Politics, politics, politics

[milo]

One to watch

https://twitter.com/x/status/887288093837058050

 

[scaramanga]

It is a well established principle of our democracy that one government cannot tie the hands of another. He can fight to safeguard rights now but that does not stop a future government changing this.

Any future changes would potentially impact on any agreements that we have with the EU though but that is something that could be considered at the time when the facts are known.

He's far sneaker than you give him credit for.

He's looking to tie that equivalence into our Brexit deal with the EU. Which, for all intents and purposes, would tie the next government's hands as they'd have to agree a whole new deal in order to relax those regulations.

This is why we have to be so careful right now, there are snakes everywhere.

 

[scaramanga]

We are looking for a far deeper deal than any other country has and will need it to cover services. The closer the arrangement the more closely we will need to be aligned with the EU. The greater the regulatory divergence, the harder a comprehensive deal will be to achieve.

In the short term, as neither we nor the EU have enough time to make the structural changes to support us being outside the EEA and Customs Union, we will need to remain aligned.

I would disagree with employee rights being downgraded but would have less arguments if a future government did this through parliament after setting out their reasons, rather than it being done by the executive without proper scrutiny.

Is far rather have a worse deal and more trade (by being more competitive) than a better deal thats worthless because our products and services are more expensive than everyone else's.

I want to continue to trade with the EU, but our scope for advantage is that we don't have to have their red tape and enforced expenditure, we can and should be significantly cheaper than the EU when released from their shackles.

 

[milo]

He's far sneaker than you give him credit for.

He's looking to tie that equivalence into our Brexit deal with the EU. Which, for all intents and purposes, would tie the next government's hands as they'd have to agree a whole new deal in order to relax those regulations.

This is why we have to be so careful right now, there are snakes everywhere.

That would only sit in domestic legislation and could be overturned by parliament later.

I am sure though that the EU would seek assurances on our regulatory compatibility in any agreement on our future relationship.

 

[milo]

Is far rather have a worse deal and more trade (by being more competitive) than a better deal thats worthless because our products and services are more expensive than everyone else's.

I want to continue to trade with the EU, but our scope for advantage is that we don't have to have their red tape and enforced expenditure, we can and should be significantly cheaper than the EU when released from their shackles.

I cannot see the EU agreeing a deep FTA including financial service that allows us to undercut them and membership of the EEA would be completely out.

I also cannot foresee a situation where trade with the EU has less red tape after Brexit than it does now.

My point about non-tariff barriers that I have been making since last summer has been exactly this. Inside the EU, it is accepted that we comply with EU regs. Outside, companies seeking to export to the EU will have to prove that the goods comply with EU standards. The further we diverge from EU regulations, the harder this will be.

 

[milo]

Is far rather have a worse deal and more trade (by being more competitive) than a better deal thats worthless because our products and services are more expensive than everyone else's.

I want to continue to trade with the EU, but our scope for advantage is that we don't have to have their red tape and enforced expenditure, we can and should be significantly cheaper than the EU when released from their shackles.

I cannot see the EU agreeing a deep FTA including financial service that allows us to undercut them and membership of the EEA would be completely out.

I also cannot foresee a situation where trade with the EU has less red tape after Brexit than it does now.

My point about non-tariff barriers that I have been making since last summer has been exactly this. Inside the EU, it is accepted that we comply with EU regs. Outside, companies seeking to export to the EU will have to prove that the goods comply with EU standards. The further we diverge from EU regulations, the harder this will be.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/you-aged-between-39-47-217395

If like Blair and all the other gangsters want and we stay in the EU then I do wonder how the French will take to retiring at 68 as well.

 

[scaramanga]

I cannot see the EU agreeing a deep FTA including financial service that allows us to undercut them and membership of the EEA would be completely out.

I also cannot foresee a situation where trade with the EU has less red tape after Brexit than it does now.

My point about non-tariff barriers that I have been making since last summer has been exactly this. Inside the EU, it is accepted that we comply with EU regs. Outside, companies seeking to export to the EU will have to prove that the goods comply with EU standards. The further we diverge from EU regulations, the harder this will be.

Obviously there will be a sliding scale between barriers and compliance with their silly little rules.

I would far rather we lean towards higher barriers and more freedom to compete. Not only does it allow us to compete against the EU but it improves our ability to compete against the rest of the world too.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

financial terrorists

We need to for the third time in a century stand in alliance with Russia against a Europe on the march towards Oblivion once again.

The way Barnier is behaving, an unrealistic exit fee(not that we need to pay any sort of fee) thinking that a country citizens should go to another country and that the host country would not have final say on the laws reflecting people living and working in the Country.

Can anyone tell me where that happens anywhere in the world. I move to Saudi, I move to America, I move to Argentina i live by their rules. I really hope it happens in my life time where the whole corrupt tyranny falls in on itself and the scum that voted and back these gangster will have only themselves to blame. Good GHod do people never learn.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

financial terrorists

We need to for the third time in a century stand in alliance with Russia against a Europe on the march towards Oblivion once again.

The way Barnier is behaving, an unrealistic exit fee(not that we need to pay any sort of fee) thinking that a country citizens should go to another country and that the host country would not have final say on the laws reflecting people living and working in the Country.

Can anyone tell me where that happens anywhere in the world. I move to Saudi, I move to America, I move to Argentina i live by their rules. I really hope it happens in my life time where the whole corrupt tyranny falls in on itself and the scum that voted and back these gangster will have only themselves to blame. Good GHod do people never learn.

Scum?

 

[r-u-s-x01]

financial terrorists

We need to for the third time in a century stand in alliance with Russia against a Europe on the march towards Oblivion once again.

The way Barnier is behaving, an unrealistic exit fee(not that we need to pay any sort of fee) thinking that a country citizens should go to another country and that the host country would not have final say on the laws reflecting people living and working in the Country.

Can anyone tell me where that happens anywhere in the world. I move to Saudi, I move to America, I move to Argentina i live by their rules. I really hope it happens in my life time where the whole corrupt tyranny falls in on itself and the scum that voted and back these gangster will have only themselves to blame. Good GHod do people never learn.

We can say no to everything they propose, but it would mean no trade deal it's what we prefer out of the two .

 

[milo]

Obviously there will be a sliding scale between barriers and compliance with their silly little rules.

I would far rather we lean towards higher barriers and more freedom to compete. Not only does it allow us to compete against the EU but it improves our ability to compete against the rest of the world too.

I don't think that is a realistic ambition for March 2019 because we have not got enough time to build the infrastructure and new organisations needed to support it.

I am yet to see any reputable research showing that trade with the rest of the world will increase sufficiently to compensate for lost trade with the EU in this scenario. I am pragmatic about this and would not object to this approach if it could be shown to be in the national interest. I believe that this is what HMT have said to the DIT too.

 

[milo]

The way Barnier is behaving, an unrealistic exit fee(not that we need to pay any sort of fee) thinking that a country citizens should go to another country and that the host country would not have final say on the laws reflecting people living and working in the Country.

My understanding is that the EU hasn't named a fee, the negotiations have been around how it should be calculated. Our government accepts that we have financial commitments that need to be settled.

The EU position is that EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU who were living there before we leave the EU should retain their current rights. That doesn't sound too unreasonable to me and it was what the Leave campaign committed to during the referendum. What was interesting was that Barnier floated the idea of a court other than the ECJ overseeing this. This sounds like the EFTA Court or something very like it.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't think that is a realistic ambition for March 2019 because we have not got enough time to build the infrastructure and new organisations needed to support it.

I am yet to see any reputable research showing that trade with the rest of the world will increase sufficiently to compensate for lost trade with the EU in this scenario. I am pragmatic about this and would not object to this approach if it could be shown to be in the national interest. I believe that this is what HMT have said to the DIT too.

Why wouldn't we increase trade with the EU if we're able to significantly undercut them?

 

[milo]

Why wouldn't we increase trade with the EU if we're able to significantly undercut them?

You are proposing undercutting them by reducing regulatory standards. That would make trade with the EU incredibly difficult, expensive and time consuming. It would all but kill off large sections of trade in services with the EU where recognised equivalence is essential.

 

[scaramanga]

You are proposing undercutting them by reducing regulatory standards. That would make trade with the EU incredibly difficult, expensive and time consuming. It would all but kill off large sections of trade in services with the EU where recognised equivalence is essential.

Standards that are needed for conformance, in my experience, are not nearly as expensive as standards because the EU is a socialist institution at heart.

If we're selling a widget to a country then that country's standards for widgets must be met - services are no different. But that doesn't mean we have to restrict the working week, pay an extortionate minimum wage or offer make brick employees virtually unsackable.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I'm fine with the leaving fine. The whole thing is corrupt. Pay whatever they want to get clear of it.

But the whole point of Brexit is to stop EU laws overriding ours. This will happen for 57m people, but can you really leave the other 3m people in our country under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. It's contrary to the fundamental principles of sovereignty and democracy

 

[milo]

Standards that are needed for conformance, in my experience, are not nearly as expensive as standards because the EU is a socialist institution at heart.

If we're selling a widget to a country then that country's standards for widgets must be met - services are no different. But that doesn't mean we have to restrict the working week, pay an extortionate minimum wage or offer make brick employees virtually unsackable.

The EU isn't a socialist institution and the Single Market certainly isn't but we'll ignore that for the moment.

The friction is caused by the need to prove that you meet those standards and the time and expense of that process.

Within the single market this is taken on trust and there is a single recognised arbitrator for settling disputes.

Outside of the single market, a company wishing to export to the EU will still have to meet those standards but will have to prove that they meet them every time that they export. They can also expect delays whilst those goods are inspected when they enter the EU.

Divergence would also increase the costs on producers because they would have to have separate processes for goods destined for the EU and UK whereas now they only need one.

Services are different because there needs to be equivalence in regulatory regimes. We currently have this within the EU. Outside and with you advocating regulatory divergence, this would be lost.

All of this wouldn't hit all sectors equally. But it is complicated and another barrier to a quick resolution and I am yet to see anything other than speculative benefits of a policy of diverging from EU standards and regulations.

 

[milo]

I'm fine with the leaving fine. The whole thing is corrupt. Pay whatever they want to get clear of it.

But the whole point of Brexit is to stop EU laws overriding ours. This will happen for 57m people, but can you really leave the other 3m people in our country under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. It's contrary to the fundamental principles of sovereignty and democracy

The EFTA court would not leave them under the jurisdiction of a foreign court. EFTA court decisions are advisory, so the final decision would rest with the nation. This would also likely see UK judges sitting on it. This would also be the route of recourse for UK nationals living in the EU, so that would be parity.

There are plenty of supranational courts that have power over the UK. I suppose that you support leaving those too.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

I'm fine with the leaving fine. The whole thing is corrupt. Pay whatever they want to get clear of it.

But the whole point of Brexit is to stop EU laws overriding ours. This will happen for 57m people, but can you really leave the other 3m people in our country under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. It's contrary to the fundamental principles of sovereignty and democracy

For you that was the whole point for others it was the Norwegian model for others it was 350m to the NHS to others it was zero immigration.

Brexit all things to all people