OnionTerror
-
Posts
12,320 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OnionTerror
-
-
8 minutes ago, localhero1983 said:
Leaving the EU has been decided.
Referendum should there be one
1. No deal
2. May Deal
If the majority of the electorate what to jump off a cliff, that's their right, stupid or whatever
Although no deal will end up being Mays deal but worse
-
Chris Grayling has been a bit naughty...
-
26 minutes ago, copydude said:
They have an outline, which appears to include staying in the customs union, but whether it would fly in negotiation with the EU who can say. It's never been challenged. And it's extremely unlikely that they would be afforded the time needed. It's another problem for Corbyn . . . he has no viable alternative.
What does a customs union do...vs the single market?
-
1 hour ago, ElPapasito said:
One aspect of the current parliamentary chaos not much mentioned is Labour's dillemma. On the face of it May is making such a hash of it and looks like the worst leader the Tories ever had, possibly a PM on a par with Neville Chamberlain. So Labour can't help themselves in directling events towards a new general election. Their solution to ALL problems is to call for a GE. They think the electorate will punish May massively, repeating and redoubling the beating they gave her for opportunistically calling the 2017 election. Corbyn has an open goal to win a huge majority for himself they think.
I think they are wrong. The electorate can see that Labour have no more unity of approach on Brexit than the Tories can muster. They can see that forcing an election now is the worst of timing for the UK. Many people think that between 3 options - no deal, May's deal and Remain that May's deal is the most nationally uniting of options, and that the ERG et al are overstating the drawbacks.
So Labour could be outed for being self-interested politicos trying to snatch a win with no plan for any of our very real and urgent problems. And people might think that now giving May the majority of May Deal supporting MPs is the only real solution. So we could see Tories winning well where the tory challenger is pro - May deal.
So the GE might be able to resolve the Brexit log-jam swinging away from Remainers, hard Brexiteers and Labour.
(I myself would never vote for the Tories, but can see Labour are potentially misreading public opinion catastrophically)
Labours approach is a strange one. They are demanding a customs union and a strong relationship with the single market - whatever that means. You’re either in it or not. It’s akin to buying a burger, throwing out the burger and eat the wrapping..
-
5 minutes ago, Dorkins said:
More sense in these 8 words than thousands of pages of debate.
I’ve said on here that leave is a process not a event..
-
2 hours ago, Dorkins said:
A eurozone opt-out is not required. Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic etc don't have a eurozone opt-out but they are able to legally stay out for as long as they like by intentionally failing the Maastricht criteria (e.g. by not joining ERM II).
I think it's very likely the EU would give a rejoining UK a Schengen opt-out in order to avoid creating a passport border between NI and RoI. RoI is an EU member state, it's the one that would be most affected (negatively) by the UK joining Schengen, the EU will give RoI what it wants. In extremis RoI could threaten to veto UK rejoining if it wasn't given a Schengen opt-out.
Oh well, never mind!
-
12 minutes ago, Dorkins said:
I think there is some confusion. I am talking about the terms on which the UK might rejoin the EU after leaving it. That's not remain, that is leaving and then rejoining as a full EU member.
I agree that there is currently no electoral mandate for this path, I'm just describing a possible future path.
If we were to go in, it should be via a49, probably all in, Schengen, the Euro, the lot. No mucking about. If that was voted for, then fair enough. I can’t see the EU giving us all those opt outs again anyway.
-
3 minutes ago, Dorkins said:
This post sounds terribly dramatic and ominous but what does that look like in practice? The UK was (and still is) a full EU member. Like all EU countries it applied (and applies) EU law and sent representatives to the EU institutions. Apart from not joining the euro (like 8 other EU countries) and Schengen (like 5 other EU countries the UK was (and is) fully in.
An opt-out for Schengen should be easy to negotiate: the RoI isn't in Schengen and doesn't want to join, if the UK joined Schengen it would put a passport border between NI and RoI, nobody wants a passport border there. Eurozone membership is easy to avoid and is built into the Maastricht Treaty which a rejoining UK would have to sign: just don't join ERM II and you automatically fail the criteria to join. This is how 7 of the other 8 EU non-euro countries (the exception is Denmark which has an opt-out) are avoiding joining the euro.
So exactly what is it a rejoining UK would have to do which it is not already doing as an EU member?
That has been rejected by the people. What your talking about is remain in name only.
-
46 minutes ago, thehowler said:
Nothing substantive in any of that, the usual waffle.
Something will have to break. It will either be MPs getting behind May's deal, now or later, or Varadkar offering a compromise.
Is it really worth the risk of no deal 80 days from now for the climbdown of a 5/10 year break clause?
The EU may suggest that goods coming into the SM from ROI need to be checked (although I dont think it will). We shall have to wait and see.
-
28 minutes ago, thehowler said:
So what would the EU do? Both the ROI and Brits have said they would not impose controls. Juncker is on film saying no border controls, in any circumstance. The DUP have said they will refuse to adopt or legislate for any ports/sea checks.
This was always the risk for the ROI running straight to the EU. They all thought MPs would have no choice but to take the deal, but it now looks as though they'll resist.
Are you saying the EU would take legal action against ROI to impose border checks?
-
12 minutes ago, IMHAL said:
If's and and's......EFTA is not an option on the table and it may not even be an option at all.
This whole thing is just BS. A total distraction. We will spend the next decade trying to figure a way to make this work.....and...........our situation will be either no better and probably a lot worse......... what a total waste of f'in time. The distraction of our lifetime...... like Cory but with real life thugs.
Nowt wrong in leaving, otherwise what? we rescind a50 and it’ll be remain in name only? Go to the WA and EFTA stays on the table. We get a hard out and it’s an association agreement with a permanent backstop.
-
1 hour ago, thehowler said:
Could we declare the border a customs free zone? The EU could then effectively police it by preventing other countries from shipping goods through ROI?
As I said above, we've already ceded central govt sovereignty over NI, perhaps NI will have to be a WTO anomaly.
It’s not only customs, but the EU wouldn’t accept goods being sent into the single market from a third country with zero checks. Both the U.K. and ROI would need border controls. It would threaten the status of the EU’s RTA with the WTO and it would also make it very difficult for the U.K. in regards to their status within the WTO and for future FTAs. Or the U.K. accepts that a sea based backstop will need to be enacted.
It is a difficult situation but we are where we are. If we’d had gone with EFTA then these problems would pretty much go away.
-
1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:
Which countries do you think would object?
The US have big eyes on the UK market, especially in areas like agrifood. Also perhaps the likes of Brazil, Canada, Korea & Japan..Under MFN, all countries would expect all their goods to be sent into the UK (either via NI or mainland ports) to be sent in unchecked..A big question that many states would ask, is whether the UK could be trusted to uphold on their commitments under WTO, let alone an FTA?
-
6 minutes ago, thehowler said:
ROI has already guaranteed there will be an open border, in any event. If no deal happened - though I still say nay - that bluff has been called.
Other members of the WTO could of course object to such an open border. Moreover, they could say that they will not enter into negotiations into future FTAs with the UK, unless the open border is closed, as the EU are getting an "unfair advantage" under MFN...
-
20 minutes ago, thehowler said:
Well, it's the major impediment to getting to an orderly WA. You can either imagine that the EU are keen to do that - and willing to work towards it - or they really don't care that much. I'm inclined to go with the former.
Equally, you can say how much time does the ROI need to have as security for a successful renegotiation towards an open border? Would fifty years be long enough? To me, that seems ludicrous. You drop that down and even a decade feels too cautious, so five years seems about right. Now I don't think MPs will allow a no deal exit, but even if they did, the risk for the ROI would be that the border will be either controlled immediately or left open. Given that the ROI have pledged it will not be controlled in any way, ever, that means it will be left open. My question then would be how long does an open border have to be left open before it looks as though it's manageable? Five days, five months, a year? That's why I think it would be in the ROI's interests to get May's deal through, and a 5-year break clause might do it.
But hey, have you got a better idea?
I cannot see the EU agreeing that the UK can unilaterally remove the backstop. The only way it can be done is via the harmonisation of standards (ie via EEA). So its otherwise going to be a sea border. Thats the outcome of no plan, and rejecting the EEA out of hand.
I think that there will be a very difficult set of discussions that will be made in London, Dublin & Brussels over an open border in the event of a no deal. An open border will only stand for so long. I suspect that both the UK and the EU will move to put some sort of infrastructure under the WTO regime..
-
2 minutes ago, thehowler said:
I saw a still pic of the cast and thought Boris looked like Michael Fabricant...after that I gave up on the idea of suspension of disbelief. Previews are good though.
Vote a week tomorrow. David Henig has been tweeting about ways forward, one of which is a 5-year break clause for NI. Makes a lot of sense. How could ROI object to having half a decade to resolve (or not) the situation, would make them look ridiculous. And five years might be bearable for MPs.
I guess the EU think they can have May's deal now, or something very similar in six months or so (with better terms for them).
But May could go public with an offer to Varadkar?
She needs to stop sticking and change something.
Would the EU ever agree to a break clause, especially if there isn't any guarantee of finding a definitive solution within five years? I can see a situation after a no deal that a permanent backstop will probably be one of the first parts within a new treaty.
-
Having an uncertified tariff schedule isn't as bad as first made out..
The UK can trade just fine on an uncertified schedule. Having an uncertified schedule just means at least one WTO Member doesn't think that schedule is an accurate representation of your commitments. At worst could signal objective Members plan to take a dispute against you in the WTO some time in the future, but even that is hardly fatal.
-
Just now, Peter Hun said:
Ok,fair enough. But there won't be an GE unless May calls it, as there is nothing (except Tory MP's vote for suicide) that can force it. Losing a vote, resignations, etc. won't force a GE.
Even after a GE, and the government in question still insisted that we remain outside the single market, then they wont get a different deal that what has already been agreed. It would only change, if say a future Labour govt wanted to go down the EFTA route.
-
4 minutes ago, jonb2 said:
Sounds like an exercise in confirmation bias for him too.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/wetherspoon-boss-brexit-manchester-debate-15632867
I didn't know he was from Belfast originally. Its almost like a weird Cornish accent he has.. He's still a bit of a plum though..
-
Sounds like a right barrel of laughs...
-
Or you could have the overly practical Ariel Atom for that money...
-
18 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:
Lets not go pointlessly around this lo0p again. Almost all the forecasters have estimated the loss as between 2-3% (even Minford's lot reckoned it was almost 2%).
Now you are just making things up. The UK successfully drove forward the two biggest changes in the history of the EU, the creation of the single market and the expansion Eastward in the face of opposition from the French.
You could well argue that we should have prioritised the development of the SM in services over expanding Eastwards but we didn't. We got what we wanted, so no point in complaining about it now.
Interestingly, a four day delay on the Dover Calais route in 2015 cost the UK economy £1bn.
This situation would be a pretty much a constant (and probably worse being outside the SM) under a WTO or CETA type deal...
-
3 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:
All of this is correct but ignores that the current arrangements work, at least in part, because the EEA members are content not to use all of the powers available to them.
If the UK joined and did not take the same view it risks antagonising the EU for no benefit to the existing EEA members.
The view that the UK's economic clout would provide the ability for the EU to negotiate better trade deals can be countered by the view that those trade deals would be more suited to the more powerful UK than to the existing members.
Overall for the existing EEA members admitting the UK carries obvious risks but little obvious upside.
The only way I can see the UK being admitted is if we agreed not to rock the EEA boat and that it was an end point not a staging post to further distancing itself from the EU/EEA.
It's hard to see how the UK could give such assurances, especially as the Brexiteers will be crying betrayal throughout the negotiations (second ref possibly?)
I've felt for a while that the EFTA arrangement will only pass once we have entered into hardship, and we need to find a way out of it. Its not a tenable proposition at the moment, especially as you'll have the JRMs of this world bleating from the sidelines...We need to silence them with their own wrongheaded thinking first..
-
1 minute ago, IMHAL said:
Ok ... so you are not going to refute the logic point by point?.... that's fine and confirms my suspicion. Efta is a dead end for us.
If I must...
As I mentioned earlier on via the EFTA link I provided earlier, and please read Adrian Yelland's post I also posted.. The EEA agreement is more about consensus which has to be passed via each EEA state's parliament before it can be passed on the EEA joint committee and them amended on to the EEA treaty. You do also realise that the EEA acquis is only roughly around 27% of the full EU acquis... The UK would actually have more power outside the EU, as they would not be subject to QMV, and thus directives being pushed through UK legislation .. The UK would also regain its own seat at the WTO, and global bodies too...help setting the agenda in our favour...
Read article 112 & 113 of the EEA agreement. The four freedoms can be unilaterally suspended... In the 1992 agreement, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein all had safeguard measures written into the EEA agreement (such as the one below)
----
DECLARATION
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA
ON SAFEGUARDS
Austria declares that due to the specific geographical situation, the available settlement area (particularly the land available for housing construction) is scarce above average in parts of Austria. Accordingly, disturbances on the real estate market could eventually lead to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a regional nature within the meaning of the safeguard clause contained in Article 112 of the EEA Agreement and require measures under this Article.
-------------------
In the EEA final act (before Switzerland vetoed joining the EEA), they could have had control over free movement of persons...Much more than they do now (under protocol 15)... No reason why we couldnt have the same
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Final Act/FinalAct.pdf
We do not need to be in a customs union with the EU...The are solutions that involve not having one. The EFTA Court works in a completely different manner than the ECJ, read the Ian Dunt link that was posted yesterday (I think)..
Having the UK on board within EFTA would actually make the organisation stronger, especially when it comes to arranging FTAs
” She said the only politicians in Norway who wanted the UK to join Efta were the Eurosceptic party that wanted to destroy Norway’s relationship with the EU. Says the pro EU'er
I can see why a lot of EUphiles are scared of the EEA...It would make our transition out of the EU pain free, thus they are trying to rubbish it in every angle..
Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.
in House prices and the economy
Posted · Edited by Dave Beans
UNECE's Single Window, adopted by the WTO, is an interesting concept, which will remove bureaucracy, facilitate trade and curtail bribery...Free trade doesn't really exist any more..Its the harmonisation of standards is where everything is moving towards..
http://tfig.unece.org/contents/single-window-for-trade.htm
If implemented effectively, a Single Window project can achieve the following benefits.