A little tendentious presenting the temporary difficulty of leaving an institution to the long term steady state of being without it, no?
Printable View
A little tendentious presenting the temporary difficulty of leaving an institution to the long term steady state of being without it, no?
A second referendum has a reason to exist imho, but I doubt anything different comes from it considering the bullying of the EU, the EU(France) simply needs your and mine money. The French even threaten with war with Germany if they do not get free money, that is the EUQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Which Leave predictions have come true so far? Which Remain predictions have come true so far?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Under what circumstances could one, fundamentally opposed to long-term political integration into Europe, become convinced to reject Leaving?
Given that they reject empirical evidence, I'm not sure what would convince them. It's like Trump supporters, who integrate all Trump outrages into their anti-liberal narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The EU doesn't need to bully us. Any single country within the EU can bully us, without needing to resort to Brussels. See Spain over Gibraltar. I wonder when Holland will take their turn at kicking us while we're down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The Netherlands would never do that, nobody would like it if we screw the English. There have been a few wars but that was centuries ago, things have changedQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Malta has a deep association with the UK. Its flag even contains the George Cross, awarded by the UK to the islanders for their siege in WW2. Their commissioner was one of the first to demand that the UK should be made an example of. I have little doubt the Netherlands will have their turn at kicking us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Camerons deal + exemption from ever-closer-union available to all. That is all that is needed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
So that euro-outs have a realistic prospect of curbing the political and economic integration that the original-six keep advancing.
Via the endless extension of flanking policies which their social-democratic outlook considers to be a fundamental element of trade policy.
An outlook that is enabled by an activist ECJ in considering this social regulation to fall into the ambit of the single-market, which affects all members.
Without that exemption available to small peripheral nations they have no incentive to join thre UK in a blocking coalition.
Why would the Netherlands do that you are way to important for us, there is no predatory mindset against the Brittish we like (and need) you here, trade brings in billions in a friendly relationship. It is the eurozone that should worry as the Netherlands is the second biggest food producer of the world and the only one country capable of supplying the raw materials they realy realy need.The Netherlands and the UK should form a pact, and have a beer. Norway and Dnmark should join as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The French put the boot in: Quelle surprise. Did the government not see this coming? They've managed to squander two years of preparation time on something rather similar to political prayer - that somehow the EU would suddenly give them everything they wanted and there would be no need to have any preparations since it would all be OK.
So the two options now are a disorderly exit that the Government has done nothing to prepare for and has at best given very mixed messages over and agreeing to not be in the EU... but obey all the rules, pay in all the money, have no say and only get to leave when the EU says we can. Not since King John made the Kingdom a Papal possession in 1214 have we been so owned.
Most projects the government takes on are over budget and behind schedule. So of course, the government approached this more complex issue with that same level of ability. Normally of course when it is something such as the NHS smart card, when it fails the costs are quietly written off and no one really pays attention. Here the costs have been a lot higher.
"Fail to plan is planning to fail". I didn't expect to see that at a National level. Are there any good jobs going in Canada?
~:smoking:
Didn't the Spanish mention joint governance of Gibraltar as well? How's Brexit? Is it to your taste?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
https://mobile.twitter.com/HenryNewm...15285597609986Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Given right from the start I stated that a "hard exit" is the only realistic option to remaining in for exactly these sort of reasons, no - not really. I overlooked the fishing as an issue (and is one of the main reasons why Norway remains outside) but Gibraltar was an obvious one. But I do understand that repeatedly asking the same question until you get an answer you like is sort of what the EU defines itself as.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
You've said before, but it's evading my question, which includes the clause "[being] fundamentally opposed to long-term political integration into Europe". The question doesn't allow having and eating cake at once, I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I don't understand your point...?
My answer seems perfectly compatible with the grammatical structure of your question.
Unless you are implicitly talking about internal changes, I. E. Of conscience.
Perhaps; "in ceasing to be opposed to political union I suddenly found my self able to tolerate continued membership on existing terms, and recognising the trend of integration that was already present."
It is theoretical possible, but so limited a supposition it doesn't really move debate to an interesting new place.
healthcarejobs.ca lists 130 vacancies for RNs....Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If rory is looking for vacancies, there are even more in the UK since the referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-brexit-voteQuote:
The number of EU nationals leaving jobs at public bodies such as hospital trusts and universities rose by an estimated 15% between 2016 and 2017, according to freedom of information data assembled by a pro second referendum group.
Best for Britain collected data from 82 hospital trusts and 116 universities, among other public bodies, and argues that the figures show public services are being put under extra pressure as a result of the 2016 referendum.
The hospital trusts, all in England, who responded to the freedom of information requests recorded a 22% increase in the number of EU nationals leaving their jobs according to the figures supplied, a “damning indictment” of the Brexit result according to one leading doctor.
I think he was mostly joking, but the context was for jobs NOT in Blighty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The question wasQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
It is today, the time of this post. Exemptions for everybody does not appear to be an option. From the perspective of today's world, you dislike the EU's structure and governance and wish to see Brexit brought to a conclusion.Quote:
Under what circumstances could one, fundamentally opposed to long-term political integration into Europe, become convinced to reject Leaving?
What could happen that makes you say, 'Nope, cancel Brexit'?
I see.
... Alien invasion.
He doesn't like the EU's structure that will put the UK at a disadvantage politically. But he supports May's agreement that renders the UK in vassal to the EU. The UK is no longer at a numerical disadvantage of 1 when trying to build a blocking coalition (to cite his article), but has to accept everything the EU tells it to do. When I pointed out to him that the latter that he supports was an already demonstrated reality, unlike the theoretical possibility of the former that he opposed, he says that it's unfair to compare the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
A vassal in what sense?
Presuming chequers as the best guide we have:
Goods = yes (but fine, not willing to die in a ditch over common aubergine standards
Services = no (which would effectively be the case in eea)
employment = non regression (better than following in eea)
environment = non regression (ditto)
social = non regression (which ecj is steadily moving into the ambit of single market regs)
competition = yes (I can live with it - neoliberal alert!)
Foreign policy and defence = no
Fiscal = no
Extra-terrestrial, or would a huge mob of forcefully apologetic Canadians count?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
So you would like a free trade zone and pretty much nought aside from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
That is how it was when it was still the EEG, just trade, no medling with national afairs. We should go back to that. We have basicly all been hijacked by an unnacountable unchosen layer of government. Some aplaud that, I most certainly don't the Netherlands is it's own country, not a province of the EU. It will be if it isn't alreadyQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Because I fundamentally reject the notion that social environmental and employment legislation are an indivisble element of trade.
I have a lot of time for canadians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
What do you think of Thatcher's ideas on economics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Canadians are cool, travel-tip, say you are from Canada here, chances are you will get everything for free
No particular problem, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What do you think of her speech on the single market?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I realise you think you setting yourself up for some grand expose at my expense, but you are not.
The problem is not the single market, it is the judicial activism of the ecj in bringing elements of employment, social and environmental policy into the ambit of the single market, where they cannot be sidestepped, ignored, or otherwise avoided.
Using a logic that Husar has supported in the past: that such action is no more than a sesnibsle regulated capitalism, so of course this is reasonable.!
But we're still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. And we will continue to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ until the EU decides otherwise. And unlike before, we don't have a say in the law that the ECJ will rule by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You have so little faith in the institution you profess to love... Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I wasn't sure it wasn't "love" more that freedom is not worth any cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
~:smoking:
I'm pointing out that, from your complaint that our original position is disadvantageous in terms of coalition building should things move in a direction contrary to our wishes, we now no longer even have a voice, but we are still subject to said movement. How is this situation better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
We are still bound to equivalence, so we have to follow the rules and regulations of the single market, contrary to your beliefs above. The ECJ still rules on whether our practices affect competitiveness against EU members, so we still obey that body. And any change in that situation is subject to the agreement of the joint body, meaning we are bound to these conditions unless the EU decides otherwise.
How does this stack up against your professed beliefs in sovereignty?
For our American friends: imagine if the Thirteen Colonies in 1776 had representation, and some theorists complained that this representation was being made less effective because the UK was gaining another MP. After some negotiation, these theorists hail a new agreement, by which they pay marginally less tax, but ruining the economy in the process. More relevantly, the agreement gives up all representation in Westminster, but still binds the Thirteen Colonies to laws made in London. And these theorists tell us this is a great thing, whilst still continuing their old arguments about how Westminster wasn't adequately representing the Thirteen Colonies.
On the scale of economy ruining: government studies estimate that no deal will result in a drop in government revenue roughly equivalent to that of our entire defence expenditure. When Brexiteers say that they prefer to leave without a deal, we can just about account for this by implementing 100% defence cuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar-posted article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You think the EU will lock us in the backstop against our will...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You have so little faith in the institution you profess to love... Why?
Because the agreement says so? And why do you say that I have little faith? I'd prefer to remain as we are. I'd prefer to remain locked inside the EU. It's you that's saying we should be out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
But are you willing to respect the referendum of those who don't. Europhiles just killed referendums here because they got the wrong answerQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Which Leave scenario are the Leavers implementing? No deal? May's deal? Or something else? I quoted Furunculus above, when he replied to Husar's question, but he's since disowned that answer. Just like how the Leave politicians have disowned all their pre-referendum promises. All these promises are non-existent in May's agreement. Bar one, abandonment of freedom of movement. Will Leavers like rory and Furunculus admit, after all their high-faluting talk about political principles and economic models, that Brexit was about stopping immigration? Because that's the only pre-referendum promise that's present in May's deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
what have I disowned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You really become very tiresome. All you do is bash the strawmen you create.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
To repeat myself AGAIN... I voted out due to the lack of sovereignty. Can you grasp that?? It's a simple point.
And to repeat myself AGAIN... I never thought that there would be an agreement since that would be verging on political suicide for the EU because the EU is politically weak - it exists only by bullying the members of the costs of leaving.
And FINALLY... Merely that is the agreement May has reached DOESN'T MEAN I OR ANY OTHER REMAINER APPROVES OF IT!! :wall:
~:smoking:
Well to be honest immigration is why I want the Netherlands to leave, I won't lie about it you wouldn't believe anyway probably. Not that I dislike these people, not that I do not not understand that they would rather be here, but they should just sort out their own stuff unless they are real refugees, most aren't, most come here for welfare. It is a perfectly fine reason to leave the EU (and the UN look up Marrakesh)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Surely one could make the argument that nations that do not cooperate closely, like in a political alliance, always "bully" one another because if they're not cooperators, they're competitors. Some Brexiteers argued that global competition was a good argument for leaving and Britain would do splendidly in a competitive environment, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
To call competitive behavior bullying is socialism, btw. :rolleyes:
So, out of the three options Husar presented, which would you prefer?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
1. May's deal, aka no freedom of movement, but with everything else as status quo as she can contrive it.
2. No deal.
3. Remain.
If there is another referendum, those three are likely to be the available options. Which would you prefer? NB. There is no more waffling about some unstated solution that regains your preferred degree of sovereignty. It will be those three.
Immigration from Europe has been lower since the referendum. But more than outweighed by immigration from outside Europe, which has gone up, leaving net migration at roughly the same. NB. the latter has always been within Westminster's control, even within the EU, while measures against the former can be taken, but Westminster has chosen not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
At this moment in time having squandered over 2 years...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
1) Remain - May with the EU has engineered a situation where there is no time nor political space (courtesy of the DUP) to mitigate the problems. Just like the SNP, there's always next time to do it properly...
2) No Deal - the EU would not enable a "nice" slow glide out. It would probably be a car crash. with a nasty abrupt ending - and to the best of my knowledge the government has done almost nothing to mitigate.
3) May's deal - it is by far and away the worst of both. High costs, no power and the agility to do what the UK is told to do for as long as the EU says... and we gain the ability to block highly skilled workers from the EU whilst still betting lumbered with Non-EU "asylum seekers" / economic migrants who are apparently freeing oppression from the EU.
~:smoking:
You seem to have amended Husar choice, is this an accident? Checking for 17.4million friends... ☺️Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar-posted article
Where have I amended things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
well, you have conflated soft-brexit (barnier's offer of eea+customs union) with may's deal (which is goods but not services, with non regression in flanking policies).
one is not acceptable, the other is a tolerable compromise that reasonable and moderate people can accept.
One is the consequence of the other. The UK wants to remove freedom of movement of labour, so the EU27 will withhold freedom of movement of other stuff. Are you going to claim that the EU27 is unreasonable in their demands, whilst claiming that the UK is eminently fair in their demands? IIRC you've talked before about how the UK cannot cope with the addition of a small city every year, hence the red lines. Yet the figures show that net migration hasn't decreased; lower migration from the EU has been replaced by migration from outside the EU. You've definitely argued that it's unfair to allow freer movement from within the EU than from other places. The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Out of Husar's 3 options, which would you choose should there be a referendum? May's deal, no deal, or remain? Or are you going to waffle again about some theoretical scenario that we won't see? Remember 29th March 2019 is just 4 months away. Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision.
I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.
1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).
The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.
Lincoln didn't let the South secede (even though the Constitution is mute on the issue) and did not negotiate. He precipitated a conflict that he was fairly sure he could win. Nothing is more natural than the powers-that-be using that power to keep a recalcitrant member in line -- or disowning them entirely if they manage to leave.
What sticks in the craw is the level of deception from the Leave side, far beyond what is normally seen, and condoned by Leave supporters; "This country has had enough of experts" is illustrative of Leave. Also, the lack of responsibility from Leave, rejecting all warnings of negative consequences, and blaming others for them. This can be seen in blaming the EU for not being reasonable and giving the UK everything it demands, blaming crypto-remainers for Brexit not going well, and even Grimsby's wish to be spared the Brexit that it so decisively voted for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Still putting up straw men in the hope that other people will help you knock them down?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I reject the choice you present.
I reject the conflation of Husar's choice as originally presented and May's chequers (2.0) plan.
One is acceptable, the other is not.
As to whether the EU is being unreasonable in their demnds: We ask for nothing more than that already achieved by Switzerland and Ukraine.
Single market for goods, with some Service specific bilaterals.
"Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision."
Could you be any more of a condescending *&^%$?
Not to say that the outcomes you present aren't most likely, but there ARE good reasons why pursuing a Zephyr would make good sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
With the scale of the problems the EU faces - both internal and external - why add an extra major headache?
As global hard-geopolitics returns, why would you alienate the world's second most capable expeditionary power and soft power, which is also a UNSC veto nation and the worlds fifth/sixth largest economy.
As the global economy heads towards its next down-turn, a time when the Eurozone still has negative interest rates and £50b/month quantitative easing, oh, and 9% unemployment and a fragile over-leveraged banking system, why would you smash economic ties with your biggest trading partner.
Of course, despite all this, common sense could go under the bus regardless. Which doesn't make membership of such a dysfunctional regime any more more attractive!
Here ya go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Theresa May rules out Norway-style Brexit compromise with LabourQuote:
However, on Thursday May repeated her rejection of the “Norway plus” model and suggested she would not be prepared to offer it as a compromise arrangement because it would mean the continuation of freedom of movement. That is regarded in Downing Street as the hardest of the prime minister’s red lines.
No deal, no Brexit, or a deal that accounts for "the hardest of the prime minister’s red lines".
Which would you choose? Under 4 months until 29th March 2019.
I don't understand, she seems to be advocating broadly what I advocate, and rejecting broadly what I reject.
Quelle problem?
I never meant that the hope of such a "zephyr" was a bad thing for which to strive, just that I thought it unlikely to be caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You mentioned the hardening of global geo-politics. You note the economic power of the UK. These underpin my assessment of Britain's departure from the EU. The EU does not want the UK to depart or to make economic trade hurdles for their member states, but they want and must have all members toeing the line. Having you leave on your own preferred terms will NOT allow the EU to maintain the collective power and clout to enforce decisions on the membership. They may not be able to prevent your departure -- but they can and will make it painful and possibly humiliating "pour encourager les autres." To do otherwise is to functionally decrease their power and effectiveness - something few governments of any kind have acceded to without opposing it.
It's a factor, yes, but one that must be balanced against those I list.
Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switze...ngen_AgreementQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Sounds like just what you want.Quote:
This means that there are no passport controls on Switzerland's borders with its neighbours though customs controls continue to apply.
[...]
In a referendum in February 2014, the Swiss voters narrowly approved a proposal to limit the freedom of movement of foreign citizens to Switzerland. The European Commission said it would have to examine the implications of the result on EU–Swiss relations since literal implementation would invoke the guillotine clause.[14]
On 22 December 2016, Switzerland and the EU concluded an agreement whereby a new Swiss law (in response to the referendum) would require Swiss employers to take on any job seekers (whether Swiss nationals or non-Swiss citizens registered in Swiss job agencies) whilst continuing to observe the free movement of EU citizens into Switzerland thus allowing them to work there.
And I have talked before about the fragility of institutional relationships like Switzerland, good job we're not dinky like Switzerland, eh?
the institutional elements of the WA are actually quite robust, with elements properly firewalled, so not like switzerland living with a gun to its head 24/7.
At some juncture I hope there's a comparison between the final Brexit deal and the hypothetical "mutually beneficial" deal where the UK is feted out on a red carpet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Counterpoint: the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire. Whereas with the secession of the Confederacy, the United States faced a hostile expansionist power seizing its assets. The Civil War was as much about self-defense as about power (though the two aren't exactly distinct).
This nice recent video by CGP Grey on federal land management indirectly helps demonstrate the existential scale of the conflict.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Too bad that I forgot about all of it, what Washington Agreement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
First you want a deal like Switzerland and now you say your Washington Agreement would be different. :dizzy2:
Please remember that I only half-care about this, I have no interest in reading 200 page reports about the finer details of someone's dream deal. Keep it fun, like watching a train wreck.
Watching a train-wreck is funnier to say. But you simply don't need a trade-deal to trade, comes rather naturally, you have something, they want it. You sell it, they buy it.And vica versa. No need for a chapparone. In the end the EU is a protective system that doesn't allow the global market to do it's own thing and it only deals in handouts to gain more political power, it is a perversion of what was achievedQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
well, we do live in a complex world, but i'll do my best:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
although about 10 pages back i have mentioned the need to avoid a fragile institutional relationship where one 'wrong step' invokes the guillotine, the other 65 pages of this discussion have discussed the trade/regulatory relationship.
this is certainly what exercises people when we've talked about chequers, norway, canada, orderly/disorderly no-deal scenarios: the trade/regulatory relationship.
so when I say that i want something along the lines of the chequers proposal, something which is still obviously where the political declaration is headed, and something that is not greatly different in trade/regulatory terms from what has been achieved by ukraine and switzerland, this is what I meant.
i felt comfortable that this was understood because:
1. I have in fact made the distinction with institutional relationship used by the swiss (10 pages back or thereabouts - discussed by myself at least in some detail).
2. I have always discussed trade/regulatory relationship in terms of [both] ukraine [and] switzerland, which have very different institutional relationships.
3. I have always made clear that I liked EFTA as an institutional relationship, even if I was more dubious about the EEA as a trade/regulatory relationship.
So, back on topic - can I provide you a TLDR summary of why the institutional relationship in the WA (withdrawal agreement) is more tolerable than the swiss:eu relationship?
I'll try:
https://twitter.com/sylviademars/sta...00734152019970
Or, if you're feeling a little braver and want to move out of easy bite sized nuggets:
https://medium.com/@sylviademars/the...ts-9cc0ca6c472
Plus some short 144char sound-bites on why the trade/regulatory relationship anticipated by May's deal (Chequers 2.0?) is better than EEA:
https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/stat...59644727115777
I concur that self-defense and power involve a good deal of overlap in many cases. I think that my read on the EU's willingness to "deal" reflects this as noted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The secession of the Confederate States and Lincoln's response when compared to the dissolution of the Soviet and Roman empires would make a lovely argument for the Monastery.
Cracking read:
https://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp-wpe...iner-FINAL.pdf
My firm opinion is that we should extend the transition period for 24 hours beyond the July 2020 date, so it can never be activiated again, and then crash straight into the backstop.
Immediately agree to fully align with all eu regs of Goods, and give every impression that we're happy to sit there forever.
Entirely good enough, but may irritate the EU enough to consider offering us something better / more-bespoke.
And quickly! So it's all done and dusted before a 2022 GE election where labour might get in and make a pigs ear of everything (like they did when they threw away Major's hard-won exemption to the Social Chapter).
Bloody hell. The amount that's wrong in the above post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? Does the above solution address the issues he'd raised? Please explain how.
Explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Have you read flexcit yet? <insert tedious question here
I know that one of the leading advocates of Flexcit, indeed the bloke who coined the term, now supports Remain. Does that say anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The issues Mr Trucker raised have to be solved if there is to be trade at all, as recognised by Raab. You either solve these problems and have continued trade, or drastically cut the throughput of trade, as recognised by all government departments dealing with trade and its hinterlands, to an extent not seen since WW2. All talk of theory is nowt as long as you don't address these issues. Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? How does your solution address the issues he raises?
Does he, which one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I see, we're back to full on tedious-boi. What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?
Once again, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, and the issues he raises? He and his like are what enables trade in goods. If you won't even listen to him, how the hell can you say that any particular agreement is good for trade? You talk about freedom of movement of goods. But that's heavily, nay critically dependent, on Mr Trucker and his friends. Every government department recognises that. Why don't you have a listen to him? It doesn't take so long; it's only 10 mins or so IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I have to confess, that i might have actually watched it if I didn't take such perverse pleasure in denying you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Instead, I have rather more fun asking whether you've read 450 of detailed dissection of the EU regulatory regime that is Flexcit...
... and having a little fun by occasionally drawing a contrast between that and a 10m video.
but then i'm a reading snob, considering video a terribly low-bandwidth medium with which to transfer lots of detailed information. ;)
Read the Commons report then. It contains a transcript of Mr Trucker's interview, plus extrapolation from that to what happens on a wider scale in the event of no deal. No theoretical solution passes muster unless it takes Mr Trucker's raised issues into account. If you move physical goods, then you are utterly dependent on Mr Trucker and friends. Everything literally goes through him and his like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
No, they are two quite separate things. The EU has already separated out Goods for Switzerland and Ukraine. It would be damningly innappropriate for Service to be managed by the EU with us accepting the rules via the EEA. There would be no justification, as in financial Services and Legal Services we are a super-power compared to the rest of the EU. As to migration: "The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU." Fine, i'll get worried about EU migration when it falls to the percentage its ratio of the world population would merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You're still being disingenuous (polite word for "lieing"), as May's deal wasn't in Husar's article:
"That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit."
On Husar's choice I take "no Deal", on your choice:
"May's deal, no deal, or remain?"
I take May's deal.
Because, you know; I'm a reasonable moderate and middle-of-the-road kinda guy! :D
Yes, yes, yes, but, back to the topic in hand:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?
Like I said, everything goes through Mr Trucker and co. Explain how that bottleneck is solved in your proposed solution. Eg. what status does the UK have in your proposed solution? Is it a third country? Does it have privileged status? How many passes does the UK receive? All of that is raised by Mr Trucker, and the implications spelled out in the Commons report. All that is why the government proposes to take direct control of what comes into the UK in the event of no deal, so as to manage that bottleneck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
In the event of no deal, UK-EU trade (the UK's biggest trading partner) is due to be cut by 95%. That's spelled out in the Commons report. Does your proposed solution address this?
errr... yes. it's "the backstop".Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
did you read it? :D
What status does the UK have with the EU? I'm not talking about tariffs here. How many passes would the UK receive? Does your solution mention a number?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
No idea. :D Do you?
What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?