|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On November 26 2016 05:07 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2016 03:04 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 22:34 RvB wrote:On November 25 2016 20:59 bardtown wrote:On November 25 2016 20:52 Velr wrote: Now its the EU that is acting protectionist because the UK wants to gtfo?
Is it opposite day? No, it's a typical day where you understand next to nothing. Wanting all Euro transactions to be cleared in the Eurozone is protectionist. Not complicated. Don't you see the hypocrisy of pointing out financial protectionism from the EU(on only one point) while the UK leaves the single market and wants to limit the free movement of people? If there's any party here being protectionist it's the UK. On the contrary, I think suggesting that leaving the single market amounts to protectionism when the single market represents an ever decreasing share of world trade - some of which is a result of its own restrictive protectionism - is absurd. ![[image loading]](https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/2016%20Update%20EU%20GDP%20Share.png) Tariff free trade with 16.5% of the world economy at the cost of enforced tariffs on the other 83.5%... Extending the term to refer to people is strange to me. I guess it makes sense if you've abandoned any notion of nationhood beyond GDP, but if one of your aims as a state is to improve conditions for your people then it makes no sense at all. You can make the same graph about the UK so is the EU not protectionist either then? I'm struggling to see your point. Leaving the single market is protectionist regardless of how big the EU economy is. You're also conveniently not responding to the free movement of people part. Restricting that is protectionist as well.
Definition of protectionism aside, there's a notion in economics of "trade diversion", in which having lower tariffs with a single country (or region) can leave your country worse off. This is surprising because this effect can be shown in stardard trade models (those that almost always have free trade be a good thing in aggregate). I don't know if this is really the case with UK and the EU, but I think this is what he's hinting at.
|
It may be surprising in the case of a normal FTA, because FTAs don't feature stipulations that you should restrict trade with other countries. It's not really a surprise in the case of the EU because to be a member of the single market you have to agree to impose common tariffs on everyone outside the single market.
|
On November 27 2016 23:29 bardtown wrote: It may be surprising in the case of a normal FTA, because FTAs don't feature stipulations that you should restrict trade with other countries. It's not really a surprise in the case of the EU because to be a member of the single market you have to agree to impose common tariffs on everyone outside the single market.
Trade diversion obviously would be stronger if you not only lower tariffs (or non-tariff barriers) with one region but raise with all others, but I honestly don't know if that's the case here. Did Britain raise tariffs when it joined or are you making a case of how tarrifs would be lower if not for the EU?
|
On November 28 2016 00:08 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 23:29 bardtown wrote: It may be surprising in the case of a normal FTA, because FTAs don't feature stipulations that you should restrict trade with other countries. It's not really a surprise in the case of the EU because to be a member of the single market you have to agree to impose common tariffs on everyone outside the single market. Trade diversion obviously would be stronger if you not only lower tariffs (or non-tariff barriers) with one region but raise with all others, but I honestly don't know if that's the case here. Did Britain raise tariffs when it joined or are you making a case of how tarrifs would be lower if not for the EU?
When you join you automatically agree to apply tariffs as set out by the customs union. Before the left decided the EU was God's gift to the UK they were critical of many of these tariffs. For example, tariffs on raw materials are relatively low, while tariffs on processed goods are relatively high. This means that African economies cannot feasibly process their raw materials to be sold in the EU, and must instead sell the raw materials into Europe for Europeans to process and profit from. So Europe makes far more from coffee than Africa does despite Africa producing all the coffee beans, which stifles development in those countries. There are many other things produced in Europe which are kept artificially competitive in this way.
This is why it is absurd to suggest that leaving the EU is protectionist.
|
On November 28 2016 00:57 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 00:08 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 27 2016 23:29 bardtown wrote: It may be surprising in the case of a normal FTA, because FTAs don't feature stipulations that you should restrict trade with other countries. It's not really a surprise in the case of the EU because to be a member of the single market you have to agree to impose common tariffs on everyone outside the single market. Trade diversion obviously would be stronger if you not only lower tariffs (or non-tariff barriers) with one region but raise with all others, but I honestly don't know if that's the case here. Did Britain raise tariffs when it joined or are you making a case of how tarrifs would be lower if not for the EU? When you join you automatically agree to apply tariffs as set out by the customs union. Before the left decided the EU was God's gift to the UK they were critical of many of these tariffs. For example, tariffs on raw materials are relatively low, while tariffs on processed goods are relatively high. This means that African economies cannot feasibly process their raw materials to be sold in the EU, and must instead sell the raw materials into Europe for Europeans to process and profit from. So Europe makes far more from coffee than Africa does despite Africa producing all the coffee beans, which stifles development in those countries. There are many other things produced in Europe which are kept artificially competitive in this way. This is why it is absurd to suggest that leaving the EU is protectionist.
You're implying that Britain raised their tariffs when they joined the EU (applying tariffs as set out by the customs union) and/or that they would be lower if they left. This is what I'm asking and expressing some skepticism about. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear.
|
On November 28 2016 01:38 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 00:57 bardtown wrote:On November 28 2016 00:08 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 27 2016 23:29 bardtown wrote: It may be surprising in the case of a normal FTA, because FTAs don't feature stipulations that you should restrict trade with other countries. It's not really a surprise in the case of the EU because to be a member of the single market you have to agree to impose common tariffs on everyone outside the single market. Trade diversion obviously would be stronger if you not only lower tariffs (or non-tariff barriers) with one region but raise with all others, but I honestly don't know if that's the case here. Did Britain raise tariffs when it joined or are you making a case of how tarrifs would be lower if not for the EU? When you join you automatically agree to apply tariffs as set out by the customs union. Before the left decided the EU was God's gift to the UK they were critical of many of these tariffs. For example, tariffs on raw materials are relatively low, while tariffs on processed goods are relatively high. This means that African economies cannot feasibly process their raw materials to be sold in the EU, and must instead sell the raw materials into Europe for Europeans to process and profit from. So Europe makes far more from coffee than Africa does despite Africa producing all the coffee beans, which stifles development in those countries. There are many other things produced in Europe which are kept artificially competitive in this way. This is why it is absurd to suggest that leaving the EU is protectionist. You're implying that Britain raised their tariffs when they joined the EU (applying tariffs as set out by the customs union) and/or that they would be lower if they left. This is what I'm asking and expressing some skepticism about. Sorry if I'm not making myself clear.
I don't know. We joined the EEC in 1973 and I don't know how it worked at that time. For a country wanting to join now, they would be required to raise tariffs as set out by the customs union. On the inverse, a country leaving regains the power to lower (or raise, of course) these tariffs, as desired.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
"The European Union as a concept" or "The European Union's predecessors as they were 40 years ago" is a far different thing than "The European Union as it actually is now." The latter is what people really have a problem with.
|
When Gina Miller took the British government to court over triggering Brexit, she didn't expect death threats or the need to bring in security so that her children could get to school safely.
A successful London investment manager, Miller was assigned by a judge to be the lead claimant in a court case brought by members of the public, which challenged Prime Minister Theresa May's authority to start talks to pull Britain out of the European Union without first asking parliament.
Since a panel of three High Court judges ruled in her favour last month, she has received relentless racist and sexist intimidation, including e-mails warning she would be gang raped and calling for her to be run down on the street.
The government has appealed the case, which goes before Britain's Supreme Court next week.
Miller, 51, has reported the threats to the police who she said were likely to speak to or arrest five people any day. She has spent 60,000 pounds for her own protection including dealing with attacks on the website of her business.
The experience of what she describes as a "poisoned chalice" legal challenge has revealed how divided Britain has become since the EU referendum campaign in which one lawmaker, Jo Cox, was killed on the street by a Nazi-obsessed loner.
"This division was always there but Brexit perhaps has been irresponsible: Those who were talking about leaving in particular have emboldened people to think such behaviour is acceptable," Miller told Reuters at a temporary office which she has leased for security reasons. "It's revealed a side to society which is extremely worrying."
She was born in what was then Britain's South American colony British Guiana, now the independent state Guyana, and sent to school in Britain by her parents. A selection of the threatening emails she has received, which she showed to Reuters, was littered with racist slurs as well as sexist obscenities.
"The levels of sexual and racial violence have been quite extraordinary, to the level that because I'm a 'coloured woman' I don't have any place outside of a kitchen."
Some of the hatred, she says, arises from right wing media focusing on her biography to discredit her.
Britain's most widely-read newspaper, The Sun, called her a "foreign-born millionaire", an epithet that, she notes, the paper doesn't use to describe its own Australian owner Rupert Murdoch, or Britain's New York-born foreign secretary.
"You don't see Boris Johnson described as 'foreign-born'," she said. "I am British. I went to a British school, I pay British taxes and my children are British." uk.reuters.com
|
On December 01 2016 00:57 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +When Gina Miller took the British government to court over triggering Brexit, she didn't expect death threats or the need to bring in security so that her children could get to school safely.
A successful London investment manager, Miller was assigned by a judge to be the lead claimant in a court case brought by members of the public, which challenged Prime Minister Theresa May's authority to start talks to pull Britain out of the European Union without first asking parliament.
Since a panel of three High Court judges ruled in her favour last month, she has received relentless racist and sexist intimidation, including e-mails warning she would be gang raped and calling for her to be run down on the street.
The government has appealed the case, which goes before Britain's Supreme Court next week.
Miller, 51, has reported the threats to the police who she said were likely to speak to or arrest five people any day. She has spent 60,000 pounds for her own protection including dealing with attacks on the website of her business.
The experience of what she describes as a "poisoned chalice" legal challenge has revealed how divided Britain has become since the EU referendum campaign in which one lawmaker, Jo Cox, was killed on the street by a Nazi-obsessed loner.
"This division was always there but Brexit perhaps has been irresponsible: Those who were talking about leaving in particular have emboldened people to think such behaviour is acceptable," Miller told Reuters at a temporary office which she has leased for security reasons. "It's revealed a side to society which is extremely worrying."
She was born in what was then Britain's South American colony British Guiana, now the independent state Guyana, and sent to school in Britain by her parents. A selection of the threatening emails she has received, which she showed to Reuters, was littered with racist slurs as well as sexist obscenities.
"The levels of sexual and racial violence have been quite extraordinary, to the level that because I'm a 'coloured woman' I don't have any place outside of a kitchen."
Some of the hatred, she says, arises from right wing media focusing on her biography to discredit her.
Britain's most widely-read newspaper, The Sun, called her a "foreign-born millionaire", an epithet that, she notes, the paper doesn't use to describe its own Australian owner Rupert Murdoch, or Britain's New York-born foreign secretary.
"You don't see Boris Johnson described as 'foreign-born'," she said. "I am British. I went to a British school, I pay British taxes and my children are British." uk.reuters.com
Control = taken back
|
From earlier this week but only saw it today, a Tory aide's clipboard with notes after a meeting with the Department for Exiting the EU was photographed, and given the complete lack of details on the subject from official channels, the press was keen on analyzing it. Nothing too juicy though, the main giveaway is how vague the plan still is even after half a year:
+ Show Spoiler +Britain is unlikely to be able to remain a member of the single market, according to a document photographed in the hands of a senior Conservative official on Downing Street.
A handwritten note, carried by an aide to the Tory vice-chair Mark Field after a meeting at the Department for Exiting the European Union, could be seen to say: “What’s the model? Have cake and eat it.”
And in a further embarrassment, it added “French likely to be most difficult.”
It also suggests that a deal on manufacturing with the EU should be “relatively straightforward” but admits that services, such as in the financial or legal sectors, are harder.
One idea cited in the note is a “Canada-plus” option, suggesting Britain could look to replicate the free trade deal hammered out by the EU over seven years with Ottawa.
However, it suggests that the UK would be seeking “more on services” than was agreed in the comprehensive economic and trade agreement (Ceta).
A government spokesperson distanced Theresa May from the document, saying: “These individual notes do not belong to a government official or a special adviser. They do not reflect the government’s position in relation to Brexit negotiations.”
However, the fact they appeared to have been taken during a meeting with officials or even ministers – given May’s tight-lipped approach to the negotiating strategy – means that they will be pored over.
The woman carrying the document appears to be Julia Dockerill, chief of staff to Field, who is vice-chair of the Conservative party, working on international issues and MP for the Cities of London and Westminster.
Field does not have a formal Brexit role but does take a keen interest on the impact that leaving the EU could have on the country’s financial services, many of which are based in his constituency, and is likely to have been speaking to senior figures about this issue.
The notes also said: “Transitional – loath to do it. Whitehall will hold onto it. We need to bring an end to negotiations.”
That could suggest that ministers are not keen to enter a transitional deal after the end of the article 50 period, despite May hinting last week that this would be possible.
Other comments include: “Difficult on article 50 implementation – Barnier wants to see what deal looks like first”, in reference to lead negotiator Michel Barnier.
“Got to be done in parallel – 20 odd negotiations. Keep the two years. Won’t provide more detail,” it adds. “We think it’s unlikely we’ll be offered Single Market.”
The document appears to reflect a discussion about the prospect of a trade deal like that of Norway, which is a member of the European Economic Area.
“Why no Norway – two elements – no ECJ intervention. Unlikely to do internal market.”
That appears to refer to the drawbacks of taking on the Norwegian model, which has the country outside the EU and its customs union, but inside the single market.
The reason Brexit supporters do not want to follow that idea is the requirement that Norway accepts free movement of people and is under the jurisdiction of the European court.
The document was being carried out of 9 Downing Street, the Brexit department, and into No 10 Downing Street when it was photographed. It comes after reports that there is a sign on the DExEU exit doors reading: “Stop! Are your documents on show?”.
It emerged on Monday that the government faces the prospect of a second legal challenge to its Brexit plans, with the group British Influence threatening a judicial review over whether leaving the EU means Britain must also automatically leave the European Economic Area and hence lose the free trading benefits of the single market.
However, the government and senior EU legal experts have claimed that this attempt is unlikely to be as successful as the high court ruling that parliament must have a vote before the Brexit process begins, which is the subject of an appeal by the government in the supreme court that is due to be heard next week.
Despite the denial about the note, it is likely to increase pressure on the government to lift the secrecy about its plan for Brexit, with opposition MPs complaining that there should be full transparency about the UK’s plans.
Stephen Gethins, the SNP spokesman on Europe, said the notes reveal a government “with no direction, and no clue”.
“Worryingly, those in favour of taking us out of the EU appear set to cut off their nose to spite their face – with an apparent call to end any negotiations with Europe before they’ve properly begun and already wishing to pull the plug on the prospect of transitional arrangements,” he said.
“These scribbled papers, however scant, seem to be the only plan the UK government has and stand starkly in contrast to the very clear plans set out by first minister Nicola Sturgeon in the aftermath of the EU referendum.
“If they weren’t so deeply troubling, these revelations would be risible. Public patience has worn thin with stonewalling and obfuscating from the UK government – it’s now high time they set out a proper plan on leaving the EU as opposed to hastily jotted down notes, so short on substance.”
Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems, added: “If this is a strategy it is incoherent. We can’t have our cake and eat it and there is no certainty on the single market. This picture shows the government doesn’t have a plan or even a clue.”
May has so far only promised to talk about her broad aims before triggering article 50 in March, and thereby officially notifying the EU of the UK’s intention to leave.
She has made clear that there will have to be more controls on immigration from the EU and wants to see an end to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice – which is why many think Britain will come out of the single market.
But the lack of further details from No 10 has alarmed many formerly pro-EU Labour and Tory MPs, who are increasingly cooperating in an attempt to stop a “hard Brexit”. Their key demands are staying as close to the single market as possible, a transitional deal to cushion the economic effect of leaving and more parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiations.
Some former remain politicians, including former prime ministers Tony Blair and Sir John Major, are even pushing for a second referendum to allow the public to vote on or even veto any deal for leaving the EU.
It was also reported in the Sunday Times that Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, backs a transitional deal with the EU to cushion the impact of Brexit for businesses until at least 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/28/uk-unlikely-to-stay-in-single-market-tory-document-suggests
|
They keep spouting the same nonsense. "The best deal possible", "brexit means brexit", "transitional deal", "special deal", "possibility of paying for the financial services to continue to benefit from a visa".
The EU thinks that is arguing with a child who lacks the basic understanding of logical arguments. All in all the UK either stays in the EU, stays in the single market accepting everything they would within the EU but with no vote, or goes for a hard brexit without being Europe's financial hub; the question becomes what global importance will it then have?
a government “with no direction, and no clue”.
And Tony Blair; mr. warcrime should just sequester himself on an island somewhere.
|
Theresa May is facing a revolt from lawmakers in her Conservative party who want her to stop concealing her plans for leaving the European Union.
Thus far all the Prime Minister has said is that she will trigger exit talks by the end of March, when she formally notifies the EU that Britain is leaving the bloc, under Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. She insists on keeping her negotiating position a secret despite calls for clarity from business leaders, European politicians and now her own members of parliament.
It appears that as many as 40 Tories could be willing to vote with the opposition Labour party, which is putting forward a motion demanding that May promises to publish an outline for Brexit before beginning formal negotiations, Anna Soubry, a senior pro-EU lawmaker in May’s Conservative party, said in a BBC radio interview on Monday.
The motion would be debated Wednesday in the lower house of parliament and could potentially including a non-binding vote. Soubry said “this actually transcends party politics and tribalism,” adding that many of her colleagues are willing to challenge May.
Soubry, who served as junior minister under David Cameron, called on the government to produce a sensible amendment to the Labour motion to bridge the schism over Brexit.
“It is so important for us all to come together as a country,” Soubry said. “There are still such huge divisions.”
May’s office dismissed the appeal for more details: “We won’t be revealing our cards before we have to,” her spokesman Greg Swift told reporters in London. www.bloomberg.com
|
And if Parliament rightfully gets its vote on Article 50, they can stop her triggering it until she does come up with a plan.
|
A plan does not mean anything. A negotiation strategy is all fine and dandy but the UK is still operating on the misbelief that it has the upper hand of the situation. The most credible figures have all warned against it and to be honest what message does it send to Europe if the UK now backs out of it? It will not get a more favourable deal than staying in the EU. It cannot simply put. They should just get on with it, accept their losses and potentially just request to rejoin sometime in the future. The referendum should never have been called. It was irresponsible to say the least. And the tory party claiming to represent the voice of the people is the biggest hypocracy in recent years.
|
It wasnt irresponsible, the people that wanted it should just be ready to eat the crap they shat.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 15 2016 03:30 Velr wrote: It wasnt irresponsible, the people that wanted it should just be ready to eat the crap they shat. I think they are - it's Parliament that isn't.
|
On December 15 2016 03:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2016 03:30 Velr wrote: It wasnt irresponsible, the people that wanted it should just be ready to eat the crap they shat. I think they are - it's Parliament that isn't. Half the country doesn't want it. A significant part of those who wanted it did so based on lies Another part doesn't even know what they voted on.
Saying its the will of the 'People' is a stretch.
Never should have been a simple majority referendum...
|
The referendum didn't lay out terms of leaving. The "people"(of which it is 52% against 48% voted) are not unified in how they wish to leave the EU, or if indeed they understood the ramifications of doing so.
For instance, in this thread the reasons given for voting to leave were: to prevent the EU immigration crisis, but UK is not part of the Schengen zone and so is not affected at all by the refugees; to lower immigration from countries not as cultural aligned with UK, but voting to leave would only decrease European immigration; to increase wealth of rural areas, but it is difficult to see how leaving the EU would achieve that aim; to not pay the EU any money, but if UK does not pay to belong to the EU single market, UK will be poorer.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Maybe we should have parliamentary elections to properly understand the scope of how this should be carried out. Do the people want hard Brexit, single market, or just to crawl back to the EU with their tails between their legs?
|
On December 15 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote: Maybe we should have parliamentary elections to properly understand the scope of how this should be carried out. Do the people want hard Brexit, single market, or just to crawl back to the EU with their tails between their legs? I don't see how parliamentary elections could possibly clarify that, when not even the parties have committed to a specific course. Let's say there's a constituency where Tories win every time and their candidate is for the single market while the population is for hard brexit, you think they'll vote for a candidate from Labour or UKIP just because said candidates are for hard brexit? Maybe in a few of them but sure as shit not on a large enough scale to send a clear message.
|
|
|
|