EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Furunculus]

how important was immigration?

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

[Pannonian]

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.

[Pannonian]

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?

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Husar]

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Husar]

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.

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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

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?

[Pannonian]

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?

[Husar]

When was Nepal part of China?

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

[rory_20_uk]

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".

[Husar]

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".

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Pannonian]

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".

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?

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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).

[Pannonian]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

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?

[Pannonian]

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.

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?

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.