Brexit

[Jason]

The EU has a very long eastern border, stretching from the Arctic Ocean to the Aegean Sea, running from Finland to Greece. This very long border inevitably has many border crossing points. There are just over 300.

The border between the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland (the Northern Ireland border) has just over 300 official crossing points.

The statistic emphasises that this is a border like no other. It is 300 miles and with 300+ crossing points. Hardly any of the border coincides with a geographical feature (river, hills). The border is excessively erratic in its shape. The constitution of the Republic of Ireland doesn't quite say that Ireland will not enforce a border, but its spirit comes very, very close to just this. The UK (like Ireland) sees the issue as governed by the Anglo-Irish treaty, and the UK just doesn't recognise the idea of a hard border.

I think it inconceivable that either UK or Ireland would put a hard border in place. Were either side to try there would be electoral rejection of the government that enforced it, and there may well be civil disobedience.

A given for any Brexit talks is that the border will remain open. This is not a problem for the UK or for Ireland. Quite where we go from here I'm not sure. Maybe it takes us a bit closer to no deal.

 

[chrisrobin]

Given that every border with the EU from outside is open like a sieve the UK proposal for Ireland seems to offer more in the way of security than the rest of the EU put together.
And Switzerland...... stringent border checks there....

 

[chrisrobin]

Imported pork infects between 150,000 and 200,000 British people a year with the virus, the new research claims, and the products mainly come from Holland and Germany.
Hepatitis E, which is officially called HEV G3-2, can cause liver cirrhosis (scarring of the liver which prevents it working properly) and neurological damage.
UK pigs do not have this particular virus strain.

So much for EU health controls - another reason for out!

 

[dandelion]

which research is that then? people must be dropping like flies!

 

[dandelion]

Report in the guardian, people are now 47% to 44% in favour of remain. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lieves-transition-period-necessary-for-brexit

Asked about if they had to choose between the two in negotiations, 37% say an end to freedom of movement, but 38% say they want to stay in the single market. The numbers prioritising ending movement are falling.

Only 31% think that in 10 years time they will be better off if Brexit happens. 51% of leavers think they will be better off, whereas 51% of remainers think they will be worse off (lots of dont know/no difference). 47% disapprove of how the government has handled negotiations so far. http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-15th-august-2017/

There is a very interesting question on how people think the economy is doing, and labour people think it is doing badly, while conservatives think it is doing well. Similarly, labour supporters are for remain, and conservatives for leave. Big correlation between people's economic outlook and their choice of remain/leave. Tories/leavers think things will improve if we leave, Labour/remainers think they will get worse. And that is why we are seeing this renewal of the leave lies campaign that leaving will will not make the nation worse off. It will, and the more people realise this, the more are switching to remain.

The majority of labour supporters want a second referendum, the majority of tories do not. no doubt this reflects leavers wanting to keep the result they have, and remainers wanting to change it. (and the numbers say remain would just win)

The article also says the government is now saying it thinks phase one of negotiaions will not be concluded until the end of this year. timetable slipping. There have been lots of stories about a need for a transitional period. I fancy the government mens by this it cannot possibly conclude negotiations within the time, not that it wants to help anyone by having a period for people to adjust to new arrangements. It is an acceptance that the negotiations will not be finished in 2 years.

60% of people want a transition period, half extended for just a few years and half for as long as it takes to make satisfactory new arrangements.

50% of people think Leave lied. 37% think remain lied.

 

[chrisrobin]

Lest face it the bastard face of the EU is slowly coming to the fore.
I cant recall, though doubtless Dandelion will put me right, where in clause 50 is says certain things have to be discussed before moving on to others.
The eu is using the 27 - 1 game of saying majority rules - but look who makes the rules...

 

[Jason]

Here's one for the conspiracy theorists.

The UK has put a lot of money into developing an airport on St Helena in the South Atlantic. The airport is now built, but no-one is flying into it because of wind sheer problems. Basically most have decided it is too dangerous.

However agreement has now been reached with South African airline Airlink to operate a service to St Helena (weekly), continuing once a month to Ascension Island. Presumably this will be just the start. This flight alone is just about enough to keep St Helena viable.

Ascension and St Helena are key stepping-stones to the Falkland Islands. UK investment in this airport may be regarded as investment in the Falkland Islands. The obvious commercial motive is South Atlantic oil.

 

[southeastone]

which research is that then? people must be dropping like flies!

The research was by public health England and pointed strongly to dutch pork products on sale in UK supermarkets for 60 recent cases, apparently it is common on the continent because of the practise of soaking meat in previously drained uncleaned pigs blood presumably to get the weight back up before sale and compensate for the poor eating quality of the dutch intensive reared meat. This is a practise not followed in the UK. The strain of hep concerned is not in the UK pig population.

I have just asked for an epidemiology report which I will send you in due course.

 

[englad]

Lest face it the bastard face of the EU is slowly coming to the fore.
I cant recall, though doubtless Dandelion will put me right, where in clause 50 is says certain things have to be discussed before moving on to others.
The eu is using the 27 - 1 game of saying majority rules - but look who makes the rules...

This is the full text of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Summarising it, it says there is two years to conclude the withdrawal agreement, i.e. the divorce settlement. It makes no provisions whatsoever for any future relationship. That is why the focus is on the withdrawal agreement right now.

 

[dandelion]

Lest face it the bastard face of the EU is slowly coming to the fore.
I cant recall, though doubtless Dandelion will put me right, where in clause 50 is says certain things have to be discussed before moving on to others.

All it says is that any country can apply to leave and after 2 years it will be out unless everyone agrees otherwise. It isnt entirely clear whether we can withdraw the application to leave.

The clause says countries can leave. It does not say anything about how they will be treated afterwards. Logically, they will be treated like any other country which is not a member. Isn't that what you would expect?

Oncidentally, there is still some legal argument whether May was properly authorised to give notice to withdraw as per paragraph 1 above. The drafting of the tiny act of parliament authorising her was unclear whether parliament told her to give notice or merely appointed her as the relevant officer to give notice. She has no right to ex oficio to overturn acts of parliament.

 

[Jason]

Discussion of a future relationship is set out in the phrase "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union." It is of course very brief as a statement. We could all wish Article 50 was a little more detailed.

Of course the easiest option is WTO terms. This might well suit the UK best.

 

[dandelion]

It is looking increasingly s though the government plans to leave the EU without leaving the Eu.

They never had any intention to reduce immigration, because the economy needs it.

In order to make a trade deal the Uk has to follow EU standards that relate to anyything sold to the EU. And the rules for this will be dictated by the ECJ, because obviously that is the last arbiter of the rules within the EU. Whatver the EU decides, however it decides it, the Uk will have to go along if it wants to trade with the EU. Thats obvious and always has been. Even on WTO terms, this is still true. There is no escaping following ECJ rules if we want to sell anything into the EU. And we hve to sell into the EU. Leaving the EU is an illusion and always has been if the UK wants to continue to have trade with the EU at all.

Without trade the Uk starves.

 

[798686]

This is the full text of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Summarising it, it says there is two years to conclude the withdrawal agreement, i.e. the divorce settlement. It makes no provisions whatsoever for any future relationship. That is why the focus is on the withdrawal agreement right now.

Nor does it mention a divorce bill.

However - I'm not actually against carrying on our agreed budget commitments until the current financial framework period ends in 2022.

If we're currently paying 12bn per year net (16+bn less 4.8bn) this would amount to £36bn between 2019 and 2022 - which is roughly the figure being bandied about.

However - if we agree to this, we must also retain the benefits we're paying for during that period, namely free access to the single market for a transition period ending in 2022.

Customs union might be trickier as we want to be able to strike our own third party deals during this period, so we're ready to roll on exit day. Potentially we could mirror EU tariffs during this period to make things less complicated, as the government has already suggested.

By this time we'll know a lot more about what future trade deals will look like, and will basically be able to vote yay or nay via the general election.

 

[southeastone]

. Leaving the EU is an illusion and always has been if the UK wants to continue to have trade with the EU at all.

.

Can only eu countries trade with the eu now?

 

[dandelion]

Can only eu countries trade with the eu now?

Anyone at all who wants to trade with the EU has to obey its standards relating to goods which are sold in the EU. Everyone who sells to the EU is bound to agree to the rules of the ECJ which relate to trade. If you are a member you get to decide those rules. Otherwise you just obey them.

I am increasingly baffled why anyone wants to leave unless they simply do not understand this truth about the EU.

 

[southeastone]

Anyone at all who wants to trade with the EU has to obey its standards relating to goods which are sold in the EU. Everyone who sells to the EU is bound to agree to the rules of the ECJ which relate to trade. If you are a member you get to decide those rules. Otherwise you just obey them.

.

Plenty of countries are doing business with the eu, a lot of them without the trade deficit we run, I am sure we will cope, as an exporter I have a vested interest in it working and I am confident it will.

It seems some of the eu banks are not writing us off yet; http://www.cityam.com/270601/deutsche-bank-plans-expand-uk-wealth-management-operation

 

[englad]

Nor does it mention a divorce bill.

That's implied with withdrawal agreement.

However - I'm not actually against carrying on our agreed budget commitments until the current financial framework period ends in 2022.

If we're currently paying 12bn per year net (16+bn less 4.8bn) this would amount to £36bn between 2019 and 2022 - which is roughly the figure being bandied about.

However - if we agree to this, we must also retain the benefits we're paying for during that period, namely free access to the single market for a transition period ending in 2022.

The issue with retaining access to the single market for the government is they have basically jumped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon and don't want freedom of movement, which is included within it. The other factor is how long forming that deal would take. The only close precedent is Greenland, and that wasn't a fully independent country, has a very small population, and basically had one issue to discuss which was fish. That still took years though.

Customs union might be trickier as we want to be able to strike our own third party deals during this period, so we're ready to roll on exit day. Potentially we could mirror EU tariffs during this period to make things less complicated, as the government has already suggested.

By this time we'll know a lot more about what future trade deals will look like, and will basically be able to vote yay or nay via the general election.

The mirrored customs union idea still has a whole "have your cake and eat it" approach, which isn't likely to go down well and hasn't so far.

 

[englad]

Plenty of countries are doing business with the eu, a lot of them without the trade deficit we run, I am sure we will cope, as an exporter I have a vested interest in it working and I am confident it will.

It seems some of the eu banks are not writing us off yet; http://www.cityam.com/270601/deutsche-bank-plans-expand-uk-wealth-management-operation

RE: Deutsche Bank they are running adverts about this all the time here. The reason they are doing it is to skip around regulation differences by being in the country, not because they think brexit Britain is going to be a success.

They are also planning to move 4000 jobs out of the UK

http://www.handelsblatt.com/finanze...nk-verlegt-4-000-jobs-in-die-eu/20136432.html

 

[southeastone]

http://www.cityam.com/270541/city-must-prepare-135bn-per-year-brexit-boost

 

[southeastone]

http://www.cityam.com/270456/no-deal-no-problem-institute-economic-affairs-report-urges