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

[bickster]

My experience of Europeans and Brexit and I've been to them near abroads quite a bit in the last year or so.

1. The man on the street genuinely doesn’t give a shit if the U.K. stays or not

2. When pushed a bit further, they think our decision is utterly insane

I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone who thinks differently in any country

[Stevo985]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

My experience of Europeans and Brexit and I've been to them near abroads quite a bit in the last year or so.

1. The man on the street genuinely doesn’t give a shit if the U.K. stays or not

2. When pushed a bit further, they think our decision is utterly insane

I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone who thinks differently in any country

I work with lots of Italians and French day to day and can confirm they think the same.

As in they think we are stupid for leaving, but don't see it as an issue (for them) that we are.

[StefanAVFC]

Living in an EU country, pretty much everyone I interact with, be it socially or at work think it's a ridiculous situation, other than one close friend who's British, lives in Poland, Polish gf and voted to leave.

[Chindie]

Jaguar cutting to a 3 day week from next month, IMF pointing out the obvious...

Meanwhile, nothing of sense happening in Westminster.

Brexit. **** stupid.

[mjmooney]

Just been raising my blood pressure shouting at the local TV news. Brexiteer 'businessman' on, saying he wasn't worried, because nobody knows what's going to happen, and so there's no point in making plans! And to illustrate his point he came out with the classic: "I remember that 'millennium bug' - that was going to be a disaster, but it was all hype - nothing happened". 

As a former Y2K project manager I could have told him why 'nothing happened' - it was BECAUSE WE MADE PLANS - and worked like hell to prepare for it! 

Moron. 

[Chindie]

17 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Just been raising my blood pressure shouting at the local TV news. Brexiteer 'businessman' on, saying he wasn't worried, because nobody knows what's going to happen, and so there's no point in making plans! And to illustrate his point he came out with the classic: "I remember that 'millennium bug' - that was going to be a disaster, but it was all hype - nothing happened". 

As a former Y2K project manager I could have told him why 'nothing happened' - it was BECAUSE WE MADE PLANS - and worked like hell to prepare for it! 

Moron. 

#pray4bankruptcy

In fairness you can't blame him. Idiocy comes with being Brexiteer.

[ml1dch]

Spain says that a special agreement for Gibraltar needs to be included in the Brexit agreement because they think there should be a "more balanced relationship".

Oh yes. Gibraltar is still an important thing in all this.

[Mic09]

Here is some food for thought.

Let's assume UK does not come to an agreement with Brussels. We can all agree however, that trade and international agreements between UK/France, UK/Germany, UK/Poland etc are important and widely speaking beneficial for both countries involved.

Can someone please explain to me, what is stopping the UK from agreeing a better, more beneficial deal with individual state countries much like it can trade with the US/China/Switzerland and others? Surely these agreements are there to benefit all countries?

The obvious answer is that Brussels will stop Berlin or Paris from agreeing anything on individual basis with London. But if that is the case, doesn't it show that EU is in fact a bureaucratic and selfish creation which does not want to benefit individual European states but it's own federation?

[LondonLax]

8 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Here is some food for thought.

Let's assume UK does not come to an agreement with Brussels. We can all agree however, that trade and international agreements between UK/France, UK/Germany, UK/Poland etc are important and widely speaking beneficial for both countries involved.

Can someone please explain to me, what is stopping the UK from agreeing a better, more beneficial deal with individual state countries much like it can trade with the US/China/Switzerland and others? Surely these agreements are there to benefit all countries?

The obvious answer is that Brussels will stop Berlin or Paris from agreeing anything on individual basis with London. But if that is the case, doesn't it show that EU is in fact a bureaucratic and selfish creation which does not want to benefit individual European states but it's own federation?

Well it goes to the point of whether you believe your economy is better being part of a larger trading block or trying to go it alone. 

European countries in the EU believe they get more benefit overall being able to negotiate trade deals as a collective with the bargaining power of all the EU countries combined then they would if they tried to negotiate deals one on one with other counties.  

[Chindie]

The EU is a trading bloc. Its strength comes from it's acting as a huge economic behemoth rather than as individuals. It falls apart if states start to act on their own account for trade, for a multitude of reasons (single market integrity etc).

It isn't true that the EU acts to benefit itself alone. The EU makes its members stronger, hence why they're members. They come together to form a bloc that benefits all.

This is partly why, for example, German car manufacturers have openly said that they would definitely like a good deal with the UK to come about, but they don't want anything that threatens the remaining EU - because the remaining EU's strength makes them a lot of money, and threatening that is more damaging than cutting the UK loose.

[StefanAVFC]

16 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Here is some food for thought.

Let's assume UK does not come to an agreement with Brussels. We can all agree however, that trade and international agreements between UK/France, UK/Germany, UK/Poland etc are important and widely speaking beneficial for both countries involved.

Can someone please explain to me, what is stopping the UK from agreeing a better, more beneficial deal with individual state countries much like it can trade with the US/China/Switzerland and others? Surely these agreements are there to benefit all countries?

The obvious answer is that Brussels will stop Berlin or Paris from agreeing anything on individual basis with London. But if that is the case, doesn't it show that EU is in fact a bureaucratic and selfish creation which does not want to benefit individual European states but it's own federation?

A 3rd party cannot strike an individual trade deal with individual EU countries.

I think what EU nations get in terms of trade is a more than fair enough trade off (snigger) for not being able to do it.

A Romania, or Lithuania gets more out of being part of a trade deal with Canada than Ottawa and Vilnius coming to an agreement.

[Mic09]

35 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

A 3rd party cannot strike an individual trade deal with individual EU countries.

I think what EU nations get in terms of trade is a more than fair enough trade off (snigger) for not being able to do it.

 A Romania, or Lithuania gets more out of being part of a trade deal with Canada than Ottawa and Vilnius coming to an agreement.

Exactly.

So if it's beneficial for London to trade with Mexico, but EU does not allow it, why do we agree to anyone (Brussels in this case) restricting UK's sovereignty?  

Who's to say that individual trade deals wouldn't be more beneficial and more tailored to each countries individual needs?

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Mic09 said:

Exactly.

So if it's beneficial for London to trade with Mexico, but EU does not allow it, why do we agree to anyone (Brussels in this case) restricting UK's sovereignty?  

Who's to say that individual trade deals wouldn't be more beneficial and more tailored to each countries individual needs?

At the expense of what though? What can we get by trading with Mexico that we can't:

1) Get from elsewhere in Europe

2) (and most importantly) not get by being part of an overall EU/Mexico trade deal?

Just seems like sovereignty for the sake it of (which is a common theme across the entire **** tbh)

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Exactly.

So if it's beneficial for London to trade with Mexico, but EU does not allow it, why do we agree to anyone (Brussels in this case) restricting UK's sovereignty?  

Who's to say that individual trade deals wouldn't be more beneficial and more tailored to each countries individual needs?

Well if this government gets its way you'll find out

 

See you in the queue for the foodbank

[peterms]

Post-Brexit plans, drawn up by the flunkies of the Koch Bbrothers, here.

Quote

A radical blueprint for a free trade deal between the UK and the US that would see the NHS opened to foreign competition, a bonfire of consumer and environmental regulations and freedom of movement between the two countries for workers, is to be launched by prominent Brexiters.

The blueprint will be seen as significant because of the close links between the organisations behind it and the UK secretary for international trade, Liam Fox, and the US president, Donald Trump.

Its publication follows a week of policy launches by the European Research Group of Conservative MPs designed to pressurise the prime minister into “chucking Chequers”, her softer Brexit proposal, in favour of a harder, clean break from the European Union.

The text of the new trade deal has been prepared by the Initiative for Free Trade (IFT) – a thinktank founded by the longtime Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan, one of the leaders of Vote Leave – and the Cato Institute, a rightwing libertarian thinktank in the US founded and funded by the fossil fuel magnates and major political donors the Koch family.

The “ideal UK-US free trade deal” was due to be launched later on Tuesday in both London and Washington but the Cato Institute appears to have accidentally posted it online early.

The policy initiative was shaped in consultation with a group of other conservative libertarian thinktanks on both sides of the Atlantic, the blueprint explains. These include UK organisations whose funding is opaque, such as the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) and the Adam Smith Institute among others in the UK, and others in the US including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The authors argue for a free trade agreement that would loosen government controls on capital and data flows and be “more liberalising than any other free trade agreement in the world”. They say that it could become a model for future deals post-Brexit. It would remove tariffs and throw out the precautionary principle that has guided much EU regulation on GM foods, chlorine-washed chicken, hormones in meat, pesticides and chemicals in cosmetics.

The same US thinktanks have been behind developing off-the-shelf policies favoured by big business that were adopted by the Trump administration when it took office. Several policies and staff from the Heritage Foundation were taken into the Trump transition team.

In the UK, the researchers behind the blueprint have had exceptional access to ministers in both the Department for International Trade and the Department for Exiting the European Union, with IEA staff and its head of trade policy, Shanker Singham, meeting Liam Fox, David Davis, Steve Baker and other ministers and special advisers on numerous occasions since the referendum result, government transparency data shows. Fox has given speeches at both the Heritage Foundation and the AEI before and after the referendum.

The IFT itself had a controversial birth last summer. It was initially launched as the Institute for Free Trade but was forced to change its name to the Initiative for Free Trade Ltd following a Companies House investigation that enforced the rule that “institute” may only be used by bodies conducting significant independent research and not by lobby groups. It also came under fire when the then foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, allowed it to use the Foreign Office map room for its launch free of its usual charge for outside bodies. As well as Johnson, prominent hardline cabinet Brexiters Fox and Michael Gove were guests at the launch.

The Foreign Office said that the decision was in line with its usual policy for events supporting the government’s interests but has since changed the policy.

The IEA meanwhile is facing two official investigations after undercover filming by Greenpeace appeared to show that the thinktank was offering potential US donors access to UK government ministers. The Charity Commission announced in July that it had opened an investigation into the IEA over concerns over its independence, and whether it should be registered as a lobbyist rather than a charity. It has previously labelled so-called cash-for-access allegations “spurious” and denied that it breaches charity law, saying: “We do not act in donors’ interests.”

The IFT/Cato Institute free trade deal recognises that its proposals are likely to be unpopular. “Health services would benefit from foreign competition, although we recognise any change to existing regulations would be extremely controversial,” it says.

It recommends testing the waters with foreign competition in education and legal services first.

The proposals are likely to meet fierce opposition from trade experts on the left. Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said: “The measures supported in this paper represent a free trade utopia, entirely divorced from economic reality. The authors view good government as ‘getting out of the way’ of business, and letting profit drive every aspect of our society. If carried out, these policies would destroy huge swathes of our economy, including farming, and they would lay waste to public services.”

 

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

So if it's beneficial for London to trade with Mexico, but EU does not allow it, why do we agree to anyone (Brussels in this case) restricting UK's sovereignty?

How does the EU not allow 'London' to trade with 'Mexico'?

Edit: For clarity, I know this isn't about trade specifically between UK and Mexico but rather the UK and a(n unspecified) country with which the EU doesn't have a trade agreement.

Edited September 18, 2018 by snowychap

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

So if it's beneficial for London to trade with Mexico, but EU does not allow it, why do we agree to anyone (Brussels in this case) restricting UK's sovereignty?  
Who's to say that individual trade deals wouldn't be more beneficial and more tailored to each countries individual needs?

The UK can trade with whoever we like. And we do. Anyone and everyone in the world. We're not restricted from trading with anyone, by the EU or anyone else. There's a total misconception in your question.

Trade deals are on top of what we can already do. We buy and sell stuff with Japan, and have done for ages. But recently the EU ( with the UK in it) did a deal where special (better) terms exist between the EU and Japan, so we both benefit. We trade with the USA, obviously. The EU doesn't stop us buying Jeeps Levis, Apple phones, Jack Daniels or selling them Jaguars, Whisky and crap TV presenters.

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

At the expense of what though? What can we get by trading with Mexico that we can't:

1) Get from elsewhere in Europe

 2) (and most importantly) not get by being part of an overall EU/Mexico trade deal?

Just seems like sovereignty for the sake it of (which is a common theme across the entire **** tbh)

1) a million things which we have no idea about

2) It might be beneficial for UK to trade with Mexico, but not for Germany/France/Italy for a variety of reasons in which case the deal does not go through. Independent trade deals might prove more tailored and might allow greater benefit for the UK.

I am not for and against here (although I do have my personal opinion), but I am sick of scaremongering (i.e. foodbanks etc) about the world's 5th strongest Economy, which is the UK. I am confident that London has a lot of bargaining chips that will work in it's favour in the negotiation. I am also confident that it's not in the mainstream media's interest to discuss those.

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

The UK can trade with whoever we like. And we do. Anyone and everyone in the world. We're not restricted from trading with anyone, by the EU or anyone else. There's a total misconception in your question.

Trade deals are on top of what we can already do. We buy and sell stuff with Japan, and have done for ages. But recently the EU ( with the UK in it) did a deal where special (better) terms exist between the EU and Japan, so we both benefit. We trade with the USA, obviously. The EU doesn't stop us buying Jeeps Levis, Apple phones, Jack Daniels or selling them Jaguars, Whisky and crap TV presenters.

I said it as a hypothetical - there is no thing saying that Brussels cannot stop trade deals with a specific countries, and this might be outside of UK's control should we remain in.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

Here is some food for thought.

Let's assume UK does not come to an agreement with Brussels. We can all agree however, that trade and international agreements between UK/France, UK/Germany, UK/Poland etc are important and widely speaking beneficial for both countries involved.

It rather depends, doesn't it?

Are you arguing for purely bilateral agreements rather than trading blocs? Or just that, overall, trade agremeents are better than not having them?

Replacing all trading blocs with the equivalent in bilateral trade deals between every country otherwise involved in a trading bloc (and the trade agreements already negotiated as party to these) would sound like a huge amount of work and a massive increase in bureaucracy. Just take the EU27, for instance. That would be 27 bilateral agreements to replace one, no?

Quote

Can someone please explain to me, what is stopping the UK from agreeing a better, more beneficial deal with individual state countries much like it can trade with the US/China/Switzerland and others? Surely these agreements are there to benefit all countries?

The obvious answer is that Brussels will stop Berlin or Paris from agreeing anything on individual basis with London. But if that is the case, doesn't it show that EU is in fact a bureaucratic and selfish creation which does not want to benefit individual European states but it's own federation?

EU law. EU law isn't some abstract thing called 'Brussels', some monster from the deep - it's the result of agreements by the members that form the EU.

The EU doesn't (for all the talk of superstates and wotnot) exist without its members which we may find out, to our and to Europe's severe detriment should it all implode and people start tearing themselves apart over borders, tariffs, non-tariff barriers, &c.

Edited September 18, 2018 by snowychap