Jump to content
blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

National embarrassment comes to its inevitable conclusion.

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-firm-with-no-ships-has-ferries-contract-cancelled-11632176

Reckon it was clear to everyone that wasn't the Government back at the end of December.

It's not just unicorns, Brexiteers believe in ferries too.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll give Grayling a break from looking for drones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting in a few years to see who made some money in the ferry farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comment on Relations.gov' website about US/UK trade agreement:

Quote

This comment is made by Shanker Singham, CEO, Competere and Director of International Trade and Competition,
Institute of Economic Affairs.
I have worked in the international trade and competition area for twenty five years, with a
global law firm where I represented global firms engaged in international trade issues, as a cleared advisor to the US government
on trade issues, and as a senior trade advisor to US presidential campaigns.

We strongly support the UK-US FTA and believe it will be an important part of global trade liberalization initiatives,
as we anticipate that the UK and US will be able to agree a comprehensive FTA with significant regulatory coherence,
increased levels of trade facilitations which will also be a roadmap for future FTAs with other countries and will enable
both the UK and the US to better deal with global trade problems such as anti-competitive market distortions in China,
and an increasingly anti-competitive and prescriptive EU.

It is also in the US's geo-political and geo-strategic interest to enact a deep agreement with the UK because this will
enable it to have a better chance to ensure that the global regulatory system moves in a more pro-competitive, outcomes
and effects based direction. One of the most significant problems the US faces is that while other countries have lowered
their tariffs, they have often increased regulatory protections, and distortions which have been unchecked by the global trading
system.

The UK leaving the EU is a major global event, as it is the first time that a major (G7) country has embraced independent trade
policy for the first time in forty plus years. The US should take advantage of this opportunity by ensuring that the UK's
regulatory and trading system is as liberalizing, open and pro-competitive as possible. The US can then build on this
with other countries and in the WTO, where the UK's voice, particularly in services where it is the world's second biggest exporter
can make a difference to the slow pace of services liberalization.

The opportunity for a major G7 nation to depart from the EU's application of the precautionary principle in agriculture also
represents a huge opportunity for America's farmers and biotech firms. The possibility of the UK embracing stronger IP
protection represents a huge opportunity for American pharmaceutical firms. The possibility of a robust financial services
agreement that clarifies the scope of prudential carve-outs and is based on principles based regulation will benefit the UK
and UK financial services industry also and can be achieved because of the unique level of trust between regulators in Washington
and London. The possibility of deeper services liberalization in other sectors between the world's top two exporters of services could
also have a powerful impact on global trade in an area where very little progress has been made since the Uruguay Round introduced
services into the global trading system's rules for the first time. Given that services are an ever increasing percentage of global trade
not addressing barriers in services, which are primarily market distortions and behind the border barriers is a major challenge to the
global trading system.

But there is a big stumbling block in the way of this future. The relationship between the UK and EU must be such as to allow
this kind of US-UK FTA. The US should support, and should encourage London and Brussels to agree a comprehensive FTA
between them which protects American supply chains that run between the UK and the EU-27, while at the same time, not
aligning the UK regulatory system so tightly in to the EU system that it cannot agree a meaningful FTA with the US. The current
Withdrawal Agreement will take the UK-US FTA off the table, as the US Ambassador to the UK, and the US President have
already pointed out.

We have enclosed with this comment two speeches by former UK cabinet members, former Brexit Secretary, the Rt Hon David Davis
and former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Rt Hon Owen Paterson that explain why, in their view the UK
and US should move urgently to an FTA. We have also enclosed a study done by Shanker Singham, Victoria Hewson and Radomir Tylecote
in our former roles with the Legatum Institute Special Trade Commission that analyses the barriers between the US and UK.

The UK is a major potential ally for the US's global ambitions and partner in helping to deal with its concerns. But the UK will need th
US to act urgently in order to prevent the UK from collapsing into the EU's regulatory orbit and thus depriving the US of this valuable partner
at this critical time.

Shankar Singham was doing the rounds of the TV and radio outlets last week in order to tell people about the 'Malthouse' stuff. Quite clearly indicating how important and crucial he was regarding it.

The above ought to be read with that in mind or, perhaps, the 'Malthouse' stuff and its advocation ought to be viewed with the above in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

How and why is Hoey still in the Labour party?

Absolute bun.

Note: before anything kicks off, I have no idea and no interest what her religious or racial background is.

Wait, I thought that deselecting MPs was 'purging' the party, and that different opinions must be tolerated because it's a 'broad church' and to deselect people who openly campaign against party policy is to 'alienate moderates' (all cf the Labour thread yesterday)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is also in the US's geo-political and geo-strategic interest to enact a deep agreement with the UK because this will
enable it to have a better chance to ensure that the global regulatory system moves in a more pro-competitive, outcomes
and effects based direction. 

The use of pro-competitive throughout that whole piece is fascinating - there's actually not a single instance where it actually means "in favour of competition"; throughout the entire thing it means in favour of giving competitive advantage to US corporations and being more profitable for them. It's a vile maxim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To make my point a little clearer in that post, in can't be the case that it's both a disgrace to attempt to deselect MPs for having profound disagreements with the leadership, and a disgrace that Kate Hoey is still in the party, since any attempt to rectify the latter involves the former. 

It's easier to demand a party is a 'broad church' of opinion when one's allies, or at least people one feels sympathetic to, are under pressure, but a real 'broad church' will obviously involve tolerating lots of people that one profoundly disagrees with, even if they're Kate Hoey. 

To put my own cards on the table, I would be perfectly happy if both Hoey and Berger were deselected, but it's much more likely that neither will be, and the 'broad church' will continue to exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

How and why is Hoey still in the Labour party?

Absolute bun.

Note: before anything kicks off, I have no idea and no interest what her religious or racial background is.

She's more on point with theleader'ss policies than most of the MPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It does rather show that Luciana Berger isn't the worst offender in terms of defying the whip, voting with the tories etc. Hoey was one of the absolute throbbers who voted against Yvette Cooper's block no deal amendment, which allowed the tories to win. She's propping up the ERG and May's clusterpork.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, blandy said:

It does rather show that Luciana Berger isn't the worst offender in terms of defying the whip, voting with the tories etc. Hoey was one of the absolute throbbers who voted against Yvette Cooper's block no deal amendment, which allowed the tories to win. She's propping up the ERG and May's clusterpork.

I agree; the objection to Berger is not to do with her voting record, but to do with her public statements.

It also shows that Corbyn and Labour moderates have more in common with each other over Brexit than anyone would think from reading this thread, at least since party conference last year. It's not a coincidence that it's the Brexiters who are defying the whip, not moderates. The big beef - including for Berger - remains a second referendum, but the bottom line is there's no majority for it in Parliament, so it's hard to see what any other Labour leader could be doing differently at this point. 

Clearly, it's also the case that Berger (and lots of other moderates) have all sorts of other problems with the leadership on other topics. 

I agree with you completely on the awfulness of Hoey; her voting record on Brexit is not quite identical to Rees-Mogg, but it's pretty damn close. 

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, colhint said:

Am I missing something with this. Currently there is a 10% tariff on Japanese goods coming in from Japan, set by the EU. I know this is to be phased out gradually in the next 10 to 15 years.  So if we offered a low tariff or none at all, wouldn't the Japanese be happy with that, and wouldn't it make things cheaper for the consumer?

It's not about tariffs. Tariffs are a small part of modern FTAs.

It's also about things like food standards. The EU has regulations in place so you can trace your steak from Tesco back to the farmer. This isn't cheap but the members of the EU have (rightly or wrongly) agreed that the extra cost is worth it for food safety. I doubt Japan has these costly regulations, giving it a bit of an advantage of EU farmers. So we need to negotiate a compromise on food safety standards -- maybe something like the exporter has to be able to trace it to the farmer, but not necessarilky the retailer. Then there's debate about what hormones you allow to be injected into cattle, and which chemicals you allow in fertilizer. There's no point in zero tariffs on Japanese beef if we wouldn't let it in on food safety grounds.

It's also about fair competition. Let's suppose Japan are subsidising their solar panels like mad. Letting them flood the EU/UK market with solar panels would kill domestic industry. But both countries probably agree that green energy should get promoted, so you need to agree a "reasonable" amount of subsidy for solar panels. That "reasonable" amount is up for negotiation.

It's also about information sharing. Generally speaking, VAT is refundable for intermediate goods when it crosses an international border. At a minimum that might require the Japanese customs people to email the EU/UK a spreadsheet with a list of all tax compliant companies in Japan, and the EU/UK to email them back a list of goods imported/exported by them. But then you might want to exempt small companies (say, less than 10 employees) from all that paperwork. The EU and Japan might have different ideas about what's a small company (5 employees versus 25 employees). That's negotiable.

It's also about dispute mechanisms. You need some panel to settle arguments. Who gets to pick the independent member(s)? What happens if the panel rules against you? What happens if the Green Party get elected in Japan and want to increase subsidies for solar panels? Can you appeal to the WTO? Again, all negotiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enda said:

It's also about things like food standards. The EU has regulations in place so you can trace your steak from Tesco back to the farmer. This isn't cheap but the members of the EU have (rightly or wrongly) agreed that the extra cost is worth it for food safety

Possibly not the best example.   Tesco sold horse labelled as beef.  Even this week we have seen further food fraud, selling tainted meat from Poland this time.

This is an argument for raising standards and improving enforcement, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bickster said:

I think you don’t understand the leaders real opinions on the EU. Not what he says, now he’s the leader, what he’s said throughout his career

I'm trying to understand your argument. Is it your contention that the way Jeremy Corbyn votes in Parliament, and the way Jeremy Corbyn's whips demand that Labour MP's vote in Parliament, do not represent Jeremy Corbyn's views, and that actually Kate Hoey's votes, which are more in opposition to the whips than any other Labour MP, are in fact actually his views?

I don't think 'the leader's real opinions on the EU' are of any import whatsoever when compared to votes in Parliament. You can pretend to divine his 'true' feelings if you want, but votes - actual legislative action - are where the rubber hits the road. 

In any case, your argument, which I think is self-evidently wrong, was that the reason Kate Hoey is still in the Labour party is that her views are in concert with Corbyn's. To believe this, you have to believe that Corbyn is specifically happy about one of his MP's walking through the lobby with the Tories half the time, and is protecting her on that basis. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bickster said:

I think you don’t understand the leaders real opinions on the EU. Not what he says, now he’s the leader, what he’s said throughout his career

Never mind his opinions.  Focus on the deal he will support.  The deal he wiĺl go with may not be his most preferred outcome.  This already seems likely.  The question for you should be whether you like that proposal, not whether it was 1 or 2 or 14 in Corbyn's personal ranking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

In any case, your argument, which I think is self-evidently wrong, was that the reason Kate Hoey is still in the Labour party is that her views are in concert with Corbyn's. To believe this, you have to believe that Corbyn is specifically happy about one of his MP's walking through the lobby with the Tories half the time, and is protecting her on that basis.  

In terms of the Labour Party, it would be hard to find two MPs whose views are so opposed as Corbyn and Hoey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm trying to understand your argument. Is it your contention that the way Jeremy Corbyn votes in Parliament, and the way Jeremy Corbyn's whips demand that Labour MP's vote in Parliament, do not represent Jeremy Corbyn's views, and that actually Kate Hoey's votes, which are more in opposition to the whips than any other Labour MP, are in fact actually his views?

I don't think 'the leader's real opinions on the EU' are of any import whatsoever when compared to votes in Parliament. You can pretend to divine his 'true' feelings if you want, but votes - actual legislative action - are where the rubber hits the road. 

In any case, your argument, which I think is self-evidently wrong, was that the reason Kate Hoey is still in the Labour party is that her views are in concert with Corbyn's. To believe this, you have to believe that Corbyn is specifically happy about one of his MP's walking through the lobby with the Tories half the time, and is protecting her on that basis. 

I don’t need to divine his opinions, go research them yourself. Someone posted a video earlier in the week of him speaking to the Irish before their second referendum. His opinions are quite easy to understand

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â