EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Furunculus]

The UK government has always had control of immigration. It's just decided not to exercise it.

Not for the first time - it would require ending the universal model where eligibility is assumed without need to prove, an attitude that fits an individualist society. This is not how things work in Finland, where living is not possible without demonstrating compliance with multiple institutions for a whole host of everyday activities. But they are a collectivist society, and seem quite happy with that choice.

Most immigration to the UK is from outside the EU. Even within the EU, EU citizens migrating here for work do not have rights to services.

As you would expect when the EU minus UK equals about 6% of world populations, with the RoW make up the other 92%. Again, when you have an individualist society where your obligation end with a cash in hand payment, this cannot be enforced. We are not a collectivist society to tolerate this, and nor to do i want the UK to become one.

Edit: Vauxhall have now postponed decisions until after Brexit. Is that the fault of the EU-Japan treaty as well?

The Vauxhall plants has been marginal for many years now, with everyone getting nervous every time the parent company was bought out again.

[Montmorency]

Dispute over the circumstances of foreign investment in the UK, and whether or what it has to do with Brexit as opposed to baseline conditions in the country, reminds me of an interesting reading that has kind of slipped by the wayside here over the past 2 years: the UK economy has been and will be declining long-term, and at best Brexit will do nothing to remedy this. Enjoy late capitalism chaps.

Another neoliberal think tank.

No, I'm not making it up, they literally are based on Hayek's ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Ordnungspolitik

Oh yeah, content, maybe when I have some free time and feel like reading a boring article. The methodology seems a bit nebulous though. I guess we don't have a better one, but it's still guesswork and can probably be manipulated in either direction by the one performing the study (just so happens to be a neoliberal here). So the hard numbers aren't quite as hard as they seem.

I thought the European Union, or European market alignment more generally, is partially based on the ideas of Hayek and the other neoliberals who gained influence in the second half of the 20th century. The main tensions between the EU and some categories of liberal today are that the European Union does more than facilitate a common economy (or, maintaining a common economy turns out to involve broader policy intervention than idealized), and that most market lovers are ultimately, unlike Hayek, more nationalist than liberal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems the government will be taking the Fox route rather than Gove's. Cut tariffs on nearly everything. That means severe damage to agriculture and manufacturing, as imports will be exempt from additional charges, and with lower costs or scaled up economies, undercut domestic production. Exports will be subject to these charges, and will be uncompetitive. And there will be no need for trade deals, as other countries will have all they want without any need to further negotiate.

London, with its economy concentrated in services, may suffer less damage. PFH's Devon would probably suffer rather more. Especially as the EU will no longer be investing in these areas, and Westminster has never felt much urge to. Less funding, more unemployment, worse economy. This was why neighbouring Cornwall, in the week following the result, immediately sought reassurance that Westminster would replace EU funding with domestic. They knew the track record of Westminster, and feared it would do its usual and neglect the south west. And so it seems it will.

We're all screwed down here anyway, it doesn't matter.

I imagine liberalisation would be a short term thing. In any case, incoming products would probably still be subject to UK food standards, even if they aren't subject to tariffs and this will reduce the impact somewhat. Wealthy people only buy from the UK and the Commonwealth unless it's speciality products like French dairy.

Cheap imports of meat, provided it's safe, might even benefit society.

[Pannonian]

We're all screwed down here anyway, it doesn't matter.

I imagine liberalisation would be a short term thing. In any case, incoming products would probably still be subject to UK food standards, even if they aren't subject to tariffs and this will reduce the impact somewhat. Wealthy people only buy from the UK and the Commonwealth unless it's speciality products like French dairy.

Cheap imports of meat, provided it's safe, might even benefit society.

That's one of the demands made by the US. Change to US standards, and removing of labelling so that people cannot choose against foods of US origin.

So what is the point of leaving the EU?

[Pannonian]

"We'll have to run it down" - Patrick Minford, the Brexiteers' favourite economist, on the car manufacturing industry post-Brexit.

As with the manufacturing industry, so the logic follows for agriculture as well, with the measures chosen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's one of the demands made by the US. Change to US standards, and removing of labelling so that people cannot choose against foods of US origin.

So what is the point of leaving the EU?

The public doesn't want chlorine-washed chicken, or fatty corn-fed beef. There was a minor outcry late last year when it was discovered such industrial farming practices were being used in Britain - something the EU is no defence against.

Trade with the US is valuable but it's not attractive ideologically or practically for a variety of reasons. After all, the US is very much the black sheep of the family.

[Pannonian]

The public doesn't want chlorine-washed chicken, or fatty corn-fed beef. There was a minor outcry late last year when it was discovered such industrial farming practices were being used in Britain - something the EU is no defence against.

Trade with the US is valuable but it's not attractive ideologically or practically for a variety of reasons. After all, the US is very much the black sheep of the family.

So how does the food situation work? Minford stated in 2012 that his ideas would lead to running down the car manufacturing industry. In 2019 we now see that this is the case. The same logic, applied to agriculture, will also lead to running down agriculture. Those measures are now being planned for. If we don't produce our own food, and we already don't produce enough to feed ourselves, where does it come from? If US standards won't be tolerated, where does food that meets our current standards come from? Currently, the answer is the EU 27. But you voted to take us out of the EU, and you said that you don't want us to be "trapped in the customs union". So how does the food situation work?

And your statement that the EU is no defence against this, or the horse meat scandal. There's a difference between that and the US. Here, the horse meat scandal was possible because people were breaking the law. It's illegal here, and the people involved were punished when this came to light. US standards that you disapprove of are legal in the US, and if the US lobbyists get their way, they will be legal here. And our trade minister (who's going to get his way on the customs regime) supports them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So how does the food situation work? Minford stated in 2012 that his ideas would lead to running down the car manufacturing industry. In 2019 we now see that this is the case. The same logic, applied to agriculture, will also lead to running down agriculture. Those measures are now being planned for. If we don't produce our own food, and we already don't produce enough to feed ourselves, where does it come from? If US standards won't be tolerated, where does food that meets our current standards come from? Currently, the answer is the EU 27. But you voted to take us out of the EU, and you said that you don't want us to be "trapped in the customs union". So how does the food situation work?

And your statement that the EU is no defence against this, or the horse meat scandal. There's a difference between that and the US. Here, the horse meat scandal was possible because people were breaking the law. It's illegal here, and the people involved were punished when this came to light. US standards that you disapprove of are legal in the US, and if the US lobbyists get their way, they will be legal here. And our trade minister (who's going to get his way on the customs regime) supports them.

The exit negotiations are different to what comes after - the defence that "people voted for this" ends when we exit the EU. I don't believe we will end up accepting the US' poor food standards. Having said that, I also didn't believe we'd be dragged out of the EEA.

Anyway, negotiations have failed to make any progress, again.

[Pannonian]

The exit negotiations are different to what comes after - the defence that "people voted for this" ends when we exit the EU. I don't believe we will end up accepting the US' poor food standards. Having said that, I also didn't believe we'd be dragged out of the EEA.

Anyway, negotiations have failed to make any progress, again.

Our trade minister supports normalising standards with the US. According to reports, on the issue of customs, the government has taken Fox's side on nearly everything. Cut tariffs on imports. That leaves no leverage for trade talks. And we've seen with Bombardier that the US is more than willing to screw us over for domestic political advantage. So if we want to sell to the US without exorbitant tariffs (and the US doesn't need anything we sell, so they're free to price us out of their market), then we need to accept their demands. Which our trade minister supports. And our government tends to support our trade minister.

The choice is between maintaining tariffs, protecting our domestic industry, and cutting tariffs, allowing cheap imports. The Brexiteers' favourite economist stated in 2012 that the car industry will be run down as a result of Brexit, deeming it an acceptable price. This has indeed happened, despite your pointing to other factors as an excuse (Minford said it in 2012, long before the EU-Japan agreement). The same logic will also do for agriculture, if the same measures are taken. Reports say that those same measures are being prepared. Furunculus on here has also said that it would be an acceptable price.

[Furunculus]

Except the indication is that the ten percent is mainly agriculture and integrated supply chains such as cars.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The public doesn't want chlorine-washed chicken, or fatty corn-fed beef. There was a minor outcry late last year when it was discovered such industrial farming practices were being used in Britain - something the EU is no defence against.

Trade with the US is valuable but it's not attractive ideologically or practically for a variety of reasons. After all, the US is very much the black sheep of the family.

lol

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

lol

It doesn't mean we don't love you, we're just not sure if we should leave you the house keys over the weekend.

[Strike For The South]

The problem is not the chlorine, the problem is how they are kept before they are slaughtered. American producers are much more "cost sensitive" and that comes at the expense of animal welfare, often shockingly so.

[rory_20_uk]

Link

[Pannonian]

The problem is not the chlorine, the problem is how they are kept before they are slaughtered. American producers are much more "cost sensitive" and that comes at the expense of animal welfare, often shockingly so.

Battery farming is banned in the EU. It's standard in the US. One of the demands by US lobbyists for any US-UK trade deal is opening up UK markets to US farm products, complete with changing labelling requirements so that customers won't be able to discriminate against US products even if they have doubts about its safety.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Battery farming is banned in the EU. It's standard in the US. One of the demands by US lobbyists for any US-UK trade deal is opening up UK markets to US farm products, complete with changing labelling requirements so that customers won't be able to discriminate against US products even if they have doubts about its safety.

We still import battery farmed eggs and the EU still allows for "Colony Cages" which are only marginally better.

UK animal welfare standards far outstrip those of the rest of the EU yet we still import Danish Bacon and eggs from the Eastern European countries in the EU which may not be compliant with the 1999 directive.

The poor EU welfare standards are why everything in British supermarkets is tagged with "British" and "free range" whenever possible - it's a selling point. The only way I can see us importing Chlorine washed-chicken is if we added a label that said "washed without chlorine".

[Pannonian]

We still import battery farmed eggs and the EU still allows for "Colony Cages" which are only marginally better.

UK animal welfare standards far outstrip those of the rest of the EU yet we still import Danish Bacon and eggs from the Eastern European countries in the EU which may not be compliant with the 1999 directive.

The poor EU welfare standards are why everything in British supermarkets is tagged with "British" and "free range" whenever possible - it's a selling point. The only way I can see us importing Chlorine washed-chicken is if we added a label that said "washed without chlorine".

Part of the US demands is changes in labelling rules so that produce from the US cannot be distinguished from produce from elsewhere. Our trade minister, who has got his way in nearly everything concerning tariffs, favours aligning with the US. If May remains, the evidence so far indicates this is what we will do. If May is replaced by another Tory PM, they will certainly be ERG, and this is certainly what we will do (as Furunculus has been arguing, this is part of the point of Brexit, to re-align the UK from Europe to the US). If the EU isn't up to our standards in animal welfare; well, they're still closer to us than the Americans are, and as you'd stated, the EU allows us to post higher standards and allow customers to discriminate based on this. The Americans won't, and logic and evidence suggests we will comply post-Brexit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Part of the US demands is changes in labelling rules so that produce from the US cannot be distinguished from produce from elsewhere. Our trade minister, who has got his way in nearly everything concerning tariffs, favours aligning with the US. If May remains, the evidence so far indicates this is what we will do. If May is replaced by another Tory PM, they will certainly be ERG, and this is certainly what we will do (as Furunculus has been arguing, this is part of the point of Brexit, to re-align the UK from Europe to the US). If the EU isn't up to our standards in animal welfare; well, they're still closer to us than the Americans are, and as you'd stated, the EU allows us to post higher standards and allow customers to discriminate based on this. The Americans won't, and logic and evidence suggests we will comply post-Brexit.

These are not unreasonable points on the face of it. However, I think it's much more likely we won't agree a food deal with the US - they're unlikely to reciprocate and allow our unpasteurised cheese and yogurt.

The Tories are currently finding that they cannot agree a deal with the EU, despite again giving ground - no longer asking for an exit mechanism, now asking for arbitration on the exit. The EU says they need to come up with something else reasonable.

I.E., roll over and take the deal, the only thing the EU ever considers reasonable (ask the Greeks).

So, if May can't get her Brexit deal through Parliament do you really think she or another Tory can get a US Trade deal with a side of chlorinated chicken through Parliament?

They cannot - not only will rural Tories not vote for it, nor will Urban Tories who shop at Waitrose (rural Tories probably have a butcher on retainer).

May is not in control, the ERG is not in control (and may not even survive Brexit). This is not Tony Blair's Parliament, it is restive and anything but pliable.

[Pannonian]

These are not unreasonable points on the face of it. However, I think it's much more likely we won't agree a food deal with the US - they're unlikely to reciprocate and allow our unpasteurised cheese and yogurt.

The Tories are currently finding that they cannot agree a deal with the EU, despite again giving ground - no longer asking for an exit mechanism, now asking for arbitration on the exit. The EU says they need to come up with something else reasonable.

I.E., roll over and take the deal, the only thing the EU ever considers reasonable (ask the Greeks).

So, if May can't get her Brexit deal through Parliament do you really think she or another Tory can get a US Trade deal with a side of chlorinated chicken through Parliament?

They cannot - not only will rural Tories not vote for it, nor will Urban Tories who shop at Waitrose (rural Tories probably have a butcher on retainer).

May is not in control, the ERG is not in control (and may not even survive Brexit). This is not Tony Blair's Parliament, it is restive and anything but pliable.

The government is about to reduce or lift tariffs on most things, in an effort to at least stave off food shortage. This doesn't need to go through Parliament; it is a unilateral action derived from the Executive's authority. The side effect of this is shorting agriculture, as importers don't have to pay tariffs on things coming into the UK (even in areas where we produce our own), while exporters will have to pay tariffs on stuff going out (thus making our produce more expensive for the same thing). Gove specifically promised UK farmers that this would not happen for this reason, while Fox said that the government will do this. Reports are that the government will do as Fox has promised, not as Gove as promised. Parliament doesn't need to vote on this; the PM will just announce this will happen and that will be it.

With Brexit goes all the trade agreements that were made via the EU. We want to roll over current trading rules with the non-EU countries, but nearly everyone else disagrees; Japan backed out of talks because they reckoned they could get more concessions from us. As with Japan, so it will be with the US, who are bigger (we're the only idiots actively making ourselves smaller and weaker). The US government has invited lobbyists to nominate what they want from the UK in return for a US-UK trade agreement, and they have begun to push the UK government on some of these areas; a US diplomat this week got into a dispute over our concerns over food safety. Without any agreements, we will be trading on WTO base rates; no one trades on those terms, as virtually any agreement, which we will not have, is better. And if we want better trading terms than these, we will need to secure agreements with these other countries/blocs. And despite all your ire at the EU, they've been the most accommodating of our requirements, even after the referendum and all the nonsense during negotiations. Everyone else, including the Americans which our rulers are so fond of, won't budge an inch, and are looking to screw us over as much as they can (eg the US lobbyists' demands). Furunculus recently posted a link to an EU measure that allows our lorry drivers to continue under current conditions for the rest of the year. I think he took this to mean vindication of his belief that we won't starve as a result of Brexit. I take it as an illustration of just how tolerant the other Europeans are of us; they're going out of their way to allow us this, when the rules state that we are entitled to just 5% of that traffic.

This isn't contingent on any Parliamentary vote. It is the result of your vote to Leave, and the government's implementation of that result. Without any extension, it will start on 1st April, less than a month from now. Where I live and where I work may be less affected by this. Where you live will likely be strongly affected though. This was why I voted Remain, and what's transpired since has only confirmed my thoughts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU has not budged an inch, not in practical terms, just warm words. Right now they aren't budging an inch, are they?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47487320

Let's remember, it wasn't just me who voted to leave.

Are we in a bad place right now? Yeah, kinda. Is it going to be worth it?

Maybe, maybe not.

[Pannonian]

The EU has not budged an inch, not in practical terms, just warm words. Right now they aren't budging an inch, are they?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47487320

Let's remember, it wasn't just me who voted to leave.

Are we in a bad place right now? Yeah, kinda. Is it going to be worth it?

Maybe, maybe not.

They're allowing all our drivers to continue in the EU under current conditions until the end of the year. How is this not budging an inch? Around 30k trucks deal with our cross-channel trade. We're entitled to 1.5k passes after Brexit. They've effectively given us the other 28.5k for the rest of the year. But as Brexiters are wont to do, you don't give the EU credit for what they do, but blame them for what they don't.

If the EU really doesn't want to budge an inch, our cross-channel trade, which is the route by which most of our food imports come, would be cut by 95%. And Brexit happens in that time of year that used to be known as the hunger gap, the period between exhausting winter stockpiles and before the summer harvest. The NFU warned about this. And the EU have acted to alleviate the problem, at least for this year. When they had no requirement to do so. Yet you say that they have not budged an inch.

You disclaim responsibility for the result by saying that it wasn't just you that voted to leave. Well it certainly isn't my responsibility. I voted to remain based on the arguments that have been proven to be absolutely accurate, both in the evidence backing these arguments in the first place, and how things have transpired since. Leave lied and broke rules every step of the way. Yet Leavers still accept no responsibility for what they've caused, and continue to blame the EU for everything.

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." - Nigel Farage, 17th May 2016

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You disclaim responsibility for the result by saying that it wasn't just you that voted to leave. Well it certainly isn't my responsibility. I voted to remain based on the arguments that have been proven to be absolutely accurate, both in the evidence backing these arguments in the first place, and how things have transpired since. Leave lied and broke rules every step of the way. Yet Leavers still accept no responsibility for what they've caused, and continue to blame the EU for everything.

I never said it wasn't my responsibility, I merely pointed out that it was not solely my responsibility.

[Pannonian]

I never said it wasn't my responsibility, I merely pointed out that it was not solely my responsibility.

And are you going to admit that, far from not budging from inch as you'd said, the EU has gone beyond what they need to do in order to help us, unlike just about everyone else? I'd also like an explanation for why you don't want us to be "trapped inside the customs union". Given what the US among others demands from us, how does it benefit us to be outside the customs union? Or is it another of those arguments whereby theoretical sovereignty, in practice exercised by a few rich politicians for their even richer friends, is worth ruining the country for? NB. prominent Leavers, Rees Mogg and Farage among them, have already made provisions to move themselves and/or their money abroad, into the EU. Whatever they say, that's what they're doing.

[Strike For The South]

Battery farming is banned in the EU. It's standard in the US. One of the demands by US lobbyists for any US-UK trade deal is opening up UK markets to US farm products, complete with changing labelling requirements so that customers won't be able to discriminate against US products even if they have doubts about its safety.

The cages aren't that better in the EU. I'm not going to defend industrial agriculture but I will say that the EU, while better, is not head an shoulders above the States. The product in the supermarket is nearly identical (relative to price). Its an animal welfare issue (that I care about) but not a health and safety one. It is being framed as one to move the proverbial needle.

I will say that the food I have eaten in England has nearly always been good. I'm a sucker for a ploughmans lunch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And are you going to admit that, far from not budging from inch as you'd said, the EU has gone beyond what they need to do in order to help us, unlike just about everyone else? I'd also like an explanation for why you don't want us to be "trapped inside the customs union". Given what the US among others demands from us, how does it benefit us to be outside the customs union? Or is it another of those arguments whereby theoretical sovereignty, in practice exercised by a few rich politicians for their even richer friends, is worth ruining the country for? NB. prominent Leavers, Rees Mogg and Farage among them, have already made provisions to move themselves and/or their money abroad, into the EU. Whatever they say, that's what they're doing.

They've not budged an inch on the issue that's stalled negotiations, that's what matters at this point.

You can see why May is running down the clock, because in the end the EU will send her back to Parliament with the same deal in the expectation MP's will pass it this time.

What's the definition of insanity again? And who here is actually insane?

As to the Backstop - the point is not to avoid being in a Customs Union with the EU, the point is to avoid being trapped in one before we've even begun negotiations on our future Trade Relationship. If the UK is legally trapped in the Backstop with no recourse then there's no point in the EU negotiating - it can just leave the UK trapped ad infinitum.

[Pannonian]

They've not budged an inch on the issue that's stalled negotiations, that's what matters at this point.

You can see why May is running down the clock, because in the end the EU will send her back to Parliament with the same deal in the expectation MP's will pass it this time.

What's the definition of insanity again? And who here is actually insane?

As to the Backstop - the point is not to avoid being in a Customs Union with the EU, the point is to avoid being trapped in one before we've even begun negotiations on our future Trade Relationship. If the UK is legally trapped in the Backstop with no recourse then there's no point in the EU negotiating - it can just leave the UK trapped ad infinitum.

Barnier has reiterated that the UK will be able to unilaterally exit any customs arrangement with the EU. Just leave NI within the customs union, as required by the GFA (a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI). May can't go with that because she's beholden to the DUP. How is this the fault of the EU? She had a Commons majority when she invoked article 50, which started all this. Remember the UK is the active actor in all of this. The EU didn't push for all this; the UK did. And now the Leavers are blaming the EU because the EU aren't yielding on absolutely everything. Even though the EU have already gone out of their way to help the UK in a number of areas. Which they didn't have to, and which no one else is doing. Not even our supposed friends the Americans.

I've accepted that we will leave with no deal, courtesy of the Brexiters who will continue with their dogma and continue to blame the EU for all the ills of the world. I just wish that Brexiters will take responsibility for what will transpire. I just wanted tomorrow to be reasonably like today. But Brexiters want revolution without any clue as to what will happen next, as long as they can blame someone.

Some more Brexit revelations. After the assassination of the Remain-campaigning MP Jo Cox, the Remain and Leave campaigns agreed on a truce for a few days, in which neither side campaigned. Except for some elements of the Leave camp, who saw this as an opportunity to push their message with no opposition. There are some real scum among the Brexit camp.

[edyzmedieval]

Apparently May threatened to stay in the EU if no deal is done.

[Pannonian]

Apparently May threatened to stay in the EU if no deal is done.

She's also threatened to leave with no deal if no deal is done. She's trying to get votes from both camps.

[Furunculus]

Barnier has reiterated that the UK will be able to unilaterally exit any customs arrangement with the EU. Just leave NI within the customs union, as required by the GFA (a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI).

Some more Brexit revelations. After the assassination of the Remain-campaigning MP Jo Cox, the Remain and Leave campaigns agreed on a truce for a few days, in which neither side campaigned. Except for some elements of the Leave camp, who saw this as an opportunity to push their message with no opposition.

That is an, ahem... 'generous' interpretation of the GFA. The EU can play as hard as it like, as long as it doesn't mind no deal.

You mean the completely separate and totally unofficial Leave.eu campaign group run by Farage/Banks?

This is why this latest dispute matters:

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and...tony-connelly/

[Pannonian]

How America’s food giants swallowed the family farms

It’s a story replicated across America’s midwest, with the rapid expansion of farming methods at the heart of the row over US attempts to erode Britain’s food standards and lever open access to the UK market as part of a post-Brexit trade deal. Last weekend, the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, appealed to the UK to embrace US farming, arguing that those who warned against practices such as washing chicken in chlorine had been “deployed” to cast it “in the worst possible light”.

His message was greeted with anger by campaigners. Nick Dearden of Global Justice Now warned: “It is really an animal welfare issue here. If UK farmers want to compete against American imports, they will have to lower their standards or go out of business.” His words would come as no surprise to Rosemary Partridge, who farms in Sac County, western Iowa. She grew up on an Iowa family farm and then moved with her husband in the late 1970s to raise pigs and grow crops.

“In the past 20 years, where I am, independent hog farming just silently disappeared as the corporates came in,” says Partridge.

The future of post-Brexit British agriculture folks. Hope you're happy with what you've voted for.