Why not just allow each state to do whatever the fudge they like?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
They can (Portugal and Ireland on GMT not CET) I doubt this will be enforced its just official policy, they were asked by Parliament to investigate and it will be voted on prior to any changes.
The timezone thing is purely geographical, if they could they would have one its better for business.
Member states (Parliament) asked for this its not imposed. This is potentially updating a current EU position (advising dls) to advising against dls there has been no change in "sovereignty", and like Portugal and Ireland now if they want they can continue with dls but I am guessing most want the change.
In which case, isn't it better that the EU does nothing whatsoever (because that is the essence of what it is doing) and avoids spending everyone's money?
No making a change together (if it is desired) brings a lot more benefits than piecemeal and at its heart the EU is still there to facilitate trade and services across the block.
Easily see a situation where its a net negative to make the change solo but a benefit (for all) to make it enmass.
Last edited:
If it makes sense for everyone to make the change en masse then we don't need the EU to arrange it. If it doesn't make sense for all, then unless the EU mandates it, some won't make the change.
Either way, it's a decision that could have been made via a handful of emails - it would be interesting to know the cost of the EU taking the long path to it.
If it's that simple there would be no trading blocs and supranational regulation. others don't agree with you and see the value in the EU. The members see the value even if you don't and this is something they have decided is better served as a joint decision.
Not worth discussing the efficiency of the market with yourself because it will come down to ... Yes it is ... No it isn't
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Anyone got the time?
I don't get why intelligent people still discuss Norway, Canada etc. All will be suboptimal for the UK. Yes a trade deal would be better than No Deal, but any trade deal will involve some form of regulatory conformity to the EU which will a. leave the UK as a rule taker and b. not be as good for the UK as being an EU member where we can help determine the rules. This is obvious is it not? Apparently not.
Simple logic seems lost on some. Reading Liam Fox’s nonsense in the Sun, I think these so called Brexiteer people are simply patriotic and somehow equated Brexit with a love for Britain. They’ve mistakenly convinced themselves that Brexit is a bid for Britain’s strength and autonomy. A movement against the ‘other’ of Europe helps to define us. In this sense it appeals to the most fundamental of human instincts - ‘us’ over the foreign ‘other’. Humans have done this since time begun. All primitive tribes had stories of the ‘other’ tribe over the mountain. Often the other tribe was said to be cannibals. Anthropologists found this over and over amongst indigenous tribes in different continents – a them and us narrative with the other tribe often being identified as cannibals. Yet Anthropologists found almost no examples of cannibalism. The one exception was in papua new guinea where they do like a bit of human meat!
Of course, Brexit is actually against Britain’s strength and autonomy as we lose our position at the top table, and we stop being able to help shape the terms on which we trade (fundamentally most of our trade like all nations, is with our neighbours). We also cease to be involved with new satellite projects, things like Airbus and producing new planes, making and exporting stuff like cars to the EU with the same ease, and profiteering companies are no longer tied to good things like pollution controls, rights for workers or bidden to free calls and free car insurance for us if we cross into the EU.
Make no mistake leaving the EU is a retrograde step for the UK. Its not them against us. It was once not that long ago, when Europe destroyed itself with war. The EU was the reaction to war, allowing nations that had disagreements and violence for centuries to cooperate, trade and prosper. It will be a sad day if we step away and turn partners into the other.
I don't get why intelligent people still discuss Norway, Canada etc. All will be suboptimal for the UK. Yes a trade deal would be better than No Deal, but any trade deal will involve some form of regulatory conformity to the EU which will a. leave the UK as a rule taker and b. not be as good for the UK as being an EU member where we can help determine the rules. This is obvious is it not? Apparently not.
Simple logic seems lost on some. Reading Liam Fox’s nonsense in the Sun, I think these so called Brexiteer people are simply patriotic and somehow equated Brexit with a love for Britain. They’ve mistakenly convinced themselves that Brexit is a bid for Britain’s strength and autonomy. A movement against the ‘other’ of Europe helps to define us. In this sense it appeals to the most fundamental of human instincts - ‘us’ over the foreign ‘other’. Humans have done this since time begun. All primitive tribes had stories of the ‘other’ tribe over the mountain. Often the other tribe was said to be cannibals. Anthropologists found this over and over amongst indigenous tribes in different continents – a them and us narrative with the other tribe often being identified as cannibals. Yet Anthropologists found almost no examples of cannibalism. The one exception was in papua new guinea where they do like a bit of human meat!
Of course, Brexit is actually against Britain’s strength and autonomy as we lose our position at the top table, and we stop being able to help shape the terms on which we trade (fundamentally most of our trade like all nations, is with our neighbours). We also cease to be involved with new satellite projects, things like Airbus and producing new planes, making and exporting stuff like cars to the EU with the same ease, and profiteering companies are no longer tied to good things like pollution controls, rights for workers or bidden to free calls and free car insurance for us if we cross into the EU.
Make no mistake leaving the EU is a retrograde step for the UK. Its not them against us. It was once not that long ago, when Europe destroyed itself with war. The EU was the reaction to war, allowing nations that had disagreements and violence for centuries to cooperate, trade and prosper. It will be a sad day if we step away and turn partners into the other.
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Michel Barnier 'strongly opposed' to May's Brexit plan
This morning the prime minister said she would not compromise on the UK government's Chequers plan.
But Mr Barnier said plans for a "common rulebook" for goods but not services were not in the EU's interests.
"Our own ecosystem has grown over decades," he said. "You can not play with it by picking pieces."
While he has previously expressed criticism about Mrs May's Chequers plan, sources close to Mr Barnier told the BBC he has not been this explicit before.
In response, the UK government insisted its plans were "precise and pragmatic" and would work for the UK and the EU.
The negotiations between the UK and the EU have an informal October deadline, but Mr Barnier said this could be extended to mid-November.
In an interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Mr Barnier said Mrs May's plans "would be the end of the single market and the European project".
"The British have a choice," he said.
"They could stay in the single market, like Norway, which is also not a member of the EU - but they would then have to take over all the associated rules and contributions to European solidarity. It is your choice.
"But if we let the British pick the raisins out of our rules, that would have serious consequences.
"Then all sorts of other third countries could insist that we offer them the same benefits."
He said another problem was that many goods now come with services attached - meaning they were hard to separate in a trade deal.
"We have a coherent market for goods, services, capital and people - our own ecosystem that has grown over decades," he said.
"You can not play with it by picking pieces. There is another reason why I strongly oppose the British proposal.
"There are services in every product. In your mobile phone, for example, it is 20 to 40 percent of the total value."
Mr Barnier's comments were published on the same day Mrs May wrote in the Sunday Telegraph that she was "confident" a "good deal" could be reached.
But she said it was right for the government to prepare for a no-deal scenario - even though this would create "real challenges for both the UK and the EU" in some sectors.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has warned a no-deal Brexit would be a "big mistake for Europe", although Britain "would survive and prosper".
Various business groups have warned about the possible impact on the UK of no-deal Brexit.
The World Trade Organization - under whose rules the EU and UK would trade if no deal was agreed - said it "would not be end of the world... but it's not going to be a walk in the park".
Responding to Mr Barnier's remarks, a government spokeswoman said: "We are confident that we have put forward a proposal that is precise, pragmatic and that will work for the UK and the EU.
"This proposal achieves a new balance of rights and obligations that fulfils our joint ambition to establish a deep and special partnership once the UK has left the EU while preserving the constitutional integrity of the UK. There is no other proposal that does that.
"Our negotiating teams have upped the intensity, and we continue to move at pace to reach - as Mr Barnier says - an ambitious partnership, which will work in the mutual interests of citizens and businesses in the UK and in the EU."
The so-called Chequers plan was agreed at the prime minister's country residence in July. It led to the resignations of Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
Mr Barnier has previously criticised the proposals, ruling out allowing the UK to collect customs duties on behalf of the EU.
The UK is due to leave the EU on 29 March but has yet to agree how its final relationship with the bloc will work.
- 2 September 2018
This morning the prime minister said she would not compromise on the UK government's Chequers plan.
But Mr Barnier said plans for a "common rulebook" for goods but not services were not in the EU's interests.
"Our own ecosystem has grown over decades," he said. "You can not play with it by picking pieces."
While he has previously expressed criticism about Mrs May's Chequers plan, sources close to Mr Barnier told the BBC he has not been this explicit before.
In response, the UK government insisted its plans were "precise and pragmatic" and would work for the UK and the EU.
The negotiations between the UK and the EU have an informal October deadline, but Mr Barnier said this could be extended to mid-November.
In an interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Mr Barnier said Mrs May's plans "would be the end of the single market and the European project".
"The British have a choice," he said.
"They could stay in the single market, like Norway, which is also not a member of the EU - but they would then have to take over all the associated rules and contributions to European solidarity. It is your choice.
"But if we let the British pick the raisins out of our rules, that would have serious consequences.
"Then all sorts of other third countries could insist that we offer them the same benefits."
He said another problem was that many goods now come with services attached - meaning they were hard to separate in a trade deal.
"We have a coherent market for goods, services, capital and people - our own ecosystem that has grown over decades," he said.
"You can not play with it by picking pieces. There is another reason why I strongly oppose the British proposal.
"There are services in every product. In your mobile phone, for example, it is 20 to 40 percent of the total value."
Mr Barnier's comments were published on the same day Mrs May wrote in the Sunday Telegraph that she was "confident" a "good deal" could be reached.
But she said it was right for the government to prepare for a no-deal scenario - even though this would create "real challenges for both the UK and the EU" in some sectors.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has warned a no-deal Brexit would be a "big mistake for Europe", although Britain "would survive and prosper".
Various business groups have warned about the possible impact on the UK of no-deal Brexit.
The World Trade Organization - under whose rules the EU and UK would trade if no deal was agreed - said it "would not be end of the world... but it's not going to be a walk in the park".
Responding to Mr Barnier's remarks, a government spokeswoman said: "We are confident that we have put forward a proposal that is precise, pragmatic and that will work for the UK and the EU.
"This proposal achieves a new balance of rights and obligations that fulfils our joint ambition to establish a deep and special partnership once the UK has left the EU while preserving the constitutional integrity of the UK. There is no other proposal that does that.
"Our negotiating teams have upped the intensity, and we continue to move at pace to reach - as Mr Barnier says - an ambitious partnership, which will work in the mutual interests of citizens and businesses in the UK and in the EU."
The so-called Chequers plan was agreed at the prime minister's country residence in July. It led to the resignations of Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
Mr Barnier has previously criticised the proposals, ruling out allowing the UK to collect customs duties on behalf of the EU.
The UK is due to leave the EU on 29 March but has yet to agree how its final relationship with the bloc will work.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Victory for Brussels is inevitable. In adopting Chequers, we have gone into battle waving the white flag
2 SEPTEMBER 2018 • 10:00PM
So it’s ding ding! Seconds out! And we begin the final round of that international slug fest, the Brexit negotiations. Out of their corners come Dominic Raab and Michel Barnier, shrugging their shoulders and beating their chests – and I just hope you aren’t one of those trusting souls who still thinks it could really go either way. The fix is in. The whole thing is about as pre-ordained as a bout between Giant Haystacks and Big Daddy; and in this case, I am afraid, the inevitable outcome is a victory for the EU, with the UK lying flat on the canvas with 12 stars circling symbolically over our semi-conscious head.
I suppose there may be some aspects of the Chequers proposals that they pretend not to like. They may puff about “cherry picking” the single market. There may be some confected groaning and twanging of leotards when it comes to the discussion on free movement. But the reality is that in this negotiation the EU has so far taken every important trick. The UK has agreed to hand over £40 billion of taxpayers’ money for two thirds of diddly squat.
In adopting the Chequers proposals, we have gone into battle with the white flag fluttering over our leading tank. If we continue on this basis we will throw away most of the advantages of Brexit. By agreeing to a “common rulebook” with the EU – over which we have no control – we are making it impossible for the UK to be more competitive, to innovate, to deviate, to initiate, and we are ruling out major free trade deals.
If we go ahead with the Chequers proposals, we are forswearing the project of Global Britain – so splendidly articulated by the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech of January 17 2017 – and abandoning the notion of the UK as a proud independent economic actor. We will remain in the EU taxi; but this time locked in the boot, with absolutely no say on the destination. We won’t have taken back control – we will have lost control. We will serve as a terrible warning to any other EU country thinking of changing its relationship with Brussels: that even the UK, the fifth biggest economy in the world, was unable to break free of the gravitational pull of the EU, and forced to sue for humiliating terms.
Of course I hope that the PM will still change course – and rediscover the elan and dynamism of Lancaster House. With more than two years until the end of the implementation period, there is still ample time to save Brexit. If we are to do so, we must go back to the issue of the Northern Irish border, which has been so ingeniously manipulated – both by Brussels and parts of the UK Government – so as to keep Britain effectively in the customs union and in the single market.
Instead of really tackling the problem of the Irish border we have allowed it to be occluded by myths. It is a myth – pure nonsense – to suggest that there is “no border” today. Of course there is a border. There are two jurisdictions, and on either side you will find plenty of differences: different educational systems, different health systems, different excise duties on diesel or booze – and in so far as there are criminals who exploit those differentials, they face the full sanctions of the law, but away from the border.
It is a myth to say that you could create an effective “hard border” – not with more crossing points than the whole of eastern Europe, and not when any such infrastructure would be a target for criminals of one kind or another. You couldn’t make it work even if you wanted to; and no one does.
And above all it is a total myth to say that you need a hard border. You don’t need to check people – because we already have the Common Travel Area, and that will be unaffected by Brexit. You don’t need to check goods at the frontier, for all sorts of reasons. As it happens, the UK and Ireland are already very sparing in their checks on goods entering from outside the EU – only four per cent get checked by the UK and only one per cent by Ireland. In so far as either side might want to do checks, it could be done away from the border, not least since the volume of trade is so small. Only 5 per cent of Northern Ireland’s GDP goes to Ireland, and only 1.6 per cent of Irish exports go to Northern Ireland. There are only about 50 large companies that trade across the frontier, and their goods could be subject to spot checks in warehouses or at points of sale – not at the border. As for small traders and farmers, they should obviously be given a de minimis exemption. For every problem, there is a potential solution.
The tragedy is that as soon as the UK voted for Brexit, the Irish began working on those solutions – and were amazed, as the months went by, to find that the UK was not really interested. We seemed lost in an eternal dither about whether really to leave the customs union and single market. We couldn’t make up our minds, for month after month.
It is now clear that some in the UK Government never wanted solutions. They wanted to use that problem to stop a proper Brexit. Solving Ireland would mean a solution for Dover-Calais, and they didn’t really want that. They wanted essentially to stay in, and to create a Brexit in name only.
They have been rumbled. People can see Chequers means disaster. The answer is not to lurch for a Norway or EEA option that is actually more humiliating than Chequers: it would mean taking even more rules from Brussels (on services, for instance) – and does not fix Ireland.
The answer is to go for the one solution that both delivers Brexit and treats all the UK in the same way: a big and generous Free Trade Deal, with intimate partnerships on foreign policy, justice, and all the rest – as adumbrated at Lancaster House.
Of course that means fixing the Irish border problem. It is fixable. The scandal is not that we have failed, but that we have not even tried.
At a glance | Theresa May's Chequers deal
At the core of the proposal is the establishment of a “free trade area for goods” to “avoid friction at the border, protect jobs and livelihoods, and ensure both sides meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland”.
Key details of the plan include:
2 SEPTEMBER 2018 • 10:00PM
So it’s ding ding! Seconds out! And we begin the final round of that international slug fest, the Brexit negotiations. Out of their corners come Dominic Raab and Michel Barnier, shrugging their shoulders and beating their chests – and I just hope you aren’t one of those trusting souls who still thinks it could really go either way. The fix is in. The whole thing is about as pre-ordained as a bout between Giant Haystacks and Big Daddy; and in this case, I am afraid, the inevitable outcome is a victory for the EU, with the UK lying flat on the canvas with 12 stars circling symbolically over our semi-conscious head.
I suppose there may be some aspects of the Chequers proposals that they pretend not to like. They may puff about “cherry picking” the single market. There may be some confected groaning and twanging of leotards when it comes to the discussion on free movement. But the reality is that in this negotiation the EU has so far taken every important trick. The UK has agreed to hand over £40 billion of taxpayers’ money for two thirds of diddly squat.
In adopting the Chequers proposals, we have gone into battle with the white flag fluttering over our leading tank. If we continue on this basis we will throw away most of the advantages of Brexit. By agreeing to a “common rulebook” with the EU – over which we have no control – we are making it impossible for the UK to be more competitive, to innovate, to deviate, to initiate, and we are ruling out major free trade deals.
If we go ahead with the Chequers proposals, we are forswearing the project of Global Britain – so splendidly articulated by the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech of January 17 2017 – and abandoning the notion of the UK as a proud independent economic actor. We will remain in the EU taxi; but this time locked in the boot, with absolutely no say on the destination. We won’t have taken back control – we will have lost control. We will serve as a terrible warning to any other EU country thinking of changing its relationship with Brussels: that even the UK, the fifth biggest economy in the world, was unable to break free of the gravitational pull of the EU, and forced to sue for humiliating terms.
Of course I hope that the PM will still change course – and rediscover the elan and dynamism of Lancaster House. With more than two years until the end of the implementation period, there is still ample time to save Brexit. If we are to do so, we must go back to the issue of the Northern Irish border, which has been so ingeniously manipulated – both by Brussels and parts of the UK Government – so as to keep Britain effectively in the customs union and in the single market.
Instead of really tackling the problem of the Irish border we have allowed it to be occluded by myths. It is a myth – pure nonsense – to suggest that there is “no border” today. Of course there is a border. There are two jurisdictions, and on either side you will find plenty of differences: different educational systems, different health systems, different excise duties on diesel or booze – and in so far as there are criminals who exploit those differentials, they face the full sanctions of the law, but away from the border.
It is a myth to say that you could create an effective “hard border” – not with more crossing points than the whole of eastern Europe, and not when any such infrastructure would be a target for criminals of one kind or another. You couldn’t make it work even if you wanted to; and no one does.
And above all it is a total myth to say that you need a hard border. You don’t need to check people – because we already have the Common Travel Area, and that will be unaffected by Brexit. You don’t need to check goods at the frontier, for all sorts of reasons. As it happens, the UK and Ireland are already very sparing in their checks on goods entering from outside the EU – only four per cent get checked by the UK and only one per cent by Ireland. In so far as either side might want to do checks, it could be done away from the border, not least since the volume of trade is so small. Only 5 per cent of Northern Ireland’s GDP goes to Ireland, and only 1.6 per cent of Irish exports go to Northern Ireland. There are only about 50 large companies that trade across the frontier, and their goods could be subject to spot checks in warehouses or at points of sale – not at the border. As for small traders and farmers, they should obviously be given a de minimis exemption. For every problem, there is a potential solution.
The tragedy is that as soon as the UK voted for Brexit, the Irish began working on those solutions – and were amazed, as the months went by, to find that the UK was not really interested. We seemed lost in an eternal dither about whether really to leave the customs union and single market. We couldn’t make up our minds, for month after month.
It is now clear that some in the UK Government never wanted solutions. They wanted to use that problem to stop a proper Brexit. Solving Ireland would mean a solution for Dover-Calais, and they didn’t really want that. They wanted essentially to stay in, and to create a Brexit in name only.
They have been rumbled. People can see Chequers means disaster. The answer is not to lurch for a Norway or EEA option that is actually more humiliating than Chequers: it would mean taking even more rules from Brussels (on services, for instance) – and does not fix Ireland.
The answer is to go for the one solution that both delivers Brexit and treats all the UK in the same way: a big and generous Free Trade Deal, with intimate partnerships on foreign policy, justice, and all the rest – as adumbrated at Lancaster House.
Of course that means fixing the Irish border problem. It is fixable. The scandal is not that we have failed, but that we have not even tried.
At a glance | Theresa May's Chequers deal
At the core of the proposal is the establishment of a “free trade area for goods” to “avoid friction at the border, protect jobs and livelihoods, and ensure both sides meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland”.
Key details of the plan include:
- The UK and EU agreeing a “common rulebook for all goods including agri-foods”, with British ministers committing in a treaty to ongoing harmonisation with Brussels rules necessary to provide for frictionless trade at ports and the border with Ireland.
- The UK Parliament would have the ability to choose not to incorporate future rules, but accepts there would be “consequences” for trade.
- A “regulatory flexibility” for services. Neither side would enjoy “current levels of access” to each other’s markets.
- A common rulebook on state aid would be agreed, preventing either side from subsidising their own industries.
- A joint institutional framework will be established to oversee UK-EU agreements, with the UK agreeing to pay “due regard” to EU case law in areas where the common rulebook applies.
- A “facilitated customs agreement” would remove the need for customs checks by treating the UK and EU “as if a combined customs territory”.
- The UK would apply the EU’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the bloc but would be able to control its own tariffs and trade for the domestic market.
This isn't a complex issue, it doesn't need overreach from a supranational entity.
This is simple question; Does abolishing daylight saving time benefit your country?
If the answer is a unanimous "Yes" then change it. If there are some who don't want to then it would require being enforced or we'll have to live with differing time zones.
In either of those situations, the existence and meddling of the EU makes the result more expensive and possibly less desirable.
The primary goal of the EU is to facilitate trade and remove unnecessary barriers - having varying timezones throughout the bloc is a barrier to trade (it really is) so making a move is only beneficial if all do. Negotiating this 25 times is more costly than once.
This is what the EU was set up to do (facilitate internal trade) and it does this part of its remit quite well. If you are arguing against the existence of the EU that's fine but to argue against the EU doing its primary job is a bit perverse.
The trade bit has always been done fairly well, I'd be very much for membership of the EU if it were the trade body we signed up to.
In light of everything else the EU has done and tried to do, this seems unlikely to be simply in the interests of trade. In fact, this feels very much like one of those "ever closer assimilation" aims of theirs.
Even if you feel it is not primarily linked to trade this is not "ever closer assimilation" its updating current policy, there is no closer assimilation as they are already assimilated. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/summertime_en
although it is regards to standardizing the dates for DLS its updating existing legislation from 2000 (1981 first legislation) this is a review of that policy.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0084
reasons given include:
(2) Given that the Member States apply summer-time arrangements, it is important for the functioning of the internal market that a common date and time for the beginning and end of the summer-time period be fixed throughout the Community.
(7) Given that the complete harmonisation of the timetable for the summer-time period with a view to facilitating transport and communications cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may take measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. This Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.
...which brings me back to my question. If the EU is essentially doing nothing, why is the EU using my taxes to do that nothing?