The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I was thinking more about if the Euro debt crisis reached tipping point again and there was major upheaval in Europe. Whether being out of the EU would help prevent contagion and reduce negative impacts on the Uk.

It probably wouldn’t to be fair. 

I don't think being outside the EU will provide much more insulation against any future Euro debt crisis over not being part of the Eurozone.

[StefanAVFC]

I hate this discussion around how much trade we have with the EU vs non-EU.

We get all of our other trade (with very favourable terms) THROUGH being in the EU. We simply won't get better terms than we had, both within the EU (Open trade, no borders or tariffs) or outside (deals often negotiated over years and years)

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

But why would we need to “replace that” I don’t think anyone is suggesting exports to the EU are going to drop to zero ?

I think you've taken the meaning of 'replace that' incorrectly here.

As you've said no one is seriously arguing that UK trade with the EU would not exist immediately (or even at any point) after any sort of Brexit.

However, in order to just stand still on exports, if there is a (relative) reduction in exports to one market then that reduction needs to be 'replaced' by exports to other countries and markets. Now, the argument may be that this (a relative reduction in exports to the EU as a percentage of overall exports) is the trend anyway and it looks as though exports elsewhere have somewhat compensated for that but if it becomes more than just the trend and there are shocks (which tariffs and non-tariff barriers would necessarily be) then it may be more difficult for the exports to the rest of the world to replace larger and speedier reductions (whether just relative or actual).

Surely a big thing, though, is how much of the trade between the EU and UK is supply chain stuff, though? Rules of origin stuff then kicks in alongside the more obvious issues of importing/exporting finished products.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I hate this discussion around how much trade we have with the EU vs non-EU.

We get all of our other trade (with very favourable terms) THROUGH being in the EU. We simply won't get better terms than we had, both within the EU (Open trade, no borders or tariffs) or outside (deals often negotiated over years and years)

Indeed, there is that, too (which I haven't really taken in to account in my post above).

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

I hate this discussion around how much trade we have with the EU vs non-EU.

We get all of our other trade (with very favourable terms) THROUGH being in the EU. We simply won't get better terms than we had, both within the EU (Open trade, no borders or tariffs) or outside (deals often negotiated over years and years)

Why hate it? The whole point of the discussion is to try and understand what the differences would be.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Vive_La_Villa

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Why hate it? The whole point of the discussion is to try and understand what the differences would be.

I think the point was that someone is allowed to say over half our exports are to the EU in a binary fashion but any counter argument has to spell out exact detail whilst factoring in supply chains and rules of origin

as for the argument around our export figures being down to the EU    , 54 % of our exports were as a result of the trade deals in relation to the EU ... significant , granted  , but I think people might also be overlooking that the USA does not have any trade agreement with the EU ,  the USA currently accounts for 18% of our exports and rising so to credit that to an EU trade deal seems a bit misleading 

 

 

[StefanAVFC]

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

, but I think people might also be overlooking that the USA does not have any trade agreement with the EU ,  the USA currently accounts for 18% of our exports and rising so to credit that to an EU trade deal seems a bit misleading 

 

 

Fair point, but what would we have to give up for a trade deal with the US? And by lowering certain standards by trading with the US, would it have an impact on our much more important, EU trade?

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I think the point was that someone is allowed to say over half our exports are to the EU in a binary fashion but any counter argument has to spell out exact detail whilst factoring in supply chains and rules of origin

as for the argument around our export figures being down to the EU    , 54 % of our exports were as a result of the trade deals in relation to the EU ... significant , granted  , but I think people might also be overlooking that the USA does not have any trade agreement with the EU ,  the USA currently accounts for 18% of our exports and rising so to credit that to an EU trade deal seems a bit misleading 

 

 

The correct counter would be to demonstrate how much of our trade isn't with the EU or as a result of EU trade deals. Currently you've demonstated that possibly 82% of our trade is related to the EU. I'm sure that isn't, however, the message you were trying to convey.

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Fair point, but what would we have to give up for a trade deal with the US? And by lowering certain standards by trading with the US, would it have an impact on our much more important, EU trade?

that's a valid question , though there seems to be a feeling of a race to the bottom in terms of standards  , why are we so sure that will be the outcome ?

tbh I don't know the what the outcome of a US trade deal would be  , but we don't negotiate trade deals with the EU until the WA has been agreed either ,  safe to say they aren't going to say oh of course you can re-add lead to your paint though

 

[tonyh29]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

The correct counter would be to demonstrate how much of our trade isn't with the EU or as a result of EU trade deals. Currently you've demonstated that possibly 82% of our trade is related to the EU. I'm sure that isn't, however, the message you were trying to convey.

 Could have sworn  I wrote 54% isn't related to the EU    ..  EU trade deals are currently with 60 countries outside the bloc so the " non influence"  isn't just restricted to the USA  ..

tbf it's tricky  , for example ,  I'm not sure where the EU-China Trade and Cooperation Agreement counts  in the discussion but in terms of a trade deal   , its at  something like round 21 isn't it since talks first started ? 

[peterms]

26 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

that's a valid question , though there seems to be a feeling of a race to the bottom in terms of standards  , why are we so sure that will be the outcome ?

With regard to the US, we know this because the US have consistently made clear that they will want us to accept their standards; that they regard EU regulatory standards as needlessly excessive; and that they think it's a barrier designed to frustrate trade with the US.

Lancet.

Quote

With UK trade relations unclear over Brexit, food standards are fast becoming a key test for public health in trade matters. On Feb 28, 2019, the US Trade Representative (USTR) published the US negotiating position on a post-Brexit US–UK trade deal.

 

USTR made clear that the UK must abandon the EU's high food safety, animal welfare, and environmental protection standards as a condition for agreeing the kind of deal many Brexiteers desire. On March 2, the US Ambassador to the UK attacked EU standards, calling Europe's food and farming a museum.

 

Food quality standards were already delicate matters within Brexit. Altered standards would allow increased food imports from the USA and elsewhere. We have previously highlighted US practices of washing poultry with chemical disinfectants and using hormone implants to accelerate beef production.

 

Few analysts think EU standards are perfect, but comparing EU, US, and other food standards, we concluded that EU regulatory standards are among the highest in the world and rightly prioritise prevention over remediation. The US Ambassador claimed that the USA is not just the future but will feed the world.

 

This is incorrect for four reasons.

First, several key US foods standards are weaker than the EU's. After years of crises over food safety, especially bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the EU decided to prevent rather than remediate foodborne diseases. It resisted US-style use of chlorinated water to clean chickens. US producers can lawfully use six chemical disinfectants, not just on poultry but on other meats as well as fish, fruits, and vegetables. The dubious benefit of this approach has emerged from research at Southampton University, UK, in 2018, the results of which show that chlorine washing does not kill or weaken contaminating bacteria on food; it makes them harder to detect...

 

Since the US will be in a position of strength in any trade negotiations, and we will be in a position of great weakness, even desperation, it is reasonable to suppose that they will get their way.  That's even before you consider the influence of grovelling lickspittles like Fox, who would make us another state of the US if he could.

[HanoiVillan]

Sky are running heavily on Johnson finally backing down on his threat to break the law. 

[peterms]

 

[bickster]

Watch the polls change now

 

[peterms]

Back on to this thing about sending the letter, but also making other communications contradicting it.  I thought that had been ruled out as legally impossible.

 

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, peterms said:

Back on to this thing about sending the letter, but also making other communications contradicting it.  I thought that had been ruled out as legally impossible.

 

This 'number 10 source' is wrong, or more likely straightforwardly lying, simply in the knowledge that Useful Idiot Kuenssberg will tweet it out and they can delay the humiliation of their inevitable climbdown for a few more hours. 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This 'number 10 source' is wrong, or more likely straightforwardly lying, simply in the knowledge that Useful Idiot Kuenssberg will tweet it out and they can delay the humiliation of their inevitable climbdown for a few more hours. 

Sort of related, but of no modern relevance, when the Independent Newspaper originally launched back in the 80s, one of it's stances was as per the tweet - No unattributed "sources say". stories, no anonymous briefing stories at all. Another was no Royal family coverage. It was all the better for it. Now, the media is fuller than ever of all kinds of utter tripe planted by various parties for entirely their  own narrow interests and not actually News (or true) at all.

 

[meregreen]

Just wondering if Boris thinks the law states he must send the letter, but doesn’t require him to act upon any offer to delay Brexit by the EU ? 

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sort of related, but of no modern relevance, when the Independent Newspaper originally launched back in the 80s, one of it's stances was as per the tweet - No unattributed "sources say". stories, no anonymous briefing stories at all. Another was no Royal family coverage. It was all the better for it. Now, the media is fuller than ever of all kinds of utter tripe planted by various parties for entirely their  own narrow interests and not actually News (or true) at all.

I honestly think it's one of the worst scourges of our politics. This shit LK is putting out comes on top of that FT article earlier in the week in which a 'number 10 source' was allowed to anonymously fantasise about the lynching of opposition MP's. It's doing real damage to our politics, and journalists need to wake up and get a grip. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[peterms]

16 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Just wondering if Boris thinks the law states he must send the letter, but doesn’t require him to act upon any offer to delay Brexit by the EU ? 

Unnamed no 10 sources tell me that strategies being considered include:

• writing the letter in invisible ink
• boobytrapping it so it self-destructs on opening
• sending Cummings to wait behind the EU's Brussels letterbox, to eat the letter as it is delivered