Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Francis Albert]

25 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I can't believe that it has only just dawned on you that Brexit will result in some restriction of the free movement of people between the UK and the EU. Visas usually allow 60 to 90 day visits. I guess if you want to stay longer you have to apply for some longer residence permit or already be resident there (in which case as I understand it you are safe and can remain). If you have owned property and paid taxes for a decade or more I doubt your application for longer term residence or extended visa stay would be rejected ... unless the EU is being bloody minded.

Brexit will cause uncertainty and inconvenience for all of us, but that is what we were offered a vote on and that is what we voted for. And if the vote is "respected" what we will have to live with.

I meant to say visa free travel usually allows 60 to 90 days stay. Visas will probably permit more.

[Unknown user]

24 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I can't believe that it has only just dawned on you that Brexit will result in some restriction of the free movement of people between the UK and the EU. Visas usually allow 60 to 90 day visits. I guess if you want to stay longer you have to apply for some longer residence permit or already be resident there (in which case as I understand it you are safe and can remain). If you have owned property and paid taxes for a decade or more I doubt your application for longer term residence or extended visa stay would be rejected ... unless the EU is being bloody minded.

Brexit will cause uncertainty and inconvenience for all of us, but that is what we were offered a vote on and that is what we voted for. And if the vote is "respected" what we will have to live with.

Believe it, don't, it makes no difference to my day, but yes, the reality of the situation and the ramifications is sinking in now. 

I didn't get a vote by the way.

[JackLadd]

Nice to see Krankie on the same page as Jacob Rees-Mogg. I doubt he is voting it down because he thinks iref2 might come out of a hard brexit mind you. Slightly more honest than Krankie.  

[The Real Maroonblood]

13 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Nice to see Krankie on the same page as Jacob Rees-Mogg. I doubt he is voting it down because he thinks iref2 might come out of a hard brexit mind you. Slightly more honest than Krankie.  

[DVB]

4 hours ago, Statts1976uk said:

Once again I do apologise for the length of this statement but as it comes from a former Prime Minister of a respected nation there is a lot of this that does make sense.

 

What's your take on this??

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

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.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

 

I thought that was a good read and made a lot of sense.

 

I don’t mind the current deal but paying £39 billion for it feels far too much as I believe we only pay £4 billion a year just now to the EU and £39 billion is about 8% of the UKs total annual tax take.

[...a bit disco]

4 hours ago, JackLadd said:

Nice to see Krankie on the same page as Jacob Rees-Mogg. I doubt he is voting it down because he thinks iref2 might come out of a hard brexit mind you. Slightly more honest than Krankie.  

 

"Krankie"?

 

Another one with the grown up debating, I see.

[Ulysses]

13 hours ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

Have you read the entire 585 pages yet, it’s very dry for a Saturday night!!!

 

 

Yes, though in fairness I didn't read it all on a Saturday night.

 

One of the big difficulties in reading the document is that a lot of the content cross-references other treaties and EU law.  So a lot of what it says is indirect, and requires you to know (or to look up) other documents.

 

Not an easy read by any means, but international agreements are often like that.

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, Statts1976uk said:

Once again I do apologise for the length of this statement but as it comes from a former Prime Minister of a respected nation there is a lot of this that does make sense.

 

What's your take on this??

Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

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.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

I don' t agree with all of it  but I wish former UK PMs  and deputy PM had supported the UK rather than the EU in the negotiation in the same way. Too late to get him is an advisor?

[Ulysses]

10 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

Buried deal within this there is a reference to it. 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1768/contents/made

 

Standard three pin plugs are required to contain or be accompanied by a fuse link conforming to BS 1362 (regulation 6(2)) and to be approved by a notified body (regulation 8). Other electrical devices specified in column 2 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations are required to conform to the appropriate British Standard or to a standard or specification recognised for use in a member State of the EC or other State in the European Economic Area which provides a level of safety equivalent to that which would be provided by conformity to that British Standard (regulation 10).

 

First, that source is not an EU legislative source; it is a link to a British Statutory Instrument (UK secondary legislation).

 

Secondly, the text you have quoted says nothing about including IEC cables with shipped electrical goods.  What it says is that standard 3-pin plugs should have a fuse which complies with the relevant British Standard, or else compliant with the standard of another EU Member State which is regarded as having the same level of electrical safety as the relevant British Standard.

 

Thirdly, there is an EU Directive governing what is termed low-voltage equipment, i.e. between 50 and 1,000 Volts AC, called the Low Voltage Directive.  The Directive was originally 2006/95/EC, but was updated for EU legal technical reasons in 2014 (2014/35/EU).  The Directive expressly excludes plugs and sockets for domestic use.  In other words, the EU does not attempt to regulate plugs and sockets for domestic use, and leaves that to each country to regulate.

 

In other words, the source you've posted doesn't do what you claim it does.

 

Here's a link to the EU Directive:

 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0035&from=EN

 

[Ulysses]

9 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Yes. But that transitional deal must be accepted before those talks begin. 

 

Why?

 

Talks can begin once the UK has exited the EU, which will be on March 29th next.

[Statts1976uk]

25 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Yes, though in fairness I didn't read it all on a Saturday night.

 

One of the big difficulties in reading the document is that a lot of the content cross-references other treaties and EU law.  So a lot of what it says is indirect, and requires you to know (or to look up) other documents.

 

Not an easy read by any means, but international agreements are often like that.

 

 

It was a tough read through the best bits of it but I am still trying to get through it. I’m normally used to dry reads as I have to deal with CAA and EASA regulations but this was a cream cracker after a hangover while sitting in the dusty plains of the Serengeti!!

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, JackLadd said:

Give it a year or two and the Brussels eurocrats will be forced to come back to the table.....

 

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, Statts1976uk said:

Once again I do apologise for the length of this statement but as it comes from a former Prime Minister of a respected nation there is a lot of this that does make sense.

 

What's your take on this??

 

[deleted stuff by Tony Abbott]

 

First, Abbott was an inept Australian PM who is now a discredited former Australian PM.

 

Secondly, the stuff he said makes perfect sense if you're for Brexit, and is the complete opposite of sense if you're not, because it is political opinion, not factual analysis.

 

It's time for the Leavers and Remainers to stop campaigning and start dealing with the reality of the decision they have made.

[Don Dan]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

First, that source is not an EU legislative source; it is a link to a British Statutory Instrument (UK secondary legislation).

 

Secondly, the text you have quoted says nothing about including IEC cables with shipped electrical goods.  What it says is that standard 3-pin plugs should have a fuse which complies with the relevant British Standard, or else compliant with the standard of another EU Member State which is regarded as having the same level of electrical safety as the relevant British Standard.

 

Thirdly, there is an EU Directive governing what is termed low-voltage equipment, i.e. between 50 and 1,000 Volts AC, called the Low Voltage Directive.  The Directive was originally 2006/95/EC, but was updated for EU legal technical reasons in 2014 (2014/35/EU).  The Directive expressly excludes plugs and sockets for domestic use.  In other words, the EU does not attempt to regulate plugs and sockets for domestic use, and leaves that to each country to regulate.

 

In other words, the source you've posted doesn't do what you claim it does.

 

Here's a link to the EU Directive:

 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0035&from=EN

 

 

Thanks I have read that particular link. I think I’ll stick with what I know. 

[Ulysses]

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

 

Thanks I have read that particular link. I think I’ll stick with what I know. 

 

Talking about sticking to what we know, I can give you the links to the rules about electrical safety, but other than that don't risk your life by asking me to do anything more complicated than changing a plug. 

[Statts1976uk]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

First, Abbott was an inept Australian PM who is now a discredited former Australian PM.

 

Secondly, the stuff he said makes perfect sense if you're for Brexit, and is the complete opposite of sense if you're not, because it is political opinion, not factual analysis.

 

It's time for the Leavers and Remainers to stop campaigning and start dealing with the reality of the decision they have made.

 

I do agree with a lot he’s said and whether it is perceived that he was inept he certainly has more experience and knowledge about how the corridors of powers operate than we do. I also agree with what you are saying about getting on with the reality of the situation. I personally believe that Brexit can be a success but it won’t be under the terms of the agreement. They’ll be a lot of countries that want to punish us as now they are likely net contributors rather than gainers out of the EU.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Statts1976uk

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

They’ll be a lot of countries that want to punish us as now they are likely net contributors rather than gainers out of the EU.

 

What does that even mean, in fairness? 

 

First of all, a lot of countries will gain from the UK's departure.  Why?  Because while only the wealthier countries are net contributors to the EU, all 27 of us contribute to the UK's rebate.  So a lot of countries will be slightly better off in terms of their contributions to the EU Budget, with most of the extra costs being funded by 3 or 4 of the bigger countries.

 

Secondly, there's this paranoid "Leave" narrative going about that the EU want to "punish" Britain.  No we don't, but we want to do business in accordance with our principles for doing business, and one of those principles is that countries who buy into our rules for the free movement of goods, services, people and capital get preferential treatment over countries who don't.  The reason why Britain is losing some degree of access to our markets is nothing whatsoever to do with our behaviour.  We didn't throw the UK out.  We didn't ask the UK to leave.  We didn't ask for a relationship which means less access to our markets - and yours - for goods, services, capital, and people.  The UK asked for that relationship. 

[Francis Albert]

35 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

First, Abbott was an inept Australian PM who is now a discredited former Australian PM.

 

Secondly, the stuff he said makes perfect sense if you're for Brexit, and is the complete opposite of sense if you're not, because it is political opinion, not factual analysis.

 

It's time for the Leavers and Remainers to stop campaigning and start dealing with the reality of the decision they have made.

Ok

 As long as Major and Blair and Brown  and Clegg can be similarily be dismissed

Edited November 18, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

So a lot of countries will be slightly better off in terms of their contributions to the EU Budget, with most of the extra costs being funded by 3 or 4 of the bigger countries.

 

By the way, if (for the sake of argument) it fell to Germany alone to make up the gap in the EU budget caused by the Departure of the UK, this would cost Germany about €10.5 billion each year.  German government spending at the moment runs to about €560 billion a year.  The loss of the UK's net contribution is unfortunate, but it actually means little in the overall scheme of things or in the calculations of EU Member States.

[SectionDJambo]

The EC aren’t going to make the UK leaving a nice divorce. They are not happy that the UK had a majority, of those who voted, who felt they wanted to leave. They hate Farage, and don’t want him crowing at them anymore. 

I don’t recall any mention, during the referendum debate, of the Irish border problem. Maybe I missed it on the bus. It has turned out to be a winner for the EC, as it seems to an unsolvable problem for the UK, given that they all seemed to think it would be hunky dory to just bale out.

I would imagine that the EC leaders’  biggest desire is now to discourage other member states from thinking about leaving too. So they will never make it other than a sore hit.

Bunchies of gangsters arguing with each other, both nationally and internationally,  without much of a real care for the public, who will bare the brunt of their shenanigans.

[jake]

28 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

It's time for the Leavers and Remainers to stop campaigning and start dealing with the reality of the decision they have made.

Where's the fun in that?

[jake]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

By the way, if (for the sake of argument) it fell to Germany alone to make up the gap in the EU budget caused by the Departure of the UK, this would cost Germany about €10.5 billion each year.  German government spending at the moment runs to about €560 billion a year.  The loss of the UK's net contribution is unfortunate, but it actually means little in the overall scheme of things or in the calculations of EU Member States.

Not sure the German electorate are quite as cosy picking up the tab as you suggest.

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, SectionDJambo said:

I don’t recall any mention, during the referendum debate, of the Irish border problem.

 

Here's a link to a news story about some remarks on that subject made by the Irish PM a few days before the referendum.

 

https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0613/795120-brexit/

 

 

Here's an example from two months before the referendum of remarks by a British Cabinet member dismissing fears of border problems, and saying that such problems could be dealt with using existing rules - something which became impossible for the UK to deliver on after the vote.

 

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/brexit-yes-would-not-bring-back-the-border-34629251.html

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, jake said:

Not sure the German electorate are quite as cosy picking up the tab as you suggest.

 

jake, read my post again, will you?

[Statts1976uk]

11 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

By the way, if (for the sake of argument) it fell to Germany alone to make up the gap in the EU budget caused by the Departure of the UK, this would cost Germany about €10.5 billion each year.  German government spending at the moment runs to about €560 billion a year.  The loss of the UK's net contribution is unfortunate, but it actually means little in the overall scheme of things or in the calculations of EU Member States.

 

Youll also find that Germany particularly the southern states will actually face more of an exposure to Brexit than most of the other countries perhaps with the exemption of Ireland. Countries like Denmark have already suggest a policy of “not a krone more”. 

[Ulysses]

16 minutes ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

Youll also find that Germany particularly the southern states will actually face more of an exposure to Brexit than most of the other countries perhaps with the exemption of Ireland. Countries like Denmark have already suggest a policy of “not a krone more”. 

 

First of all, the problem with the stance taken by a lot of Leave supporters is that it is transactional.  It assumes that it's all about the transactions among states rather than their relationships.  Hence the stuff about Germany wanting to "sell us their VWs and Mercs", and the stuff about the costs of EU Budget contributions.  The reality is that if the EU concedes on its core principles for the sake of selling a few VW Golfs to Britain, then the internal market will disintegrate, and this will cause bigger reductions in trade than the amounts shored up (note shored up, not gained) by trading with the UK.

 

Once you understand that, then the reality is that absorbing the British net contribution is cheap at the price.  As I said, even if the bill fell to the Germans to pay it would be hardly noticeable for their economy, and if (as is likely), the bill is spread across 5 or 6 countries it will be absorbed even more easily.

 

A lot of Leave supporters seem to have a view that the EU are somehow running scared or desperate for a few quid from Britain.  This is nothing short of a delusion.  There are more than 6 times as many people living in the rest of the EU as there are in the UK, and the economy is more than 6 times as large.  A huge percentage of our trade in the rest of the EU is with each other.  All of that is built on the platform of the customs union and the single market, along with the four freedoms that make those work.  As the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement show, the EU takes that customs union and single market seriously - a good bit more seriously than its trading relationship with one third-party country.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Ulysses

[Statts1976uk]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

First of all, the problem with the stance taken by a lot of Leave supporters is that it is transactional.  It assumes that it's all about the transactions among states rather than their relationships.  Hence the stuff about Germany wanting to "sell us their VWs and Mercs", and the stuff about the costs of EU Budget contributions.  The reality is that if the EU concedes on its core principles for the sake of selling a few VW Golfs to Britain, then the internal market will disintegrate, and this will cause bigger reductions in trade than the amounts shored up (note shored up, not gained) by trading with the UK.

 

Once you understand that, then the reality is that absorbing the British net contribution is cheap at the price.  As I said, even if the bill fell to the Germans to pay it would be hardly noticeable for their economy, and if (as is likely), the bill is spread across 5 or 6 countries it will be absorbed even more easily.

 

A lot of Leave supporters seem to have a view that the EU are somehow running scared or desperate for a few quid from Britain.  This is nothing short of a delusion.  There are more than 6 times as many people living in the rest of the EU as there are in the UK, and the economy is more than 6 times as large.  A huge percentage of our trade is with each other.  All of that is built on the platform of the customs union and the single market, along with the four freedoms that make those work.  As the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement show, the EU takes that customs union and single market seriously - a good bit more seriously than its trading relationship with one third-party country.

 

I think if you do read some of the  academic papers,and there is a particularly good one from the Erasmus University Rotterdam ,and from other sources such as the LSE they’ll disagree with you. They are suggesting a much bigger issue affecting the remaining countries with Germany in particular being hit.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Statts1976uk

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

I think if you do read some of the  academic papers,and there is a particularly good one from the Erasmus University Rotterdam ,and from other sources such as the LSE they’ll disagree with you. They are suggesting a much bigger issue affecting the remaining countries with Germany in particular being hit.

 

I can also produce papers from Erasmus University Rotterdam saying the opposite.  Here's one on which collaboration was done by researchers from Erasmus Rotterdam, Groningen, Sheffield, Birmingham and the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency.  There are two links, one to the Erasmus University Rotterdam high-level summary, and the second to a more detailed (though still summary) report and graphics.

 

https://www.eur.nl/en/news/brexit-will-have-greater-impact-uk-regions-rest-eu

 

https://voxeu.org/article/exposure-brexit-regions-both-sides-channel

 

You can see that the percentage of labour income exposure to the EU in the UK is a good bit higher than the other way around.  Even though the most-affected regions in the EU 27 are in Ireland and then in Germany, the level of exposure is less than in the UK.  To quote the second last line of the summary:

 

"Hence, the stakes in the Brexit negotiations are much higher for the UK than for the EU27, despite the fact that the EU27 is a net exporter to the UK."

 

[Statts1976uk]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

I can also produce papers from Erasmus University Rotterdam saying the opposite.  Here's one on which collaboration was done by researchers from Erasmus Rotterdam, Groningen, Sheffield, Birmingham and the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency.  There are two links, one to the Erasmus University Rotterdam high-level summary, and the second to a more detailed (though still summary) report and graphics.

 

https://www.eur.nl/en/news/brexit-will-have-greater-impact-uk-regions-rest-eu

 

https://voxeu.org/article/exposure-brexit-regions-both-sides-channel

 

You can see that the percentage of labour income exposure to the EU in the UK is a good bit higher than the other way around.  Even though the most-affected regions in the EU 27 are in Ireland and then in Germany, the level of exposure is less than in the UK.  To quote the second last line of the summary:

 

"Hence, the stakes in the Brexit negotiations are much higher for the UK than for the EU27, despite the fact that the EU27 is a net exporter to the UK."

 

 

By each producing respected literature what we are proving that both sides are unsure of what us likely to happen.  This is a prime example of both sides cherry picking info to suit their own agenda. I’m sure we can quote papers all day long.

 

Germany is highly unlikely to pick up the tab without some kickback or return, France seems to be sensing this and trying to hold onto it’s coat-tails going by Macron’s latest speech and that’s one that if I was a smaller country I would be getting concerned that almost a two tier EU was starting to develop. This is an EU that is happy to bend and shape rules to its own advantage, the Airbus/Ukraine deal is a good example of state aid by the back door.

 

 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

By each producing respected literature what we are proving that both sides are unsure of what us likely to happen.  This is a prime example of both sides cherry picking info to suit their own agenda. I’m sure we can quote papers all day long.

 

Germany is highly unlikely to pick up the tab without some kickback or return, France seems to be sensing this and trying to hold onto it’s coat-tails going by Macron’s latest speech and that’s one that if I was a smaller country I would be getting concerned that almost a two tier EU was starting to develop. This is an EU that is happy to bend and shape rules to its own advantage, the Airbus/Ukraine deal is a good example of state aid by the back door.

 

 

 

To your first point I would say that the one piece of evidence that can't be ignored or contradicted is that EU 27 sales to the UK are a lot smaller as a percentage of the EU 27's economy than the other way around.  By the way, if you could ping in a link to the Erasmus University Rotterdam study you mentioned that'd be appreciated.

 

To the second point I would point out - again - that Leave supporters keep claiming that the UK is more important to the EU 27 than we're letting on, and keep pointing to various bits and pieces as evidence of that.  But they're ignoring two things.  First, in absolute terms it just isn't true.  The UK is important to the EU 27, but the UK is of far more importance to the rest of the EU inside the Union than outside.  That is why the EU over the years made so many concessions to the UK to keep it within the Union, yet has made so few concessions now that the UK has decided to leave.  Secondly, in relative terms it's even less true.  Exports to the UK are important to the EU 27, but nowhere remotely as important as our trade with each other.  For example, 7% of Germany's exports go to the UK, a figure surpassed only by France.  But 52% of German exports go to the rest of the Union - that's seven and a half times as much, and that amount relies on the customs union and the single market.  It is simply not in Germany's best interests to cut a deal that gives the UK preferential access to its markets but that also undermines the fundamental principles of the Union.  The same goes for France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, and even Ireland. 

 

Which in turn brings me to another point about Leave supporters.  I have yet to encounter a Leave supporter who is capable of seeing anything from the point of view of how it looks in the rest of the Union.  Everything about Brexit is really seen from an Anglo-centric point of view, and there is a complete lack of awareness as to the economic and political thinking behind the EU's position and negotiating stance.  By the way, I'm not suggesting they should agree with it - but by failing to understand it, Leave voters are leaving themselves open to exactly the kind of errors of judgement I have described above.

 

Finally, the point in your last sentence or two just isn't relevant, WADR.  That's an argument for not liking the EU and wanting to leave, and that debate is long over.  Right now the debate is over why the EU 27 won't do things the UK's way.  They won't, there's plenty of information to show why they won't, and wishing they would isn't going to fix anything.

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, jake said:

Not sure the German electorate are quite as cosy picking up the tab as you suggest.

If, the German electorate had to pick up the bill, they'd be happy to pay. Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

[Statts1976uk]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

To your first point I would say that the one piece of evidence that can't be ignored or contradicted is that EU 27 sales to the UK are a lot smaller as a percentage of the EU 27's economy than the other way around.  By the way, if you could ping in a link to the Erasmus University Rotterdam study you mentioned that'd be appreciated.

 

To the second point I would point out - again - that Leave supporters keep claiming that the UK is more important to the EU 27 than we're letting on, and keep pointing to various bits and pieces as evidence of that.  But they're ignoring two things.  First, in absolute terms it just isn't true.  The UK is important to the EU 27, but the UK is of far more importance to the rest of the EU inside the Union than outside.  That is why the EU over the years made so many concessions to the UK to keep it within the Union, yet has made so few concessions now that the UK has decided to leave.  Secondly, in relative terms it's even less true.  Exports to the UK are important to the EU 27, but nowhere remotely as important as our trade with each other.  For example, 7% of Germany's exports go to the UK, a figure surpassed only by France.  But 52% of German exports go to the rest of the Union - that's seven and a half times as much, and that amount relies on the customs union and the single market.  It is simply not in Germany's best interests to cut a deal that gives the UK preferential access to its markets but that also undermines the fundamental principles of the Union.  The same goes for France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, and even Ireland. 

 

Which in turn brings me to another point about Leave supporters.  I have yet to encounter a Leave supporter who is capable of seeing anything from the point of view of how it looks in the rest of the Union.  Everything about Brexit is really seen from an Anglo-centric point of view, and there is a complete lack of awareness as to the economic and political thinking behind the EU's position and negotiating stance.  By the way, I'm not suggesting they should agree with it - but by failing to understand it, Leave voters are leaving themselves open to exactly the kind of errors of judgement I have described above.

 

Finally, the point in your last sentence or two just isn't relevant, WADR.  That's an argument for not liking the EU and wanting to leave, and that debate is long over.  Right now the debate is over why the EU 27 won't do things the UK's way.  They won't, there's plenty of information to show why they won't, and wishing they would isn't going to fix anything.

 

I’m sorry but I just can’t believe that the EU isn’t too perturbed by a dramatic loss in contributions. When several countries have expressed concerns that they may be liable for increased contributions, the German version of the CBI is very concerned about the impact of Brexit etc then that makes me think that neither side will do well out of this.

 

My last statement is one that a lot of remainders brush off, the very notion that the EU isn’t perfect and willing to bend its own rules is one that appears to be merely “Brexit propaganda” but the Airbus/Ukraine deal is merely an example of it. The admittance of some of the PIGS level of countries to the Euro were also against their own rules but if it kept the project together then who cares.

 

May I ask what you want from Europe, how far do you want integration to go? Are you like me that was happy with the trading bloc or do you go further to the other extreme and support the concept of a European superstate or are you somewhere in the middle?

[Boris]

18 hours ago, Statts1976uk said:

Once again I do apologise for the length of this statement but as it comes from a former Prime Minister of a respected nation there is a lot of this that does make sense.

 

What's your take on this??

 

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.

 

 

If the UK recognises EU product standards, isn't that having the EU tellus what to do, with no voice.

 

Free movement of people - I thought Brexit was about taking control of our borders?

 

In other words, Mr Abbott has made two suggestions that are at odds with Brexit supporters.

[Statts1976uk]

20 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

If the UK recognises EU product standards, isn't that having the EU tellus what to do, with no voice.

 

Free movement of people - I thought Brexit was about taking control of our borders?

 

In other words, Mr Abbott has made two suggestions that are at odds with Brexit supporters.

 

I agree with the first statement it is at odds with the more extreme of the brexiteers.

 

Your other point about freedom of movement is qualified by the rest of the paragraph.

[Unknown user]

18 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

If the UK recognises EU product standards, isn't that having the EU tellus what to do, with no voice.

 

Free movement of people - I thought Brexit was about taking control of our borders?

 

In other words, Mr Abbott has made two suggestions that are at odds with Brexit supporters.

 

Just now, Statts1976uk said:

 

I agree with the first statement it is at odds with the more extreme of the brexiteers.

 

Your other point about freedom of movement is qualified by the rest of the paragraph.

 

The uk already has the right to only allow eu citizens for work. If an eu citizen arrives in Britain and doesn't get a job within three months, we currently have the right to remove them. 

[Mikey1874]

Not much changed in 45 years 

 

 

Labour abstaining may be more likely this time

Edited November 19, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Mikey1874]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

To your first point I would say that the one piece of evidence that can't be ignored or contradicted is that EU 27 sales to the UK are a lot smaller as a percentage of the EU 27's economy than the other way around.  By the way, if you could ping in a link to the Erasmus University Rotterdam study you mentioned that'd be appreciated.

 

To the second point I would point out - again - that Leave supporters keep claiming that the UK is more important to the EU 27 than we're letting on, and keep pointing to various bits and pieces as evidence of that.  But they're ignoring two things.  First, in absolute terms it just isn't true.  The UK is important to the EU 27, but the UK is of far more importance to the rest of the EU inside the Union than outside.  That is why the EU over the years made so many concessions to the UK to keep it within the Union, yet has made so few concessions now that the UK has decided to leave.  Secondly, in relative terms it's even less true.  Exports to the UK are important to the EU 27, but nowhere remotely as important as our trade with each other.  For example, 7% of Germany's exports go to the UK, a figure surpassed only by France.  But 52% of German exports go to the rest of the Union - that's seven and a half times as much, and that amount relies on the customs union and the single market.  It is simply not in Germany's best interests to cut a deal that gives the UK preferential access to its markets but that also undermines the fundamental principles of the Union.  The same goes for France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, and even Ireland. 

 

Which in turn brings me to another point about Leave supporters.  I have yet to encounter a Leave supporter who is capable of seeing anything from the point of view of how it looks in the rest of the Union.  Everything about Brexit is really seen from an Anglo-centric point of view, and there is a complete lack of awareness as to the economic and political thinking behind the EU's position and negotiating stance.  By the way, I'm not suggesting they should agree with it - but by failing to understand it, Leave voters are leaving themselves open to exactly the kind of errors of judgement I have described above.

 

Finally, the point in your last sentence or two just isn't relevant, WADR.  That's an argument for not liking the EU and wanting to leave, and that debate is long over.  Right now the debate is over why the EU 27 won't do things the UK's way.  They won't, there's plenty of information to show why they won't, and wishing they would isn't going to fix anything.

 

And how relatively the deal made  is the clear, obvious exit deal possible in the circumstances where most of the power is with the EU. 

 

And why the deal will go through. No deal is Brexiteers preferred option but British common sense will more likely win the day. How that actually happens isn't clear but is much more likely than No Deal. 

 

Even if it's an unlikely deal between May and Corbyn with a commitment to holding an election given for Labour abstaining on the vote. 

[Don Dan]

Barnier has just said that all the 27 EU countries are behind the withdrawal deal. 

He also reiterated that the future deal negotiations are underway.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Dannie Boy

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Barnier has just said that all the 27 EU countries are behind the withdrawal deal. 

He also reiterated that the future deal negotiations are underway.

 

I wonder if they could make quick progress on the future deal to help sell the exit deal

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I wonder if they could make quick progress on the future deal to help sell the exit deal

 

It would be helpful but unlikely. 

Re the withdrawal deal the backstop is the stumbling block, remove the EU veto and lock-in then it will be accepted much more palatable. 

[Mikey1874]

12 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

It would be helpful but unlikely. 

Re the withdrawal deal the backstop is the stumbling block, remove the EU veto and lock-in then it will be accepted much more palatable. 

 

They need to get that final deal for N.Ireland drafted then. 

 

But it's not necessarily a deal breaker for getting the vote passed in Parliament. EU might need to compromise on this to help May. Say the veto and lock-in is only going to be used in certain unlikely circumstances. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Mikey1874]

DP

Edited November 19, 2018 by Mikey1874

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

If the UK recognises EU product standards, isn't that having the EU tellus what to do, with no voice.

 

Free movement of people - I thought Brexit was about taking control of our borders?

 

In other words, Mr Abbott has made two suggestions that are at odds with Brexit supporters.

 

According to the BBC this morning immigration will be skills based and the EU won't have priority over the likes of Australia or Asia.

 

Mind you I don't know what to believe any more.

[Victorian]

The current (today's) direction of travel for the great,  strong & stable,   austerity is over,   in the national interest government is to market,  package and sell the future relationship part of negotiations.     The withdrawal agreement complete with backstop will be left as it is but the government are going to attempt to push it through on the prospectus of a utopian vision of what is to come from the next phase.

 

Santa wont be coming early but the smoke and mirrors might make it look that way.    

Edited November 19, 2018 by Victorian

[Seymour M Hersh]

13 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

First of all, the problem with the stance taken by a lot of Leave supporters is that it is transactional.  It assumes that it's all about the transactions among states rather than their relationships.  Hence the stuff about Germany wanting to "sell us their VWs and Mercs", and the stuff about the costs of EU Budget contributions.  The reality is that if the EU concedes on its core principles for the sake of selling a few VW Golfs to Britain, then the internal market will disintegrate, and this will cause bigger reductions in trade than the amounts shored up (note shored up, not gained) by trading with the UK.

 

Once you understand that, then the reality is that absorbing the British net contribution is cheap at the price.  As I said, even if the bill fell to the Germans to pay it would be hardly noticeable for their economy, and if (as is likely), the bill is spread across 5 or 6 countries it will be absorbed even more easily.

 

A lot of Leave supporters seem to have a view that the EU are somehow running scared or desperate for a few quid from Britain.  This is nothing short of a delusion.  There are more than 6 times as many people living in the rest of the EU as there are in the UK, and the economy is more than 6 times as large.  A huge percentage of our trade in the rest of the EU is with each other.  All of that is built on the platform of the customs union and the single market, along with the four freedoms that make those work.  As the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement show, the EU takes that customs union and single market seriously - a good bit more seriously than its trading relationship with one third-party country.

 

We buy £95billion worth of goods and service from the rest of the EU annually. Do you really think Brussells wants the UK to go off and negotiate free trade deals elsewhere? Cutting tariffs that would undercut goods made in the EU?

 

Your patronising "few quid" comment sums up how you've posted throughout the lifetime of this thread. 

 

And if you want patronising your own country will sink back into EU anonymity once the UK leave as Brussels will have no further use for you as leverage.

 

 

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

We buy £95billion worth of goods and service from the rest of the EU annually. Do you really think Brussells wants the UK to go off and negotiate free trade deals elsewhere? Cutting tariffs that would undercut goods made in the EU?

 

Your patronising "few quid" comment sums up how you've posted throughout the lifetime of this thread. 

 

And if you want patronising your own country will sink back into EU anonymity once the UK leave as Brussels will have no further use for you as leverage.

 

 

Big mental Great Britain. Aye right, it's a no mark wee nyaff now and will be even more irrelevant after, especially when the Great votes for independence. 

[Thunderstruck]

10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The current (today's) direction of travel for the great,  strong & stable,   austerity is over,   in the national interest government is to market,  package and sell the future relationship part of negotiations.     The withdrawal agreement complete with backstop will be left as it is but the government are going to attempt to push it through on the prospectus of a utopian vision of what is to come from the next phase.

 

Santa wont be coming early but the smoke and mirrors might make it look that way.    

 

Santa Claus might not be based within the E.U. but he does have data subjects who reside within the E.U. so he might have to careful - 

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Santa Claus might not be based within the E.U. but he does have data subjects who reside within the E.U. so he might have to careful - 

 

 

[Victorian]

Spanish government sticking the boot in re their potential agreement to the agreement.    Claiming they have been taken by surprise over Gibraltar arrangements.    Lol.

[manaliveits105]

Feck them no deal and ram yer £39 billion