RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:Aye, it's good for exports and tourism. Not so good for us going abroad. Swings and roundabouts.

Though it's not maybe good news for exporters who import goods/materials/services at some stage of their process. Luckily some people have a notion of how to simplify a world of global trade and interdependence, they've not given any actual details yet on how it works, but Boris et al seem very confident

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Aye, it's good for exports and tourism. Not so good for us going abroad. Swings and roundabouts.

Though it's not maybe good news for exporters who import goods/materials/services at some stage of their process. Luckily some people have a notion of how to simplify a world of global trade and interdependence, they've not given any actual details yet on how it works, but Boris et al seem very confident

Indeed. Perhaps one ray of light is th announcement by labour that they support retention of singl market a transition period. If enough conservative MPs support that, the hard brexiteers will be high and dry.

Only snags are the internal disaster that is th Conservative party and how far anyone trusts corbyn, who only recently was very anti this arrangement.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Aye, it's good for exports and tourism. Not so good for us going abroad. Swings and roundabouts.

Though it's not maybe good news for exporters who import goods/materials/services at some stage of their process. Luckily some people have a notion of how to simplify a world of global trade and interdependence, they've not given any actual details yet on how it works, but Boris et al seem very confident

Indeed. Perhaps one ray of light is th announcement by labour that they support retention of singl market a transition period. If enough conservative MPs support that, the hard brexiteers will be high and dry.

Only snags are the internal disaster that is th Conservative party and how far anyone trusts corbyn, who only recently was very anti this arrangement.

But Labour are only saying they'd hold to the single market/customs union for some undefined transitional period, haven't said what would follow, and haven't said how they'd get the EU to agree to the transitional period or to what would follow. Labour like the Conservatives seems absolutely stuffed when it comes to knowing how to plot an actual course out of the quagmire absent of the EU allowing us to cherry pick which bits of the EU we'd like to stay involved in.

At this point I'd happily sign off on a Brexit tax that bills all costs of Brexit to those who voted for this shitfest, and bills them for future lost earnings. And on the off chance they're right then they can have a tax cut/rebate which I'd be missing out no. Obviously that's practically impossible even before any other considerations which would render it an unworkable piece of nonsense, but I'm certainly in a camp of you made this mess so you clear it up as, I've sod all interest in helping

If we leave the EU customs union then tariffs will be levied. Businesses outside the UK with global value chains including UK-produced intermediate products will be affected. Businesses in UK with global value chains will also be affected. The businesses outside the UK can shift their global value chains to avoid tariffs. Businesses in the UK will scarcely be able to, they would need to find ways to reduce their costs so as to remain competitive in the global market.

No party seems to have a plan. Both labour and the Tories are split between those who liked and hated the EU, more so the conservatives but labours issues are exacerbated by the current leadership which is at odds with many if it's MPs.

The liberals want to rerun the referendum, it to be fair the vote was legit and ignoring the result, or running repeated referendums until we get the right result isn't democratic.

Personally I'd rather we just looked to join the EFTA and be done with it. We would have greater control of our sovereignty and that would probably be enough to sway a majority to back it. Hard brexit may be the most straight forward to implement, but the potential impact is hugely alarming.

Zhivago wrote:If we leave the EU customs market then tariffs will be levied. Businesses outside the UK with global value chains including UK-produced intermediate products will be affected. Businesses in UK with global value chains will also be affected. The businesses outside the UK can shift their global value chains to avoid tariffs. Businesses in the UK will scarcely be able to, they would need to find ways to reduce their costs so as to remain competitive in the global market.

Which will be difficult given that reducing costs in the U.K. wild meant repealing a lot of legislation. The most competitive solution is to ape Singapore.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:If we leave the EU customs market then tariffs will be levied. Businesses outside the UK with global value chains including UK-produced intermediate products will be affected. Businesses in UK with global value chains will also be affected. The businesses outside the UK can shift their global value chains to avoid tariffs. Businesses in the UK will scarcely be able to, they would need to find ways to reduce their costs so as to remain competitive in the global market.

Which will be difficult given that reducing costs in the U.K. wild meant repealing a lot of legislation. The most competitive solution is to ape Singapore.

Could you explain in more detail?

Sandydragon wrote:No party seems to have a plan. Both labour and the Tories are split between those who liked and hated the EU, more so the conservatives but labours issues are exacerbated by the current leadership which is at odds with many if it's MPs.

The liberals want to rerun the referendum, it to be fair the vote was legit and ignoring the result, or running repeated referendums until we get the right result isn't democratic.

Personally I'd rather we just looked to join the EFTA and be done with it. We would have greater control of our sovereignty and that would probably be enough to sway a majority to back it. Hard brexit may be the most straight forward to implement, but the potential impact is hugely alarming.

Swiss EFTA or Norwegian EFTA?

The Swiss are outside the EEA but even they have to accept a lot of EU laws albeit not all the EU freedoms Norway takes on, and both positions seem anathema to May. Norway with a more accepting approach towards the EU has much more open access than the Swiss enjoy.

At this point i'd almost take either model, but I don't see how they're acceptable given the cost they'd entail and the freedom of movement. And both tbh look much worse than simply being in the EU

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:No party seems to have a plan. Both labour and the Tories are split between those who liked and hated the EU, more so the conservatives but labours issues are exacerbated by the current leadership which is at odds with many if it's MPs.

The liberals want to rerun the referendum, it to be fair the vote was legit and ignoring the result, or running repeated referendums until we get the right result isn't democratic.

Personally I'd rather we just looked to join the EFTA and be done with it. We would have greater control of our sovereignty and that would probably be enough to sway a majority to back it. Hard brexit may be the most straight forward to implement, but the potential impact is hugely alarming.

Swiss EFTA or Norwegian EFTA?

The Swiss are outside the EEA but even they have to accept a lot of EU laws albeit not all the EU freedoms Norway takes on, and both positions seem anathema to May. Norway with a more accepting approach towards the EU has much more open access than the Swiss enjoy.

At this point i'd almost take either model, but I don't see how they're acceptable given the cost they'd entail and the freedom of movement. And both tbh look much worse than simply being in the EU

I'd take either at th moment, and both are worse than being in the EU, but give enough sovereignty back that some of those who voted leave would be satisfied that something had changed. The only way to control immigration is hard brexit. Some clowns want that, but I think enough people are worried by that to make it worth avoiding.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:No party seems to have a plan. Both labour and the Tories are split between those who liked and hated the EU, more so the conservatives but labours issues are exacerbated by the current leadership which is at odds with many if it's MPs.

The liberals want to rerun the referendum, it to be fair the vote was legit and ignoring the result, or running repeated referendums until we get the right result isn't democratic.

Personally I'd rather we just looked to join the EFTA and be done with it. We would have greater control of our sovereignty and that would probably be enough to sway a majority to back it. Hard brexit may be the most straight forward to implement, but the potential impact is hugely alarming.

Swiss EFTA or Norwegian EFTA?

The Swiss are outside the EEA but even they have to accept a lot of EU laws albeit not all the EU freedoms Norway takes on, and both positions seem anathema to May. Norway with a more accepting approach towards the EU has much more open access than the Swiss enjoy.

At this point i'd almost take either model, but I don't see how they're acceptable given the cost they'd entail and the freedom of movement. And both tbh look much worse than simply being in the EU

I'd take either at th moment, and both are worse than being in the EU, but give enough sovereignty back that some of those who voted leave would be satisfied that something had changed. The only way to control immigration is hard brexit. Some clowns want that, but I think enough people are worried by that to make it worth avoiding.

I think will end up with something very similar to the Swiss. Which is pretty much a series of bilateral agreements......or cherry picking, as the go to phrase has become.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
Swiss EFTA or Norwegian EFTA?

The Swiss are outside the EEA but even they have to accept a lot of EU laws albeit not all the EU freedoms Norway takes on, and both positions seem anathema to May. Norway with a more accepting approach towards the EU has much more open access than the Swiss enjoy.

At this point i'd almost take either model, but I don't see how they're acceptable given the cost they'd entail and the freedom of movement. And both tbh look much worse than simply being in the EU

I'd take either at th moment, and both are worse than being in the EU, but give enough sovereignty back that some of those who voted leave would be satisfied that something had changed. The only way to control immigration is hard brexit. Some clowns want that, but I think enough people are worried by that to make it worth avoiding.

I think will end up with something very similar to the Swiss. Which is pretty much a series of bilateral agreements......or cherry picking, as the go to phrase has become.

That's a least two red lines to cross as regards freedom of movement and having the EU courts dictate to us. Swiss migration levels are way above ours, though there is their per capita EU contributions are something like 1/6th of ours. The thing about the bilateral agreements is the Swiss have fairly limited access to the EU and even then over 100 bilateral agreements, we'd have or want a lot more agreements, and anytime we failed to update changes the EU might want we'd unwind a lot of agreements which is stupidly complex.

There's also the Swiss tend to take the piss a bit when it comes to respecting a lot of EU rulings, to a degree they get away with it ''cause it's just not that important only being the Swiss, the UK isn't going to fly under the radar in the same way

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
Swiss EFTA or Norwegian EFTA?

The Swiss are outside the EEA but even they have to accept a lot of EU laws albeit not all the EU freedoms Norway takes on, and both positions seem anathema to May. Norway with a more accepting approach towards the EU has much more open access than the Swiss enjoy.

At this point i'd almost take either model, but I don't see how they're acceptable given the cost they'd entail and the freedom of movement. And both tbh look much worse than simply being in the EU

I'd take either at th moment, and both are worse than being in the EU, but give enough sovereignty back that some of those who voted leave would be satisfied that something had changed. The only way to control immigration is hard brexit. Some clowns want that, but I think enough people are worried by that to make it worth avoiding.

I think will end up with something very similar to the Swiss. Which is pretty much a series of bilateral agreements......or cherry picking, as the go to phrase has become.

it took the Swiss decades to complete those bilateral agreements.

Owain Glyndwr wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I'd take either at th moment, and both are worse than being in the EU, but give enough sovereignty back that some of those who voted leave would be satisfied that something had changed. The only way to control immigration is hard brexit. Some clowns want that, but I think enough people are worried by that to make it worth avoiding.

I think will end up with something very similar to the Swiss. Which is pretty much a series of bilateral agreements......or cherry picking, as the go to phrase has become.

it took the Swiss decades to complete those bilateral agreements.

So a 20 year transitional agreement?

Owain Glyndwr wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I'd take either at th moment, and both are worse than being in the EU, but give enough sovereignty back that some of those who voted leave would be satisfied that something had changed. The only way to control immigration is hard brexit. Some clowns want that, but I think enough people are worried by that to make it worth avoiding.

I think will end up with something very similar to the Swiss. Which is pretty much a series of bilateral agreements......or cherry picking, as the go to phrase has become.

it took the Swiss decades to complete those bilateral agreements.

Yes it did. A lot of that is because they started with nothing and moved towards what they have now rather than the opposite that is Brexit.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I'd take either at th moment, and both are worse than being in the EU, but give enough sovereignty back that some of those who voted leave would be satisfied that something had changed. The only way to control immigration is hard brexit. Some clowns want that, but I think enough people are worried by that to make it worth avoiding.

I think will end up with something very similar to the Swiss. Which is pretty much a series of bilateral agreements......or cherry picking, as the go to phrase has become.

That's a least two red lines to cross as regards freedom of movement and having the EU courts dictate to us. Swiss migration levels are way above ours, though there is their per capita EU contributions are something like 1/6th of ours. The thing about the bilateral agreements is the Swiss have fairly limited access to the EU and even then over 100 bilateral agreements, we'd have or want a lot more agreements, and anytime we failed to update changes the EU might want we'd unwind a lot of agreements which is stupidly complex.

There's also the Swiss tend to take the piss a bit when it comes to respecting a lot of EU rulings, to a degree they get away with it ''cause it's just not that important only being the Swiss, the UK isn't going to fly under the radar in the same way

I believe the Swiss have a system in which any job must first be offered to the domestic market before being offered pan-EU of it cannot be filled. This seems a sensible compromise and one which satisfies a Swiss public who voted for an end to freedom of movement and the EU.
As for EU courts, from what I've read both sides seem to be moving towards that which presides over ESTA. Hopefully, another sensible compromise.

The sovereignty issue is important to many Brexiteers. But under EFTA, the court rules on issues relating to trade only , not wider EU social affairs. We would also side step many of the other initiatives such as EU defence force and do on. Sold the right way, I think that would be enough to convince a fair few that U.K. Parliament was sovereign again. Enough to get support for the measure , Farage will never be happy with the outcome and he will always stir up trouble.

We aren't the Swiss. We aren't even the UK.
At a time of an entirely self-inflicted, global, refugee crisis we have behaved abysmally. There are a lot of very hacked off and important bureaucrats in Europe. Davis and his cheery smile and meedja friendly presence is worthless. They will attempt to feck us at every opportunity and it's fair enough.

kk67 wrote: At a time of an entirely self-inflicted, global, refugee crisis we have behaved abysmally.

Certainly we're complicit in allowing far too many into Europe.

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote: At a time of an entirely self-inflicted, global, refugee crisis we have behaved abysmally.

Certainly we're complicit in allowing far too many into Europe.

We are killing thousands of humans for mineral and monetary gain. Western societies deliberately ruin other societies to make it happen.

Davis is no longer even trying to negotiate a brexit deal. It looks to me as if all he is doing now is trying to build a narrative that the Europeans are unreasonable so that they can be blamed when we hard brexit with no deal. This will play well with the little Englanders (and Welsh) who voted for leave. Although lots of them were old and will be dead by 2019 anyway. Nice legacy, thanks.

Th chances of a negotiation by 2019 are slim, very slim. The current grandstanding is painful and frankly both sides need to realise that some compromise is needed. The uk government has at last published some papers on how brexit will look, at least the EU can provide a considered response rather than just rubbishing them. Meanwhile the demands for money seem to be determined to wind up elements of British politics, rather than be a constructive means to manage a divorce.

Both sides will be weakened by this split, but it's still possible for both sides to emerge with a reasonable deal if key negotiators grow up.

Sandydragon wrote:Th chances of a negotiation by 2019 are slim, very slim. The current grandstanding is painful and frankly both sides need to realise that some compromise is needed. The uk government has at last published some papers on how brexit will look, at least the EU can provide a considered response rather than just rubbishing them. Meanwhile the demands for money seem to be determined to wind up elements of British politics, rather than be a constructive means to manage a divorce.

Both sides will be weakened by this split, but it's still possible for both sides to emerge with a reasonable deal if key negotiators grow up.

I don't see the EU needs to change that much, unless they actually decide they do want to reverse much of their EU project. That said if Britain does put £50bn on the table, then even if that's not what they're after and allowing or offsets to that figure it's a hard sum to say no to.

And really if the £50bn does prove as popular as cholera then the Tories can simply choose that moment to put May out of her misery.

Over to Parliament now to see how we can conduct the next part of this in orderly fashion ourselves, away that is from the supposed evils of the EU. Will Labour be constructive or simply seek political point scoring? Will the government have any interest in being scrutinised or simply seek to crack the whip over their own ranks? Will anyone listen to the Lib Dems (even as a Lib Dem voter I only found out recently and by accident Cable was the new party leader)? Will the Brexiters realise they only had a narrow result in the referendum and walk back from their view that any view but their view is heresy before they take on the moniker of the British Taliban?

At some point, maybe, just maybe, the Brexiteers will realise that their win wasn't an overwhelming one and that a large number of British people are concerned at some of the current antics.

Sandydragon wrote:At some point, maybe, just maybe, the Brexiteers will realise that their win wasn't an overwhelming one and that a large number of British people are concerned at some of the current antics.

Maybe, though there does seem a connect between flat earthists, anti-vaccers, Trump supporters and Brexit voters, there's an ideological zeal that eschews compromise and frankly even facts