EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Fragony]

Have you always been this observant on steering? I could go on and on about the subject, eurocraten basicly try to push anyone who is sceptical into the facist camp. There is so much wrong with the EU and the only answer they know is more EU, there are very valid reasons to not want to be a part of it as it's out of control. I think a re-referendum is apropiate though

[Furunculus]

welcome to the future.
circa 2010 onward.

[Pannonian]

A rightwing thinktank has been offering potential US donors access to government ministers and civil servants as it raises cash for research to support the free-trade deals demanded by hardline Brexiters, according to an investigation.

The director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was secretly recorded telling an undercover reporter that funders could get to know ministers on first-name terms and that his organisation was in “the Brexit influencing game”.

Mark Littlewood claimed the IEA could make introductions to ministers and said the thinktank’s trade expert knew Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and Liam Fox well.

The IEA chief was also recorded suggesting potential US donors could fund and shape “substantial content” of research commissioned by the thinktank and that its findings would always support the argument for free-trade deals.

Speaking about what kind of Westminster access the IEA could provide donors with, Littlewood told the investigator: “I have absolutely no problem with people who have business interests, us facilitating those.”

The investigation, undertaken in May and June, also revealed the thinktank had already provided access to a minister for a US organisation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...affairs-brexit

Remember all those IEA articles Furunculus posted supporting Brexit?

[Furunculus]

And?

It isn't a revelation that beyond a certain point of productive spending and regulation, increasing both further decreases gdp growth.
Some people will happily take that trade-off, in order to achieve further social good (i.e. equalise income distribution).
Others will not.

[Pannonian]

And?

It isn't a revelation that beyond a certain point of productive spending and regulation, increasing both further decreases gdp growth.
Some people will happily take that trade-off, in order to achieve further social good (i.e. equalise income distribution).
Others will not.

You missed the bit about the thinktank's research being shaped by donors. So if you're in the Brexit game, if you're willing to cough up, you can find both buyable "academics" supporting your agenda with suitable articles and a government to shmooze with who is willing to act on said "research". The IEA is deeply corrupt.

[Furunculus]

I raised the idea paper to make the point about public spending/regulation and growth, i.e. Why I se an opportunity in being outside the orbit of the ecj.
I see nothing to invalidate that opinion, and remain quite content to offer that paper as evidence in future until someone can demonstrate why it is in accurate or false.

[rory_20_uk]

You missed the bit about the thinktank's research being shaped by donors. So if you're in the Brexit game, if you're willing to cough up, you can find both buyable "academics" supporting your agenda with suitable articles and a government to shmooze with who is willing to act on said "research". The IEA is deeply corrupt.

I think you will find this is true of almost all "think tanks", both the independent ones and those inside governments as all have their paymasters. So all should be viewed with a critical eye - not just blaming anything the "other" lot create as corrupt whilst everything close to one's own point of view is obviously the Truth.

[Pannonian]

I think you will find this is true of almost all "think tanks", both the independent ones and those inside governments as all have their paymasters. So all should be viewed with a critical eye - not just blaming anything the "other" lot create as corrupt whilst everything close to one's own point of view is obviously the Truth.

If you discount theoretical arguments made by "think tanks", as per your contention that none of them are free from the taint, then the overwhelming majority of practical expert sources, eg. people underpinning the critical parts of the UK's economy, are anti-Brexit. See the lorry driver's testimony I linked to a few pages ago talking about how border checks affect his schedule and how it cost his client, relate it to how the same severely damaged the KFC business over a mere month, and relate it to the government's assumption that the likelihood is that this will be the case across the whole economy for a prolonged period in the case of no-deal, which is now looking like the most likely eventuality. Would you like to discuss this scenario, which the government thinks is likely to happen, and is making disaster-level preparations for (they're preparing to call the troops out)? Or would you prefer to retreat to theoretical arguments made by think tanks like iEA? We know about the practical costs of Brexit. What are the practical benefits of Brexit?

[rory_20_uk]

If you discount theoretical arguments made by "think tanks", as per your contention that none of them are free from the taint, then the overwhelming majority of practical expert sources, eg. people underpinning the critical parts of the UK's economy, are anti-Brexit. See the lorry driver's testimony I linked to a few pages ago talking about how border checks affect his schedule and how it cost his client, relate it to how the same severely damaged the KFC business over a mere month, and relate it to the government's assumption that the likelihood is that this will be the case across the whole economy for a prolonged period in the case of no-deal, which is now looking like the most likely eventuality. Would you like to discuss this scenario, which the government thinks is likely to happen, and is making disaster-level preparations for (they're preparing to call the troops out)? Or would you prefer to retreat to theoretical arguments made by think tanks like iEA? We know about the practical costs of Brexit. What are the practical benefits of Brexit?

So as far as you are concerned, UK Plc is looking for a merger, with the sole metric of success is economic? OK fine. But surely we should shop around. See if any others offer a better deal.

I have repeatedly said that the driver for me personally was judicial freedom as without we are not an independent country. Although I am generally a very practical person I still have some issue with the sovereign nation being in essence sold off, as if that was a logical conclusion to British Leyland et al in the 1970's.

It would have been against most of the way we restricted our access to markets outside of the EU for the last 25 years via treaties that apparently did not require any interaction from the populace. So, yes there will almost certainly be a cost to undo all the decisions that have been made in our name but the populace had no control over.

But if we leave, planes can not land in Europe. They can from Russia, from Iran, from the USA. But apparently not us. Medicines will stop. Sure, we can get them into Syria to bombed out hospitals but the UK might prove to be an insurmountable problem. Food? Might be a challenge. Sure, we are an island nation and as yet have a currency that has value but we might end up starving.

[Pannonian]

So as far as you are concerned, UK Plc is looking for a merger, with the sole metric of success is economic? OK fine. But surely we should shop around. See if any others offer a better deal.

I have repeatedly said that the driver for me personally was judicial freedom as without we are not an independent country. Although I am generally a very practical person I still have some issue with the sovereign nation being in essence sold off, as if that was a logical conclusion to British Leyland et al in the 1970's.

It would have been against most of the way we restricted our access to markets outside of the EU for the last 25 years via treaties that apparently did not require any interaction from the populace. So, yes there will almost certainly be a cost to undo all the decisions that have been made in our name but the populace had no control over.

But if we leave, planes can not land in Europe. They can from Russia, from Iran, from the USA. But apparently not us. Medicines will stop. Sure, we can get them into Syria to bombed out hospitals but the UK might prove to be an insurmountable problem. Food? Might be a challenge. Sure, we are an island nation and as yet have a currency that has value but we might end up starving.

Should we still be subject to rulings by the ECHR and ICJ?

[rory_20_uk]

Should we still be subject to rulings by the ECHR and ICJ?

ICJ - sure, it settles disputes between sovereign states, is part of the UN... or perhaps follow the "Land of the Free" and just agree on the case by case basis.
ECHR - sure, it has a very narrow remit and in c. 99.9% of the time we would be following the rules even if it were not there. And one can opt-out of the bits one doesn't like.

[Pannonian]

BTW, when you ridicule the stuff about food not being as available as now, how do you explain the KFC affair? Did that not happen? Was I imagining it?

[rory_20_uk]

BTW, when you ridicule the stuff about food not being as available as now, how do you explain the KFC affair? Did that not happen? Was I imagining it?

My explanation is quite simple, and is based on what happened. To quote the Right Wing, pro-Brexit rag, the Guardian Link:

The American fast food chain was forced to temporarily close hundreds of stores after it ran out of chicken following the botched handover of its logistics contract to DHL and QSL. “To put it simply,” KFC tweeted at the time, “we’ve got the chicken, we’ve got the restaurants, but we’ve just had issues getting them together.”

But yes, sure - it is evidence of foot shortages due to Brexit. It appears to be a classic case of finding things that support the position you already hold and not bothering to check as long as it fits.

[Pannonian]

My explanation is quite simple, and is based on what happened. To quote the Right Wing, pro-Brexit rag, the Guardian Link:

But yes, sure - it is evidence of foot shortages due to Brexit. It appears to be a classic case of finding things that support the position you already hold and not bothering to check as long as it fits.

It's evidence of the logistics train breaking down, and food being unuseable after just a short time because of the nature of food. What was that the lorry driver said about border checks leading to delays building up, leading to existing timetables being unuseable by his client? Our whole food system is based on JIT. The bloody government that you voted in reckons it will be one of the areas most affected by no-deal. The food retailers themselves are pointing to this being an issue. But you know better, of course. What does the IEA say about the logistics of a JIT-based economy?

[rory_20_uk]

Erm... I know better than you: you gave this example and I managed to find was completely wrong with almost depressing ease. I never said it wasn't a problem, you appear to be desperately re-framing you stating the KFC situation was somehow relevant.

The government currently in is propped up by some Northern Ireland nutters. I personally dislike governments that are able to undertake activities without any input from the citizens. You know, like how the EU works.

And ironically, the KFC is an example of how JIT works in food - there is a large depot in the UK that sends the food out when required to the restaurants. I highly doubt that the chicken is sent straight from a container ship to the restaurant.

What do companies want? The ability to trade with as few borders as possible. Are you now so pro-company that whatever is best for companies is obviously best for everyone else?

[Husar]

I raised the idea paper to make the point about public spending/regulation and growth, i.e. Why I se an opportunity in being outside the orbit of the ecj.
I see nothing to invalidate that opinion, and remain quite content to offer that paper as evidence in future until someone can demonstrate why it is in accurate or false.

I can only assume that you believe in all the available gods then since plenty of papers say they exist while noone has managed to conclusively prove that they don't.

[Pannonian]

Erm... I know better than you: you gave this example and I managed to find was completely wrong with almost depressing ease. I never said it wasn't a problem, you appear to be desperately re-framing you stating the KFC situation was somehow relevant.

The government currently in is propped up by some Northern Ireland nutters. I personally dislike governments that are able to undertake activities without any input from the citizens. You know, like how the EU works.

And ironically, the KFC is an example of how JIT works in food - there is a large depot in the UK that sends the food out when required to the restaurants. I highly doubt that the chicken is sent straight from a container ship to the restaurant.

What do companies want? The ability to trade with as few borders as possible. Are you now so pro-company that whatever is best for companies is obviously best for everyone else?

Go to any supermarket, and look at a pack of stewing vegetables, consisting of a mixture of root vegetables. Most of them come from non-UK EU countries. Or I can go to my local greengrocer, which labels where every item comes from. Most of them aren't from the UK.

There's a passage in Night Watch by Terry Pratchett, where Vimes notes the difference between Vetinari, who spent every day making sure food got from the hinterland into the city in a timely manner, and previous Patricians who assumed food appeared by magic via servants. And that the government would fall once the city went without a couple of meals.

Did you listen to that lorry driver I linked to, who described what happens when there are border checks? The guy representing the logistics industry says pretty much the same thing, again cited earlier in this thread.

[rory_20_uk]

BTW, when you ridicule the stuff about food not being as available as now, how do you explain the KFC affair? Did that not happen? Was I imagining it?

I thought it bears repeating. I responded directly to the KFC example you gave. What had no relevance whatsoever. They swapped logistics firms and all went wrong. The food was there.

I have no idea who on earth you are trying to argue with regarding logistics - unless you take exception to me stating we'll not starve.

[Pannonian]

I thought it bears repeating. I responded directly to the KFC example you gave. What had no relevance whatsoever. They swapped logistics firms and all went wrong. The food was there.

I have no idea who on earth you are trying to argue with regarding logistics - unless you take exception to me stating we'll not starve.

You're deliberately missing the point that, should logistics break down, food doesn't get to the needed areas in time. I point to KFC as an example of this breakdown which is a precursor of what will happen on a far larger scale in the event of no-deal, and all you can do is argue extreme specifics. Why don't you also argue that other firms aren't KFC and thus aren't affected like KFC? That would also be true, in your specific argument. It would also miss the point about logistics breaking down, just like your specific argument.

After the KFC stuff had been sitting in a warehouse for long enough, they tried to give it away for free as it wouldn't keep. And people turned it down as it wasn't any good after effectively waiting in transit for so long. Such is the nature of food. Academics have modelled the tailbacks in the event of no-deal and border checks at Dover, and came up with queues of 20-30 miles. The government has nominated a 10 mile stretch of motorway as a lorry park for the same purpose. But according to rory, delays caused by changing logistics firms are completely different from delays caused by border checks. Actually, he's probably right. KFC could store their stuff in customised warehouses, or at least could have done so if they'd made preparations to. All the food crossing the border in a no-deal will be waiting in lorries, without the same degree of specialist storage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You're deliberately missing the point that, should logistics break down, food doesn't get to the needed areas in time. I point to KFC as an example of this breakdown which is a precursor of what will happen on a far larger scale in the event of no-deal, and all you can do is argue extreme specifics. Why don't you also argue that other firms aren't KFC and thus aren't affected like KFC? That would also be true, in your specific argument. It would also miss the point about logistics breaking down, just like your specific argument.

After the KFC stuff had been sitting in a warehouse for long enough, they tried to give it away for free as it wouldn't keep. And people turned it down as it wasn't any good after effectively waiting in transit for so long. Such is the nature of food. Academics have modelled the tailbacks in the event of no-deal and border checks at Dover, and came up with queues of 20-30 miles. The government has nominated a 10 mile stretch of motorway as a lorry park for the same purpose. But according to rory, delays caused by changing logistics firms are completely different from delays caused by border checks. Actually, he's probably right. KFC could store their stuff in customised warehouses, or at least could have done so if they'd made preparations to. All the food crossing the border in a no-deal will be waiting in lorries, without the same degree of specialist storage.

you do realize that such conditions would not obtain permanently. Businesses would work out new logistic arrangements etc. Obviously, added costs from such new arrangements would be passed on to the consumer. After a rough transition period, though, a new SOP would emerge.

[Pannonian]

you do realize that such conditions would not obtain permanently. Businesses would work out new logistic arrangements etc. Obviously, added costs from such new arrangements would be passed on to the consumer. After a rough transition period, though, a new SOP would emerge.

They still have to go through the ports, which is the bottleneck. This isn't like the US with its dozens of land-connected states with a single market and no internal borders. There are limited connection points, and ins and outs need to be checked for the correct paperwork (see the lorry driver's testimony for what happens at border checks and how they affect timing). In his case, one little delay cascaded onto a next, until what he delivered could not be used until the next day. Nissan have said that each day's delay costs them several million, and their components don't go off. Food does go off, and it's waiting to transit in a lorry that's not custom-designed to keep it for prolonged periods. In one passage of Night Watch, the revolutionaries are given free steaks and onions because otherwise they're just standing in warehouses for no purpose, and they have a use by date (see the KFC example above).

Rory rubbishes the above scenario, but the logistics people have raised it as a real issue in the event of no-deal, and the government are now preparing for no-deal as the most likely eventuality. It is what we will default to on March 30th next year in the absence of any agreement, and there is no sign that we are approaching any agreement on principle, let alone in detail.

[Pannonian]

The casino industry donated thousands of pounds to the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) after the thinktank published a report on gambling policy that called for restrictions on the number of casinos to be lifted.

The National Casino Industry Forum (NCIF) confirmed it donated £8,000 to the IEA having fact-checked a draft of the report. Senior officials at the forum met the author before it was written and received feedback on its conclusions before its launch, according to an internal document seen by the Guardian.

The report was published as an “IEA discussion paper” with no mention that casino owners, who later made a donation, had been in any way involved.

The report concluded regulations were getting in the way of more casinos opening and there was “no obvious reason why a reasonably sized town or city should not host at least one small casino”.

The forum considered the report would be a more effective means of getting its message across than buying space in a magazine, according to the internal document.

The IEA contested that anyone outside the thinktank had seen the report before publication and denied its conclusions had been swayed or influenced.

Casino owners donated to IEA after thinktank's pro-gambling report

This is the think tank whose research Brexiteers swear by.

[Furunculus]

I can only assume that you believe in all the available gods then since plenty of papers say they exist while noone has managed to conclusively prove that they don't.

worthless statement.

[Husar]

worthless statement.

evasive reply.

Your paper doesn't contain real proof from what I could see. Everything said within seems based on a whole lot of assumptions about how things work. And you still want to believe it after you've been shown that the organization that made it conducts research with a set goal in mind.

So if you want me/us to prove that your paper is wrong, prove that God doesn't exist first, because I assume it's a similar amount of work compared to going through all the assumptions to see how correct they are...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They still have to go through the ports, which is the bottleneck. This isn't like the US with its dozens of land-connected states with a single market and no internal borders. There are limited connection points, and ins and outs need to be checked for the correct paperwork (see the lorry driver's testimony for what happens at border checks and how they affect timing). In his case, one little delay cascaded onto a next, until what he delivered could not be used until the next day. Nissan have said that each day's delay costs them several million, and their components don't go off. Food does go off, and it's waiting to transit in a lorry that's not custom-designed to keep it for prolonged periods. In one passage of Night Watch, the revolutionaries are given free steaks and onions because otherwise they're just standing in warehouses for no purpose, and they have a use by date (see the KFC example above).

Rory rubbishes the above scenario, but the logistics people have raised it as a real issue in the event of no-deal, and the government are now preparing for no-deal as the most likely eventuality. It is what we will default to on March 30th next year in the absence of any agreement, and there is no sign that we are approaching any agreement on principle, let alone in detail.

I don't doubt that it would be a huge hassle at first, and likely continue to be more difficult than was the previous open border approach. I just don't think organizations and people involved will make adjustments and it won't stay AS bad as it is at the outset.

[Pannonian]

I don't doubt that it would be a huge hassle at first, and likely continue to be more difficult than was the previous open border approach. I just don't think organizations and people involved will make adjustments and it won't stay AS bad as it is at the outset.

The throughput will only improve once we've made agreements on standards, such as we already have now. The problem is, it is a point of principle for the ruling faction of the current government that we should not keep the same standards as exists within the EU. Brexiteers like to talk about tariffs as if it were the only thing. Thatcher's speech announcing the creation of the Single Market emphasises that lack of tariffs is not the only aspect of a single market, and is probably one of the less important ones.

You might say: weren't we supposed to have a common market already? Wasn't that the reason we joined Europe in the first place? Weren't we promised all this in 1973?

It's a fair question to ask. And the truthful answer is: Europe wasn't open for business. Underneath the rhetoric, the old barriers remained. Not just against the outside world, but between the European countries.

Not the classic barriers of tariffs, but the insiduous ones of differing national standards, various restrictions on the provision of services, exclusion of foreign firms from public contracts.

Now that's going to change. Britain has given the lead. [There was a tendency in Europe to talk in lofty tones of European Union.

That may be good for the soul. But the body—Europe's firms and organisations and the people who work in them—needs something more nourishing.]

We recognised that if Europe was going to be more than a slogan then we must get the basics right. That meant action.

Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community.

All this is what Europe is now committed to do. In 1985 the Community's Heads of Government gave a pledge to complete the single market by 1992. To make sure that it was not just a pious hope, they made that pledge part of the Treaty, as the Single European Act.

Margaret Thatcher, 18th April 1988

[Fragony]

It certainly has become more, it's a good thing eastern-europeans don't want to facilitate their replacement and their leaders listen to them much to the chagrin of the childless mutti. Kallergi-Kouwenhoven nothx

[Pannonian]

It certainly has become more, it's a good thing eastern-europeans don't want to facilitate their replacement and their leaders listen to them much to the chagrin of the childless mutti. Kallergi-Kouwenhoven nothx

How is your postulated white genocide related to Brexit?

[Fragony]

How is your postulated white genocide related to Brexit?

Because the Kalergi-doctrine is one of the pillars of the EU and most Brits want a brexit, do you think it's all about economics

[Pannonian]

Because the Kalergi-doctrine is one of the pillars of the EU and most Brits want a brexit, do you think it's all about economics

Tells you everything really. For Brexiteers, Brexit was all about far right theories.