|
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 March 04 2017 00:52 LightSpectra wrote:
On to something more topical...
What's going to happen if the Sinn Fein win a majority in Northern Ireland? I don't know anything about the climate there these days, although The Irish Times is making a big deal out of it.
The same thing that occurred when SNP won 56/59 seats in Scotland. A clear representation of the people wanting independence (or a united Ireland in this case) and Westminster doing everything to prevent it.
|
Except that if you were being honest you would notice that a) SF did not win a majority (nor did they ever have a hope to, even if they did become the largest party - which, as it happens, they did not), b) unionists and republicans are very evenly represented, c) SNP have almost every seat in Scotland despite the people voting against independence. SF wouldn't even ask for a referendum on independence because they know they wouldn't have a hope of winning.
Nevertheless, it's progress for them. The irony is that they might prefer direct rule on the basis that getting concessions from Westminster is easier than getting concessions from NI unionists in the assembly.
Britain will not contribute £50bn to EU budget if no Brexit deal is reached, says Lords report
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-will-not-contribute-to-eu-budget-if-no-brexit-deal-is-reached-says-lords-report-a7609526.html
I notice that after so many people threw around Juncker's 60bn figure, nobody bothered to mention that the news that the UK does not see a legal basis for the demand.
|
So you laugh at the Lords comment in regards to EU citizens but now that they have said something in your favour for Brexit, all of a sudden their comments are meaningful? Typical bardtown.
What they actually said was that there would be no legal obligation, however if a favourable trade deal were to be negotiated, the Brexit bill would most likely have to be paid. Pretty much just affirming what everyone already knew.
|
If the negotiations break down and UK is either kicked out or says fuck it and leaves on it on why would they pay? That makes zero sense. Just as the EU would stop paying for all projects in and involving UK.
In a normal world of course the UK and the EU should probably try to zero out the payments if it happens and put any overflow in a credit to be sorted out in the year after in good faith. This would stop both the EU budget from having a huge hole in it and prevent things like infrastructure projects and research grants from grinding to a halt in the UK. If UK is a net contributor there's almost certainly multiyear projects to fund to make it all even.
If the politicians on both sides can't understand simple things like this they should probably resign and go back to the sandbox at their daycare center and play there instead.
I'm getting sick of this nuclear option talk in the press from both sides. I like brits and I'm pretty sure most brits like europeans. Everyone can't have what they want in the end but there's no need to actively try to hurt the other side.
|
On March 06 2017 01:47 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the negotiations break down and UK is either kicked out or says fuck it and leaves on it on why would they pay? That makes zero sense. Just as the EU would stop paying for all projects in and involving UK.
In a normal world of course the UK and the EU should probably try to zero out the payments if it happens and put any overflow in a credit to be sorted out in the year after in good faith. This would stop both the EU budget from having a huge hole in it and prevent things like infrastructure projects and research grants from grinding to a halt in the UK. If UK is a net contributor there's almost certainly multiyear projects to fund to make it all even.
If the politicians on both sides can't understand simple things like this they should probably resign and go back to the sandbox at their daycare center and play there instead.
I'm getting sick of this nuclear option talk in the press from both sides. I like brits and I'm pretty sure most brits like europeans. Everyone can't have what they want in the end but there's no need to actively try to hurt the other side.
The problem is that everyone can have what they want. I know that sounds strange, but the EU does not want everybody to do well out of Brexit because it sets a dangerous precedent and encourages others who would like to leave. They are therefore keen to see the UK struggle despite the fact that continuing trade/cooperation more or less as we have always done is in everyone's interests. I don't think there's any unfriendliness between Brits and Europeans, there is only political antagonism between the UK and the EU as an institution. Hopefully the mood will be much more productive once nation states are involved and not just radicals like Juncker and Verhofstadt.
|
On March 06 2017 03:04 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 01:47 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If the negotiations break down and UK is either kicked out or says fuck it and leaves on it on why would they pay? That makes zero sense. Just as the EU would stop paying for all projects in and involving UK.
In a normal world of course the UK and the EU should probably try to zero out the payments if it happens and put any overflow in a credit to be sorted out in the year after in good faith. This would stop both the EU budget from having a huge hole in it and prevent things like infrastructure projects and research grants from grinding to a halt in the UK. If UK is a net contributor there's almost certainly multiyear projects to fund to make it all even.
If the politicians on both sides can't understand simple things like this they should probably resign and go back to the sandbox at their daycare center and play there instead.
I'm getting sick of this nuclear option talk in the press from both sides. I like brits and I'm pretty sure most brits like europeans. Everyone can't have what they want in the end but there's no need to actively try to hurt the other side. The problem is that everyone can have what they want. I know that sounds strange, but the EU does not want everybody to do well out of Brexit because it sets a dangerous precedent and encourages others who would like to leave. They are therefore keen to see the UK struggle despite the fact that continuing trade/cooperation more or less as we have always done is in everyone's interests. I don't think there's any unfriendliness between Brits and Europeans, there is only political antagonism between the UK and the EU as an institution. Hopefully the mood will be much more productive once nation states are involved and not just radicals like Juncker and Verhofstadt.
But what you are talking about is solely britain getting what it wants, and the EU getting nothing of what it wants at all. The EU wants freedom of movement. Britain wants freedom of trade, and explicitly doesn't want freedom of movement. The EU states that there is only freedom of trade when there is freedom of movement.
These two stances are clearly not compatible. Thus, not everyone can get what they want. Britain wants to get to pick and choose the parts they like about the current situation with the EU. That is not how treaties work. Unless you are in an extraordinary position of strength, taking an existing treaty, and demanding all the good parts, while getting rid of all the parts you don't like (But which the other side probably likes) isn't going to happen.
If i want to buy a new PC, i can't only get the part of the contract where i get a new PC, but not the part where i have to pay for it.
|
Your analogy doesn't work, though. Free trade between the UK and the EU benefits both sides in terms of wealth creation and employment. If anything, it disproportionately benefits the EU which has an enormous trade surplus with the UK. On top of that we are a net contributor to the EU budget. So to change your analogy slightly, it's the equivalent of the UK paying for a PC for the EU to use. And in return we lose control of our legislation and borders. Fantastic.
Outside the EU both sides can maintain the same trade and subsequent economic benefits while pursuing their own different political aims unrestricted by each other. The only reasons to prevent this situation arising are political: not wanting the UK to have 'benefits' (such as no free movement) that other states do not. But if free movement is so politically unpopular that you need to threaten people to partake, then how do you remain convinced that it is beneficial in the first place? When I say that everybody can have what they want, I refer to the nation states. In my opinion the EU itself can only go downhill, but I don't think nation states should (or will) allow themselves to be dragged down with it.
|
Following you logic, the EU should simply grant full access to the single market to any country that has a trade defecit with it. So let's let Japan join?
|
|
|
On March 06 2017 11:58 bardtown wrote:
Why not?
Lots of reasons, but they mostly boil down to: the EU isn't a charity.
|
The single market only works due to a common regulatory framework and an institution to enforce it. A single market requires the pooling of sovereignty which the UK does not want. What you're asking for is impossible.
|
On March 06 2017 16:51 Acrofales wrote:Lots of reasons, but they mostly boil down to: the EU isn't a charity.
Free trade is not a gift given by one party to the other. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement, at least insofar as your economy does not consist of uncompetitive industries held together by protectionism.
On March 06 2017 16:59 RvB wrote:
The single market only works due to a common regulatory framework and an institution to enforce it. A single market requires the pooling of sovereignty which the UK does not want. What you're asking for is impossible.
I'm not asking for membership of the single market, though. The UK will manufacture products destined for the EU according to EU regulation, just as every other country has to. Then if the EU feels as though its own industries are being undermined by UK policy outside the European courts (i.e. not following the same environmental rules) they can add taxes, or other restrictions. The likely result of this would be trade more or less exactly as before.
|
On March 06 2017 20:33 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 16:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2017 11:58 bardtown wrote:
Why not? Lots of reasons, but they mostly boil down to: the EU isn't a charity. Free trade is not a gift given by one party to the other. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement, at least insofar as your economy does not consist of uncompetitive industries held together by protectionism.
There are trade deals in place with Japan, and other countries where such a mutually beneficial arrangement can be made:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/japan/
I'm pretty sure such a trade agreement can be negotiated with the UK, but that wasn't what was being discussed.
Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 16:59 RvB wrote:
The single market only works due to a common regulatory framework and an institution to enforce it. A single market requires the pooling of sovereignty which the UK does not want. What you're asking for is impossible. I'm not asking for membership of the single market, though. The UK will manufacture products destined for the EU according to EU regulation, just as every other country has to. Then if the EU feels as though its own industries are being undermined by UK policy outside the European courts (i.e. not following the same environmental rules) they can add taxes, or other restrictions. The likely result of this would be trade more or less exactly as before.
Just as Japan doesn't have unfettered access to the European market, the UK should not expect that either... you acting like a trade agreement is the same as the full access the UK enjoys at the moment as a member of the EU is a false equivalence, though. For the UK to have the same kind of access they have now (more precisely, admission to the EEA), the EU would probably want the same kind of concessions: so, freedom of movement. But it's a negotiation, so there's a long process of give and take before we can really know what kind of agreement will be reached. Nevertheless, given that the EU demands freedom of movement for all other members of the EEA (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein), and also Switzerland (as the only current member of the EFTA, but not EEA). It will be interesting to see the UK try to negotiate access to the single market without accepting freedom of movement.
You say you don't want access to the single market, but then what kind of trade agreement are you talking about? Clearly a more limited trade agreement (like the one with Japan, or CETA, or any other country) will come with different concessions from both parties. But a more limited trade agreement would not constitute what you call "free trade", with which everybody assumed you meant participation in the single market.
|
We are leaving the single market, so yes I'm talking about a free trade agreement. There will be 'concessions' but they are likely to be largely symbolic given how beneficial the current arrangements are for the EU and the UK, and given the general direction of the world towards less regulation and less tariffs. What concessions do you have in mind that will cost the UK and not the EU? If they will cost the EU are they still worth imposing for purely political reasons? There will be some give and take, naturally, but I expect pragmatism will lead to a fairly comprehensive deal and as little disjunction as possible.
|
Have you actually paid attention to how your politicians have acted over the past months? When they're not asking for the impossible they're giving illusion to the theory that they have the upper-hand or are likely to somehow win in the negotiations. Whereas the EU politicians feel betrayed and lied to. If you think pragmatism will prevail given the general attitude, especially that reported by pro-brexit media then I think you are sadly mistaken.
And you were right in one area, of course countries like France and the Netherlands will not allow a favourable deal, it would unfortunately be gifting arguments to FN and .. The Dutch far right xenophobic party (can't remember name, leader is Wilder or something?). Most other countries have that very same problem so.. good luck with that. I don't understand what the whole "if we don't like the deal we'll walk away" argument is either but then that's what you get for ever thinking the torries care about the people. Camen Islands? No need.
|
On March 07 2017 00:03 MyTHicaL wrote:
The Dutch far right xenophobic party (can't remember name, leader is Wilder or something?)..
"Party for Freedom", PVV, led by Geert Wilders.
|
On March 06 2017 20:33 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 16:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2017 11:58 bardtown wrote:
Why not? Lots of reasons, but they mostly boil down to: the EU isn't a charity. Free trade is not a gift given by one party to the other. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement, at least insofar as your economy does not consist of uncompetitive industries held together by protectionism. Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 16:59 RvB wrote:
The single market only works due to a common regulatory framework and an institution to enforce it. A single market requires the pooling of sovereignty which the UK does not want. What you're asking for is impossible. I'm not asking for membership of the single market, though. The UK will manufacture products destined for the EU according to EU regulation, just as every other country has to. Then if the EU feels as though its own industries are being undermined by UK policy outside the European courts (i.e. not following the same environmental rules) they can add taxes, or other restrictions. The likely result of this would be trade more or less exactly as before.
Every FTA requires streamlining of regulation and being subject to dispute settlement institutions. Even when joining just the WTO you're required to follow their rules and are subject to their dispute settlement system. Fta' require the pooling of sovereignty one way or another. The question is how much do you find acceptable.
|
If, as you seem to imply, the EU will not be pragmatic then that is their prerogative. I do not share your opinion, though. I do not believe that European governments would inflict harm on the entire continent for emotional reasons. Nor do I think that British politicians have acted inappropriately toward European politicians. Everybody gets on just fine, apart from people like Farage and Verhofstadt. If the EU wants to punish the UK for breaking from their political project then the UK can just walk away with no deal. The trade deficit means WTO trade tariffs would earn the UK government money enough to cover the costs of import tariffs for affected businesses and still have plenty to spare. The worst case scenario isn't really so bad for the UK.
On March 07 2017 00:41 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 20:33 bardtown wrote:On March 06 2017 16:51 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2017 11:58 bardtown wrote:
Why not? Lots of reasons, but they mostly boil down to: the EU isn't a charity. Free trade is not a gift given by one party to the other. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement, at least insofar as your economy does not consist of uncompetitive industries held together by protectionism. On March 06 2017 16:59 RvB wrote:
The single market only works due to a common regulatory framework and an institution to enforce it. A single market requires the pooling of sovereignty which the UK does not want. What you're asking for is impossible. I'm not asking for membership of the single market, though. The UK will manufacture products destined for the EU according to EU regulation, just as every other country has to. Then if the EU feels as though its own industries are being undermined by UK policy outside the European courts (i.e. not following the same environmental rules) they can add taxes, or other restrictions. The likely result of this would be trade more or less exactly as before. Every FTA requires streamlining of regulation and being subject to dispute settlement institutions. Even when joining just the WTO you're required to follow their rules and are subject to their dispute settlement system. Fta' require the pooling of sovereignty one way or another. The question is how much do you find acceptable.
Of course. That's the detail of the negotiation. Suffice to say that free movement of people from countries where average wages are 1/2 of our minimum wage and the restriction of our ability to negotiate our own trade arrangements with other partners are not acceptable terms.
|
On March 06 2017 01:21 bardtown wrote:
Except that if you were being honest you would notice that a) SF did not win a majority (nor did they ever have a hope to, even if they did become the largest party - which, as it happens, they did not),
I made that post before the results were in.
Seems like Northern Ireland's going to continue, business as usual. Unionists are blaming Foster for their worst results in history (understandable), they don't seem to think there's any demographic shift in favor of nationalism.
I suspect everything's going to come down to the DUP's ability to negotiate a soft border. If they fail, unification is going to happen. If they succeed, it's going to be status quo until the next election.
|
On March 07 2017 02:17 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 01:21 bardtown wrote:
Except that if you were being honest you would notice that a) SF did not win a majority (nor did they ever have a hope to, even if they did become the largest party - which, as it happens, they did not), I made that post before the results were in. Seems like Northern Ireland's going to continue, business as usual. Unionists are blaming Foster for their worst results in history (understandable), they don't seem to think there's any demographic shift in favor of nationalism. I suspect everything's going to come down to the DUP's ability to negotiate a soft border. If they fail, unification is going to happen. If they succeed, it's going to be status quo until the next election.
Yeah, I was responding to mythical who likes to pretend that NI is on the brink of independence because he perceives England as some sort of raid boss oppressor of celtic peoples. There was a poll yesterday showing something like 30% wanting to see reunification in their lifetime and ~15% wanting to see it now, so don't hold your breath. It has always been a minority position which is precisely why it has been so difficult to resolve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
