Brexit - merged threads

[Rewulf]

Good piece Bazooka 

[Retsdon]

Tony Abbot apparently  knows even less about  Britain's international trade position and the rules governing the Single Market than Dominic ' I hadn't quite understood the full extent' Raab. If there's a silver lining to this Brexit shambles, it is that the public can see first hand how the grossest ignorance and and stupidity are, in fact,  no bar at all to high political office. . 

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Tony Abbot ex Australian PM sums it up nicely.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/tony-abbott-how-to-save-brexit/

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Absolutely superb post, if only our politicians had a back bone and some morals.

[panoma1]

47 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Tony Abbot apparently  knows even less about  Britain's international trade position and the rules governing the Single Market than Dominic ' I hadn't quite understood the full extent' Raab. If there's a silver lining to this Brexit shambles, it is that the public can see first hand how the grossest ignorance and and stupidity are, in fact,  no bar at all to high political office. . 

You gonna qualify your critism?

[Vince Green]

3 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Tony Abbot ex Australian PM sums it up nicely.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/tony-abbott-how-to-save-brexit/

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

100% right!

[Retsdon]

19 hours ago, panoma1 said:

You gonna qualify your critism?

Sure.

'Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation' 

Yes, but 99 times out of a 100 a failure to come to an agreement simply means the continuation of the status quo ante. Neither party is worse off than when the negotiation started. This isn't the case with Brexit.  Over the last 40 years the legal and standards systems of Britain and the EU have become woven together and somehow or other they have to be unwoven. It's hardly even 'negotiation' in the true sense - more like surgery on Siamese twins. You can't just rip them apart.

When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. 

Um, no. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/19/camerons-eu-deal-what-he-wanted-and-what-he-got . He wasn't 'sent packing'. He got most of what he wanted, but not everything. Given what he was demanding, the EU was pretty accommodating actually. It has other members to consider too.

Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. 

What 'deal' does Abbot think the EU should be offering?  If Britain wants access to the Single Market then it is going to need to abide by the rules governing it. You'd have thought that would be obvious, even to the meanest intelligence.

Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

He knows full well that Australia is signed up for a veritable alphabet soup of Pacific regional trade organizations https://gbtimes.com/asias-rival-trade-deals-explained-tpp-rcep-ftaap   - that owe their very existence to the shortcomings of trade under WTO rules. Yet he's saying that Britain should walk away from its biggest regional grouping without any kind of deal at all? Hmmmn.

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. 

Not without breaching WTO anti-discrimination rules, it can't .https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm .

 If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Again, this would be in breach of WTO rules. Besides, he's suggesting that the EU should  allow Britain full access to the Single Market without being bound by the rules that govern it. We've been here before. ....

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic,

And that's because it's a member of the EU too!!!! When Britain leaves - will these standards develop or change alongside EU standards?  how about next year? Or in 20 years? Or 50 years?  Will product standards still be 'exactly the same'? It's beyond belief, really it is.

Either Abbot is woefully ill-informed, or he's just writing what he thinks people want to hear without any regard to the facts on the ground. Either way, his opinion belongs in the bin..

 

 

[JohnfromUK]

42 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Either Abbot is woefully ill-informed, or he's just writing what he thinks people want to hear without any regard to the facts on the ground. Either way, his opinion belongs in the bin.

On the contrary; Tony Abbott's opinion is how many of the worlds 'external' observers see things

[panoma1]

Isn''t he just saying, if you can't get what you want from negotiations, just walk away? That's what I want and that's what I believed I was voting for!

 

[matone]

13 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Isn''t he just saying, if you can't get what you want from negotiations, just walk away? That's what I want and that's what I believed I was voting for!

 

Like the majority of us !

[12gauge82]

15 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Sure.

'Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation' 

Yes, but 99 times out of a 100 a failure to come to an agreement simply means the continuation of the status quo ante. Neither party is worse off than when the negotiation started. This isn't the case with Brexit.  Over the last 40 years the legal and standards systems of Britain and the EU have become woven together and somehow or other they have to be unwoven. It's hardly even 'negotiation' in the true sense - more like surgery on Siamese twins. You can't just rip them apart.

When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. 

Um, no. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/19/camerons-eu-deal-what-he-wanted-and-what-he-got . He wasn't 'sent packing'. He got most of what he wanted, but not everything. Given what he was demanding, the EU was pretty accommodating actually. It has other members to consider too.

Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. 

What 'deal' does Abbot think the EU should be offering?  If Britain wants access to the Single Market then it is going to need to abide by the rules governing it. You'd have thought that would be obvious, even to the meanest intelligence.

Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

He knows full well that Australia is signed up for a veritable alphabet soup of Pacific regional trade organizations https://gbtimes.com/asias-rival-trade-deals-explained-tpp-rcep-ftaap   - that owe their very existence to the shortcomings of trade under WTO rules. Yet he's saying that Britain should walk away from its biggest regional grouping without any kind of deal at all? Hmmmn.

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. 

Not without breaching WTO anti-discrimination rules, it can't .https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm .

 If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Again, this would be in breach of WTO rules. Besides, he's suggesting that the EU should  allow Britain full access to the Single Market without being bound by the rules that govern it. We've been here before. ....

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic,

And that's because it's a member of the EU too!!!! When Britain leaves - will these standards develop or change alongside EU standards?  how about next year? Or in 20 years? Or 50 years?  Will product standards still be 'exactly the same'? It's beyond belief, really it is.

Either Abbot is woefully ill-informed, or he's just writing what he thinks people want to hear without any regard to the facts on the ground. Either way, his opinion belongs in the bin..

 

 

Well let's walk away then, like the country democratically voted for if a free trade deal couldn't be reached.

[Rewulf]

1

Edited November 12, 2018 by Rewulf
Ill start again lol !

[Rewulf]

18 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Yes, but 99 times out of a 100 a failure to come to an agreement simply means the continuation of the status quo

Well this must be that 1 in a 100 then, we voted to leave.
The negotiations are about HOW we leave, not IF .

 

18 hours ago, Retsdon said:

It's hardly even 'negotiation' in the true sense - more like surgery on Siamese twins. You can't just rip them apart.

The EU doesnt do negotiation in the true sense, its their way or no way, and be damned to any damage they do to the people they represent.
How can you have an organisation that works against a European nation, just because it isnt a member ?
We are all geographically, economically  and strategically aligned, youre right it is like Siamese twins, how does the EU hope to not do damage to itself, by not at least trying to make our exit a smooth transition, does it even care ?
This is the intrinsic problem, the EU sees itself as a separate entity, yes German and French economies 'will suffer', but so will the British, as long as the EU project itself is safe, all is good.
The simple fact of the difficulty implementing article 50 itself, the fact it had to be written into the constitution after the thing was ratified, tells a story too.
Member countries were never meant to leave, and if they did, they would be notified that the cold economic wilderness awaits.
What kind of behaviour is that ?
You could sort of imagine the old USSR doing it in the 60 s or 70 s

 

18 hours ago, Retsdon said:

He got most of what he wanted, but not everything.

He got nothing.
If he had of got meaningful concessions , we probably wouldnt be having this conversation.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Well this must be that 1 in a 100 then, we voted to leave.
The negotiations are about HOW we leave, not IF .

 

The EU doesnt do negotiation in the true sense, its their way or no way, and be damned to any damage they do to the people they represent.
How can you have an organisation that works against a European nation, just because it isnt a member ?
We are all geographically, economically  and strategically aligned, youre right it is like Siamese twins, how does the EU hope to not do damage to itself, by not at least trying to make our exit a smooth transition, does it even care ?
This is the intrinsic problem, the EU sees itself as a separate entity, yes German and French economies 'will suffer', but so will the British, as long as the EU project itself is safe, all is good.
The simple fact of the difficulty implementing article 50 itself, the fact it had to be written into the constitution after the thing was ratified, tells a story too.
Member countries were never meant to leave, and if they did, they would be notified that the cold economic wilderness awaits.
What kind of behaviour is that ?
You could sort of imagine the old USSR doing it in the 60 s or 70 s

 

He got nothing.
If he had of got meaningful concessions , we probably wouldnt be having this conversation.

That's the crux of the matter!

[JohnfromUK]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The EU doesnt do negotiation in the true sense, its their way or no way, and be damned to any damage they do to the people they represent.

This is correct, but I think the reason is that as '27' with many different views, IF they tried real negotiation, it would be like trying to herd cats.  So they have developed a system of 'dictating' which works well for them - and now in effect Juncker, Tusk and Co are behaving like heads of state of a country - note how they are present at ALL G7, G8, international summits, with Juncker tottering around hugging everyone - whereas in effect he is a civil servant, not a head of state.

 

42 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

He got nothing.

That is also correct; but I suspect they had been told they didn't need to give anything as he would win the referendum.  Cameron's big mistake was that he misread the mood.  Had he played it right, I think they would have given him enough to sway the vote ........ but he almost certainly told them off the record that he could win.

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

The EU doesnt do negotiation in the true sense, its their way or no way, and be damned to any damage they do to the people they represent.

 

This is the European way, it goes way back to the days of the Romans and has never changed. Europeans never negotiate, at least not in a way that each side gives a bit and you meet in the middle.

Its a "macho man" thing, Politicians have to be seen as the hard man. In their world the stronger side dictates terms to the weaker side, there is no middle ground. Theresa May trying to reach a compromise will just be signalling weakness 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Vince Green

[Rewulf]

I wasnt sure where to put this one, it equally belongs in my 'For the many' thread.

In short, The head of the EU council, Mr Tusk , has the odd skeleton in his cupboard, more so his son, who is almost certainly complicit in the theft of millions of zlotys stolen from impoverished Poles through a Ponzi scheme.
What with Junkers double dealings, a large proportion of the EU parliament on soros's payroll, and Tusk actively blocking investigations into an illegal scheme his son was heavily involved in, you know that when the leaders of the EU are this (dis)honest, the future of Europe is in very (un)safe hands.

https://www.dw.com/en/donald-tusks-elephant-in-the-room/a-46168594

[TIGHTCHOKE]

House of cards - waiting to fall!

[Vince Green]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

House of cards - waiting to fall!

Its a three legged stool and Britain is one of the legs. Once we go I cannot see how they imagine they are going to maintain the illusion for very long. They cannot admit it for that would be to lose face

[martyn2233]

Adding tragedy to tragedy’ Juncker admits EU leaders in Brussels TERRIFIED over no deal

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1044343/brexit-news-jean-claude-juncker-EU-no-deal-Brexit-latest-Theresa-May

[Vince Green]

26 minutes ago, martyn2233 said:

Adding tragedy to tragedy’ Juncker admits EU leaders in Brussels TERRIFIED over no deal

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1044343/brexit-news-jean-claude-juncker-EU-no-deal-Brexit-latest-Theresa-May

They have to face the facts, by their attitude and arrogance they have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Theresa May could have them pinned against the wall by the throat if she was Maggie Thatcher's calibre of PM.

There are bigger problems in the EU than Brexit, Italy is in a position where it has nowhere to go but the EU has done NOTHING to help them. Greece has gone beyond that point of no return but the EU has done NOTHING to help them. Merkel is history, Macron's popularity is plummeting. Spain and Portugal are both sliding into the same situation as Italy. All Brussels can do is become more bullying   

Poland and Hungary are in rebellion and at least ten of the other members are blatently just in it for what they can get out of it for themselves and crucially, always have been.  

Edited November 12, 2018 by Vince Green

[lister22]

IF the EUssr has been so good for the UK why are 14 million living in "poverty"

as the beast of Bolsover has said "I would not give the EU a penny"

[Rewulf]

Mmm.. unconfirmed reports of some sort of Brexit 'deal' being finalised in Brussels.
Supposedly ministers are going to be briefed tonight , with a possible public announcement due tomorrow.
Doesnt sound good to me , but we shall see..

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-live-eu-withdrawal-deal-agreed-at-a-technical-level-as-special-cabinet-meeting-set-tomorrow-a3988256.html

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Yes very interesting.............

[panoma1]

I suspect the "deal" will disappoint everyone and please no one? My personal thoughts are, we had a democratic referendum which voted leave, there can be no rerun of the referendum......that is done! The only vote the country should have now is whether to accept the "deal" our government "negotiated" with the EU.........or just leave!

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Mmm.. unconfirmed reports of some sort of Brexit 'deal' being finalised in Brussels.......Doesnt sound good to me , but we shall see..

I wouldn't worry about it. About the only thing you can be sure of with Brexit is that any news of 'a deal' will be proven wrong within 24 hours.