Mark wrote: Also, many UK companies are inextricably linked to EU companies (think BAe / Airbus etc.) The location of these jobs could easily change.
What do call an airbus without wings? .... A bus!
Mark. Post Brexit you are doomed. It will be awful, nobody to give you direction in your life, other people not thinking for you, everything you eat, drink, consume will be taken away from you.
However, those employed in the chemical legal industry, well, its basically 'la dulce vita'.
stumuz1 wrote:Also think of the US jobs currently coming to the UK to dodge Chinese NTB's in response to Trumps trade war.
There is a chemical company buying land adjacent to its site to facilitate this.
Remember Mark, the EU is not the be all and end all of trade.
There always will be a balance of jobs created/lost.
The EU is (currently) our biggest trading partner - in the event of a Hard Brexit, I'm sure that many jobs will be lost in UK based companies that trade significantly with the EU.
For your example, I know a chemical company with advanced plans to move production to Spain because of Brexit.
As you say, some other jobs will be created - the crux is whether these will be of equivalent number and value (not sweatshop jobs).
I believe not, you believe so - after all, this is a forum for debate.
No problem agreeing to disagree
Last edited by Mark on 31 Oct 2018, 13:37, edited 1 time in total.
Mark wrote: Also, many UK companies are inextricably linked to EU companies (think BAe / Airbus etc.) The location of these jobs could easily change.
What do call an airbus without wings? .... A bus!
Mark. Post Brexit you are doomed. It will be awful, nobody to give you direction in your life, other people not thinking for you, everything you eat, drink, consume will be taken away from you.
However, those employed in the chemical legal industry, well, its basically 'la dulce vita'.
But the independent life is not for everyone.
I believe that some impacts will be seen fairly soon after leaving, but others will only filter in over the medium/longer term....
Equally, wings without a body won't get you very far....., obviously Airbus won't stop buying wings from the UK the day after Brexit, but I believe Brexit will have an impact on their future investment decisions...
The rest of your comments are designed to be antagonistic, so aren't worth responding to.
I've never said whether I voted for/against or abstained.
Maybe a step closer to a Brexit deal, but not really close
There was a lot of excitement in the financial markets of an apparent Brexit deal on financial services. We are in the deal-around-the-corner phase of the negotiations. We should remember that it is the secret wish of every Brexit reporter in the UK to be the first one to have the "Brexit agreed" story on the front page. The reality is that the situation is moving along, with new proposals and discussions, some useful and some not, but we are not yet close to a breakthrough.
As we and other commentators have noted, the various red lines are logically incompatible. You can fudge legal constraints - like the requirement that Art. 50 can only regulate a temporary trade agreement. But agreement would require that some of the red lines are visibly eroded. That has not happened yet.Â
We note a report in the FT this morning that the EU is ready to grant the UK a bare-bones customs union as part of the Irish backstop. We assume, but cannot be certain from the story, that bare-bones refers to an EU-level type trade agreement, the kind which does not require ratification by member states. A bare-bones all-UK customs union would not replace the need for a full Irish backstop according to the report, but it would at least solve the issue of a customs border in the Irish channel. The regulatory regimes for Northern Ireland and the UK mainland would still be different, but the hope is to reduce the difference to shades of grey, as opposed to black and white.
We believe this is certainly a useful direction as it would help secure majorities for a deal. A bare-bones customs union would still not address the criticism by eurosceptics that the withdrawal treaty could keep the UK tied to the EU indefinitely. It might assuage the DUP, and thus change the parliamentary arithmetic. It is important to understand that, whatever number of votes Theresa May fails to secure from her own party and from the DUP, she will require votes from the Labour Party. Passage of the withdrawal bill will be an act of political arbitrage and parliamentary arithmetic. We have no deal at this stage because the numbers are not there.
The FT writes that the UK government will respond to this new suggestion next week. If there is no breakthrough by then, chances of a Brexit deal this month would fade. The idea also faces potential obstacles from countries - we presume France among them - who raised level-playing field arguments, as the UK would not be subject to EU rules on state aid or other single-market restrictions.Â
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
I am sick to the back teeth of this bullshit about the Irish "problem".
There is no problem, save for a manufactured one by our political classes as an expedience to push the agenda of remaining in the EU, in part or in whole, in all but name.
Northern Ireland, until and unless it votes for secession, which it is free to do at any time under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, is a part of the UK. End of story. Southern Ireland is not. Also end of story.
However, to the extent that the people of Northern and Southern Ireland wish to have continued ease of capacity to travel and work in each other's territory, this could be achieved by a special visa system open to only to Southern and Northern Irish citizens whereby they could be waived through the border with little fuss. Anyone else would be required to fulfill the usual requirements of someone entering another country.
As for goods and services, well they can be as easy or as difficult to manage as the Southern Irish government and EU wish to make them. There is clearly no desire, in principle, on the part of the British to make things difficult (though, as I said, in practice, some in the British political class are trying to make things difficult on the EU's behalf). So, if the EU play silly buggers, then this may cause Southern Ireland to reconsider its allegiance to the EU project. Or it may not.
Little John wrote:As for goods and services, well they can be as easy or as difficult to manage as the Southern Irish government and EU wish to make them. There is clearly no desire, in principle, on the part of the British to make things difficult (though, as I said, in practice, some in the British political class are trying to make things difficult on the EU's behalf). So, if the EU play silly buggers, then this may cause Southern Ireland to reconsider its allegiance to the EU project. Or it may not.
But, that is their choice.
On goods, if the rules, regulations and tariffs vary between the EU and UK, then surely there has to be physical border checks or it's a back door meaning neither EU or UK can ensure their specific rules, regulations and tariffs are being respected. In fact don't WTO rules insist members control borders for this reason?
Lord Beria3 wrote:
We note a report in the FT this morning that the EU is ready to grant the UK a bare-bones customs union as part of the Irish backstop. We assume, but cannot be certain from the story, that bare-bones refers to an EU-level type trade agreement, the kind which does not require ratification by member states. A bare-bones all-UK customs union would not replace the need for a full Irish backstop according to the report, but it would at least solve the issue of a customs border in the Irish channel.
Already shot down, because the EU states that currently steal most of our fish don't want to allow a "temporary" backstop customs union that allows the UK to sell seafood tariff-free to the EU, without a guarantee they can continue to steal our fish.
Who cares about the tariff? Those are our fish. TM cannot afford to cross that red line. Too important a factor driving the leave vote.
clv101 wrote:
On goods, if the rules, regulations and tariffs vary between the EU and UK, then surely there has to be physical border checks or it's a back door meaning neither EU or UK can ensure their specific rules, regulations and tariffs are being respected.
No.
First of all, there is a hard border in Ireland. Currency, VAT, customs, tariffs.
Eg, there is a constant flow of cars from Roi to Newry ASDA, most days. Reason? A bottle of sparkling wine is 18 euro in Roi and £3.99 in Newry ASDA because of' their specific rules, regulations and tariffs'
As for checks, Known consignor schemes operate across the world, including UK.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Already shot down, because the EU states that currently steal most of our fish don't want to allow a "temporary" backstop customs union that allows the UK to sell seafood tariff-free to the EU, without a guarantee they can continue to steal our fish.
Who cares about the tariff? Those are our fish. TM cannot afford to cross that red line. Too important a factor driving the leave vote.
I thought that obtaining access to our fishing grounds was one of the main reasons that the common market invited us in, decades ago.
Allowing continued EU access to our fishing grounds is no doubt high on the EU wish list.
I will be very surprised if we regain exclusive control on independence day.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
clv101 wrote:
On goods, if the rules, regulations and tariffs vary between the EU and UK, then surely there has to be physical border checks or it's a back door meaning neither EU or UK can ensure their specific rules, regulations and tariffs are being respected.
No.
First of all, there is a hard border in Ireland. Currency, VAT, customs, tariffs.
Eg, there is a constant flow of cars from Roi to Newry ASDA, most days. Reason? A bottle of sparkling wine is 18 euro in Roi and £3.99 in Newry ASDA because of' their specific rules, regulations and tariffs'
As for checks, Known consignor schemes operate across the world, including UK.
If, for sake of argument, the UK started importing chlorinated chicken (or adopted the practice ourselves), then wouldn't there have to be a hard border to ensure such products couldn't enter EU? How else could the EU ensure no such chicken got into their market?
adam2 wrote:
I will be very surprised if we regain exclusive control on independence day.
It will be viewed as a total betrayal if we don't. This, along with ending FoM, is why I voted to leave the EU.
Careful there UC. I a frequent reader of this site have no idea what a FoM is so I cant understand your post. Acronyms are useful but usually defined when first used in a paper or article.To use one undefined far removed from it's last definition leaves a large group of readers that arn't immersed in the subject and it's literature confused as to your meaning.
clv101 wrote:
If, for sake of argument, the UK started importing chlorinated chicken (or adopted the practice ourselves), then wouldn't there have to be a hard border to ensure such products couldn't enter EU? How else could the EU ensure no such chicken got into their market?
Well, If we start importing or producing chlorinated chicken then that will be our decision. A sovereign parliament making laws that if you don't like them, you can vote them out.
As for the EU. They have played Dublin like a fiddle. The checks can be done away from the border, as the French do. The French make unannounced visits to shops, market stalls, distribution warehouses or anyone who sells food to check origin, quality, descriptions. And yet the EU says this cannot be done for a tiny amount of trade north -south in Ireland.
There will be no physical border in Ireland. First because the UK have said there won't. Second, Roi won't enforce one because it does not fit with their victim narrative.
clv101 wrote:
If, for sake of argument, the UK started importing chlorinated chicken (or adopted the practice ourselves), then wouldn't there have to be a hard border to ensure such products couldn't enter EU? How else could the EU ensure no such chicken got into their market?
Well, If we start importing or producing chlorinated chicken then that will be our decision. A sovereign parliament making laws that if you don't like them, you can vote them out.
I wasn't saying about chlorinated chicken, just for sake of argument.
stumuz1 wrote:As for the EU. They have played Dublin like a fiddle. The checks can be done away from the border, as the French do. The French make unannounced visits to shops, market stalls, distribution warehouses or anyone who sells food to check origin, quality, descriptions. And yet the EU says this cannot be done for a tiny amount of trade north -south in Ireland.
Okay, are these kind of checks enough though? Not just for food, but for all products where rules and regulations can be expected to drift. 20 years down the line, after the UK has chosen not to mirror all future EU rules and has many unilateral trade deals, importing all manner of things (with/without tariffs) not compliant with EU rules, it seems impossible.
stumuz1 wrote:There will be no physical border in Ireland. First because the UK have said there won't. Second, Roi won't enforce one because it does not fit with their victim narrative.
Those two points don't seem to address how two countries with different rules and different tariffs can actually avoid a border though.
