitely unrelated.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Oh right, like the "Two systems one China" approach that is with Hong Kong and the Mainland and pretty much with Macau. - two completely different sets of laws... Like that? Or perhaps the restrictions of movement they have with the Xinjiang province?

No, those examples are definitely unrelated.

~:smoking:

---

Or like the rebate for Britain within the EU...
Or how China told Nepal that it can leave and keep the trade deals...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Or like the rebate for Britain within the EU...
Or how China told Nepal that it can leave and keep the trade deals...

---

Yes, there are all these many a la carte "fixes" within the EU - mainly around tweaking things to avoid plebiscites of if God forbid they had to occur to win over the "no" votes which occurred in every single one that has happened.
But any when people leave?? No! This is impossible! The EU never has these things...

When was Nepal part of China?

Remove oversight of the ECJ and I would be on balance happy with the rest of the EU. Much happier if all the countries south of Belgium and East of Switzerland were got rid of, of course.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So China should give Taiwan trade conditions that don't even exist between the various regions inside China? Something, like, say, free trade of goods, but no free movement of people? Perhaps the UK should in return forbid people from moving between England and Ireland and between Northern and Southern Ireland.

---

the eu has effectively already sold that pass via the dcfta with ukraine, and to a degree with switzerland in separating goods from services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Ah, so this is more of a Tibet situation? They should just be happy that things are the way they are and be aware that to try to change them would be really terrible.

It's rather funny that we were forced to join the EU as an ideal and now on wanting to leave it is purely about economic reality.

~:smoking:

---

Isn't Tibet being colonised by Chinese in all respects, with the previous government exiled and with its existing culture repressed? How is that in anyway similar to the UK's position within the EU? The EU actually promotes local regions by protecting their commercial identities, ensuring funding where the national government has neglected them for decades, etc. See the case of Liverpool, which was deliberately starved of funding by Westminster as a political act, but which has revived at least partly under EU-guaranteed funding.

I'll ask again, how do you propose to solve the problems raised by experts, such as the haulllers who are responsible for the transport of goods to and from the UK? Forget about your theoretical political arguments for a moment, and focus on everyday reality. They say there will be problems, and they are not satisfied the government has given them practical answers. Do you agree that there will be problems? How will they be solved? What if they're not solved? Are you just going to blame the EU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

the eu has effectively already sold that pass via the dcfta with ukraine, and to a degree with switzerland in separating goods from services.

---

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? The government have, and their response is to appoint a minister for food supplies. Are you still blase about the issue of food supplies that I raised in the event of no deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When was Nepal part of China?

---

When I couldn't remember the name Tibet and couldn't be bothered to look it up. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? The government have, and their response is to appoint a minister for food supplies. Are you still blase about the issue of food supplies that I raised in the event of no deal?

---

Just overlook the cause of the problem is the best option is it? Any issue with the EU suddenly refusing to allow any transfers is completely the decision of the EU. The USA and Russia can get their planes to work over Syria. But apparently it might be impossible between London and Paris.

If this was a human relationship and one person said "if you leave me I'll kill your whole family" we'd not be saying "well, if that's the outcome of leaving, you'd best stay".

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Just overlook the cause of the problem is the best option is it? Any issue with the EU suddenly refusing to allow any transfers is completely the decision of the EU. The USA and Russia can get their planes to work over Syria. But apparently it might be impossible between London and Paris.

If this was a human relationship and one person said "if you leave me I'll kill your whole family" we'd not be saying "well, if that's the outcome of leaving, you'd best stay".

~:smoking:

---

Isn't it more like "If you leave me, I'll not want contact anymore and will delete you from my phone because I still love you and being reminded of you hurts my feelings every time."?

I wasn't aware that the EU threatened to kill UK citizens over Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Isn't it more like "If you leave me, I'll not want contact anymore and will delete you from my phone because I still love you and being reminded of you hurts my feelings every time."?

I wasn't aware that the EU threatened to kill UK citizens over Brexit.

---

Apparently food will be cut off and we might all starve. Transport links will be severed. We get power from France - is that to be stopped next?

From memory, the UK have repeatedly put forward plans but - as you have said yourself - there is no option for an a la carte solution. Fine - but this shows that the severance is on the EU side. The UK is guilty of "trying to have its cake and eat it" which is different.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Just overlook the cause of the problem is the best option is it? Any issue with the EU suddenly refusing to allow any transfers is completely the decision of the EU. The USA and Russia can get their planes to work over Syria. But apparently it might be impossible between London and Paris.

If this was a human relationship and one person said "if you leave me I'll kill your whole family" we'd not be saying "well, if that's the outcome of leaving, you'd best stay".

~:smoking:

---

I'm talking about the problem affecting the largest volume of freight, which Mr Trucker mentioned as a fact but which Kate Hoey denied exists, and which the Haulage reps put into numbers. When asked about it, the transport secretary assured those reps that there will be a deal solving the issue, which they don't believe as they've not seen any sign of it. What's happening with permits? What will happen when the number of permits will only satisfy a tiny fraction of the current trade volume?

Oh, and have you seen the details about how we'll deal with customs on our side of Dover? I've cited the county government's findings on the practical reality of the planned solution. Even if the EU is entirely obliging on their side, how do you see our situation on this? Or do you blame the EU for that as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I'm talking about the problem affecting the largest volume of freight, which Mr Trucker mentioned as a fact but which Kate Hoey denied exists, and which the Haulage reps put into numbers. When asked about it, the transport secretary assured those reps that there will be a deal solving the issue, which they don't believe as they've not seen any sign of it. What's happening with permits? What will happen when the number of permits will only satisfy a tiny fraction of the current trade volume?

Oh, and have you seen the details about how we'll deal with customs on our side of Dover? I've cited the county government's findings on the practical reality of the planned solution. Even if the EU is entirely obliging on their side, how do you see our situation on this? Or do you blame the EU for that as well?

---

How could the government allow things into the UK without causing blockages. Oooooh, that's a tough one. After all, they're obligated to check every piece of material at the borders...

Oh wait! They're not! In fact, they are the government. They could waive all checks into the country if they wanted to. They might even have the power to pass some sort of law being the government. It seems to be the sort of thing they do.

Could they somehow just let in all things from EU ports?
We'd need some sort of register of what ships are called and where they have sailed from. Thank GOD we've had that for the last few hundred / thousand years! Sort of, as they do at the moment but this would be by choice and not by mandate? Why yes - they could.

Shipments out might experience delays - as Spain has shown on occasion with Gibraltar. That would be the choice of the EU. Who would have thought that screwing over other countries such as in the Commonwealth and focusing on one trade block would be a bad idea. Life and learn eh? It's not like diversifying a supply chain is viewed elsewhere as a good idea...

Do I have complete confidence in the Government? No.
Do I think they've done a good job? No.
Do I think that integration has gone too far for one hell of a long time? Yes. The phrase "too big to fail" seems to fit quite nicely.
Do I think that there will be problems? Yes.

Of course Whitehall has a longstanding track record for screwing up almost all major projects. And I'm sure they'll do a pretty crap job on this too. This of itself does not mean adding another layer of bureaucrats and lawyers suddenly makes the system work well.

~:smoking:

But would "waive all checks into the country if they wanted to" not violate WTO rules as Pannonian used to say? I don't know the WTO rules by heart, so I'm just asking. I don't think the EU wants your people to starve, it's the UK that wants to go back to WTO rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But would "waive all checks into the country if they wanted to" not violate WTO rules as Pannonian used to say? I don't know the WTO rules by heart, so I'm just asking. I don't think the EU wants your people to starve, it's the UK that wants to go back to WTO rules.

---

If you do it for one country, then you need to do it for all countries. If we allow food from the EU into the UK, we allow food from everywhere into the UK. Goodbye agriculture. That's before you look at the supply chain of ensuring that imports meet required standards. Waive one link, and the whole chain is assumed to be short, with good reason (see foot and mouth, and CJD before that). The UK will become a dumping ground for food not meeting the standards of other countries, while food security will become non-existent as we won't be producing our own food, and expertise in food production will also be lost. The upper percentiles may be ok as they can afford the mark up in private imports (see the Chinese-Asian market for an example of this). Most people won't be though. And one wonders how long those upper percentiles will stay in the UK post-Brexit; some of the leaders of Leave have already made preparations to move their lives to the EU (Lawson, Farage and Rees-Mogg come to mind).

And once again, what's happening with permits? IIRC the numbers are currently 30k journeys in a set period of time, whereas post-no deal we can expect 1.5k permits as a third country, reducing the volume of UK-EU haulage (by some distance our biggest trade partnership) by 95%. The industry reps asked the transport secretary Grayling about this, and his response was that there will be a deal of some sort, but without giving any details. The reps have declared that they have no confidence in his assurances, as the government are currently toting no deal as the scenario come 30th March next year.

Cue Brexiteers: it's all the EU's fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But would "waive all checks into the country if they wanted to" not violate WTO rules as Pannonian used to say? I don't know the WTO rules by heart, so I'm just asking. I don't think the EU wants your people to starve, it's the UK that wants to go back to WTO rules.

---

I'm hardly an international trade lawyer, but I believe it is mainly one can not discriminate against specific countries.

The UK doesn't want to go back to WTO rules. The UK has put forward several proposals that have been refused by the EU. If negotiations fail, the the default position is WTO.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If you do it for one country, then you need to do it for all countries. If we allow food from the EU into the UK, we allow food from everywhere into the UK. Goodbye agriculture. That's before you look at the supply chain of ensuring that imports meet required standards. Waive one link, and the whole chain is assumed to be short, with good reason (see foot and mouth, and CJD before that). The UK will become a dumping ground for food not meeting the standards of other countries, while food security will become non-existent as we won't be producing our own food, and expertise in food production will also be lost. The upper percentiles may be ok as they can afford the mark up in private imports (see the Chinese-Asian market for an example of this). Most people won't be though. And one wonders how long those upper percentiles will stay in the UK post-Brexit; some of the leaders of Leave have already made preparations to move their lives to the EU (Lawson, Farage and Rees-Mogg come to mind).

---

Tarriffs does not preclude standards. It might be possible that companies continue to get food from the same places they already have! Although others can offer to sell food, there is no requirement to purchase it and Food Standards still exists.
Food security is non existent... I hate to break it to you, but we've not had food security for over 100 years. And even worse - we don't produce all our industrial materials in the UK either!!!

There are (a few) other countries who have no barriers to entry and manage to purchase what they want of the quality they want from who they want. This really isn't relevant.

If I recall correctly, the unfit for human standard horse meat in foods was from countries in the EU, to abattoirs in the EU and then to us. The EU hasn't managed to prevent just the sort of event you claim will happen if we were not in the EU.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? The government have, and their response is to appoint a minister for food supplies. Are you still blase about the issue of food supplies that I raised in the event of no deal?

---

I'm not sure what you think that is a response to, but it certainly isn't one to the point of mine you quote about their being existing precedent for separating goods from services/people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The UK has put forward several proposals that have been refused by the EU. If negotiations fail, the the default position is WTO.

---

Well, yes, only the mafia can force someone else to accept a deal. In a fair negotiation both partners have to agree or find someone else to trade with, no? Competition and the market will ensure the best outcome, IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Tarriffs does not preclude standards. It might be possible that companies continue to get food from the same places they already have! Although others can offer to sell food, there is no requirement to purchase it and Food Standards still exists.
Food security is non existent... I hate to break it to you, but we've not had food security for over 100 years. And even worse - we don't produce all our industrial materials in the UK either!!!

There are (a few) other countries who have no barriers to entry and manage to purchase what they want of the quality they want from who they want. This really isn't relevant.

If I recall correctly, the unfit for human standard horse meat in foods was from countries in the EU, to abattoirs in the EU and then to us. The EU hasn't managed to prevent just the sort of event you claim will happen if we were not in the EU.

~:smoking:

---

I was waiting for you to raise this. This was due to people falsifying documentation AFAIK, and was dealt with by the EU's mechanisms when this came to light (similarly with VW). If you really cared about this, you'd be demanding more teeth for the EU's institutions to prevent this kind of thing. Rather than demanding that they have no influence over us, as you've made a point of doing.

Do you think there should be uniformly high standards that the UK benefits from? Do you think that companies should be held to those standards? What do you think of proposals to hold a bonfire of regulations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I'm hardly an international trade lawyer, but I believe it is mainly one can not discriminate against specific countries.

The UK doesn't want to go back to WTO rules. The UK has put forward several proposals that have been refused by the EU. If negotiations fail, the the default position is WTO.

~:smoking:

---

The UK has set out various red lines that bar the various solutions that are available. No one has forced the UK to set out those red lines. It did so unilaterally. With these red lines in place, no deal is what the UK defaults to.

Do you agree with those red lines? Which would you discard, which would you retain, and what solutions would be available given those you'd want to retain?

The UK should commit to Brexit, but the Brexiteers really ducked it all up. No plan exit is just terrible governing, you cant really blame it on the EU at this point. But they will try.

How the hell did you people even have an empire, christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The UK should commit to Brexit, but the Brexiteers really ducked it all up. No plan exit is just terrible governing, you cant really blame it on the EU at this point. But they will try.

How the hell did you people even have an empire, christ.

---

Their was an arrogant cockiness to the English culture in the past which is not present now. To be fair, their English rendition was always a bit more smoothly mannered than the USA's 'cowboy' equivalent.