Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
Just listened to a very interesting exchange of views between the justices and the present QC which seemed to be leaning towards the Government and certainly that it would not be telling the Government what it is required to do in the HOC.
The justice suggested that if there was a large vote of MP's in favour of serving A50 he couldn't see how the justices could grant an injunction against the serving of A50. However as the exchanges continued Sky switched away and they have done this before and it is so frustrating
I wonder if the justice had tonight's vote in mind
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
Under what circumstances would the EU invoke tariffs on our car industry that wouldn't result in the mutual destruction of a multitude of their industries ?
Be realistic..
Umnmm: unfortunately, I don't think that's true. Because the auto industry has multi-country supply chains, cutting us 'out' would harm us far more than them. Simply, we don't have enough of an auto component industry in the UK.
But then other industries would be "out" for the Uk. All these tales of woe suggest we would stand back like a pinata and take a free beating. We have a massive balance of trade deficit with the EU...
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it
If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).
To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.
I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
I think we'd also want to remain part of the medicines agency
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it
If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).
To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.
At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it
If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).
To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.
At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.
3/1 is still good value.
EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.
I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?
Are there any Tory remainers in remain seats, except May & Hammond who are obviously completely wedded to the Government's position ?
I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?
Are there any Tory remainers in remain seats, except May & Hammond who are obviously completely wedded to the Government's position ?
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
Under what circumstances would the EU invoke tariffs on our car industry that wouldn't result in the mutual destruction of a multitude of their industries ?
Be realistic..
Umnmm: unfortunately, I don't think that's true. Because the auto industry has multi-country supply chains, cutting us 'out' would harm us far more than them. Simply, we don't have enough of an auto component industry in the UK.
But then other industries would be "out" for the Uk. All these tales of woe suggest we would stand back like a pinata and take a free beating. We have a massive balance of trade deficit with the EU...
Surely the trade deficit means *we* benefit. They send us money, we spend the money on their products. We get the products, and they get worthless bits of paper.
If we stopped buying German cars, they would stop accumulating worthless credits, and would all get to drive new Mercedes.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.
What's the FedEx arrow thing?
Is it like Colonel Sanders' tie actually being little arms and legs?
Look at the white space between the last E and the X It makes a rightwards pointing arrow (and this is deliberate)
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
Only if you want to wilfully delude yourself about the nature of the Common Market.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?
Yep that was not one of the difficult ones was it?
Slightly more difficult, and relevant to the last thread, is the Supreme Court decision on Brexit. I was gainfully employed this morning and didn't see it but the chat at lunch was that Pannick got a bit of a doing this morning. Is there value in the government winning? Maybe there is.
Which of the judges was doing the doing ?
As I say I didn't see it but I was told it was Lord Kerr and Lord Neuberger leading the charge.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
Wasn't Prussia's ,,Zollverein'' the original "Common Market"?
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it
If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).
To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.
At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.
3/1 is still good value.
EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it
If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).
To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.
At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.
3/1 is still good value.
EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.
That's what we say in this office... not sure it applies as much to the Supreme Court though
I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?
There were 382 official "counting areas" for EURef.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?
The downside is that - while we're in it - we need to keep our tariffs synchronised with the EU's. That means that we can't unilaterally cut the tariff on (for example) cars to 1%.
*But*, the weighted average mean tariff for goods coming into the EU is just 1.0%* **, and that's below most large trading blocs and countries***. Sure we might want to cut the tariffs on cars down the line, but there's no rush to do so.
Unfortunately, I think it may be politically unacceptable. It's not taking back control if we don't get to set the tariff on imported steel.
* http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS ** the weighted average tariffs flatter the EU, as they are pulled down by lots of tariff free oil and gas *** Canada is 0,8%, but pretty much everyone else is higher
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
Wasn't Prussia's ,,Zollverein'' the original "Common Market"?
I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?
There were 382 official "counting areas" for EURef.
LEAVE won 263 of those REMAIN won only 119
And?
Some of the more fuckwitted Leavers want to see the whip removed from MPs who vote in line with their constituents.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?
I don't think there are many downsides for us. The problem is we'd be 'free rider' on the rest of the EU, so they would have little incentive to go along with it. So we could cut a deal with Turkey and import their carpets with a low tariff and then re-export them to the rest of the EU. I imagine it would be a non-starter unless the EU's strategy is to be really really nice to us to encourage us back.
I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?
There were 382 official "counting areas" for EURef.
re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?
It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.
Under what circumstances would the EU invoke tariffs on our car industry that wouldn't result in the mutual destruction of a multitude of their industries ?
Be realistic..
Umnmm: unfortunately, I don't think that's true. Because the auto industry has multi-country supply chains, cutting us 'out' would harm us far more than them. Simply, we don't have enough of an auto component industry in the UK.
But under those circumstances, we pretty soon would have.
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it
If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).
To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.
At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.
3/1 is still good value.
EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.
I was once rash enough to give a client 90%, but only because the other side's case was the legal equivalent of a banzai charge. And, in fairness, we did win.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?
I don't think there are many downsides for us. The problem is we'd be 'free rider' on the rest of the EU, so they would have little incentive to go along with it. So we could cut a deal with Turkey and import their carpets with a low tariff and then re-export them to the rest of the EU. I imagine it would be a non-starter unless the EU's strategy is to be really really nice to us to encourage us back.
I think the EU would love to be in a customs union with us, especially if we were still paying into a bunch of EU programmes.
"Look at those foolish Brits, reduced to the status of Turkey, but with a bigger bill."
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?
I don't think there are many downsides for us. The problem is we'd be 'free rider' on the rest of the EU, so they would have little incentive to go along with it. So we could cut a deal with Turkey and import their carpets with a low tariff and then re-export them to the rest of the EU. I imagine it would be a non-starter unless the EU's strategy is to be really really nice to us to encourage us back.
I think the EU would love to be in a customs union with us, especially if we were still paying into a bunch of EU programmes.
"Look at those foolish Brits, reduced to the status of Turkey, but with a bigger bill."
I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing the IDS tendency that they're wrong.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?
I don't think there are many downsides for us. The problem is we'd be 'free rider' on the rest of the EU, so they would have little incentive to go along with it. So we could cut a deal with Turkey and import their carpets with a low tariff and then re-export them to the rest of the EU. I imagine it would be a non-starter unless the EU's strategy is to be really really nice to us to encourage us back.
I think the EU would love to be in a customs union with us, especially if we were still paying into a bunch of EU programmes.
"Look at those foolish Brits, reduced to the status of Turkey, but with a bigger bill."
I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing the IDS tendency that they're wrong.
Sadly, IDS is an idiot, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between 'a' and 'the'.
Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?
The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.
Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it
If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).
To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.
At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.
3/1 is still good value.
EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.
I was once rash enough to give a client 90%, but only because the other side's case was the legal equivalent of a banzai charge. And, in fairness, we did win.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.
Client of mine was one of the founders of FedEx. I could ask him if it was intentional if you like?
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?
I don't think there are many downsides for us. The problem is we'd be 'free rider' on the rest of the EU, so they would have little incentive to go along with it. So we could cut a deal with Turkey and import their carpets with a low tariff and then re-export them to the rest of the EU. I imagine it would be a non-starter unless the EU's strategy is to be really really nice to us to encourage us back.
I think the EU would love to be in a customs union with us, especially if we were still paying into a bunch of EU programmes.
"Look at those foolish Brits, reduced to the status of Turkey, but with a bigger bill."
I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing the IDS tendency that they're wrong.
Sadly, IDS is an idiot, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between 'a' and 'the'.
And how many supposed experts don't appear to understand the difference between being in the Single Market and having tariff-free access to the Single Market?
Incidentally, they have some very strange customs in parts of europe. Not sure I want to be part of that union.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?
There were 382 official "counting areas" for EURef.
LEAVE won 263 of those REMAIN won only 119
And?
Some of the more fuckwitted Leavers want to see the whip removed from MPs who vote in line with their constituents.
It's more reasonable to suggest that MPs vote in line with how they voted on the Referendum Bill.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.
Client of mine was one of the founders of FedEx. I could ask him if it was intentional if you like?
I had always understood that it is intentional, but it would be great to have confirmation. As for Donald Trump's Time horns, I'm less sure.
On the topic of company logos, one of the companies we deal with has a logo that looks a lot like a set of male genitalia, complete with pubic hair. No kidding.
Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?
Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.
Client of mine was one of the founders of FedEx. I could ask him if it was intentional if you like?
I had always understood that it is intentional, but it would be great to have confirmation. As for Donald Trump's Time horns, I'm less sure.
I was initially cautious about the Justices but having listened to them over the last three days they do seem to be aware of the controversial nature of this case and I am growing in confidence that they will make a ruling that is more nuanced than the High Court and I expect it will have a nod to each side and that the process will return then to the HOC.
I expect TM will provide an overview of the UK's position and then seek a straight vote on A50, maybe even before 31st March 2017
Mr. NorthWales, I'm not paying attention because the saturation coverage bores me, but it's worth remembering people said the same of Lord Hutton before his conclusions emerged.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
WTO people, WTO. This angels dancing on the head of a pin argument about the 'deal' just so we can keep the EU making more money off us than we do off them is RISIBLE. Exactly the sort of nonsense that made people vote for Brexit in the first place. World piggy bank Britain has to stop whilst we still have a pot to piss in.
Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.
Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?
No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?
Practically speaking there is only one potential downside, I believe, which is that we would be unable to set our tariffs with third countries competitively lower than the EU. However, outside of a customs unions with the EU we would probably BE OBLIGED to set our tariffs to zero or very low, while attracting tariffs on our goods that are the same as the ones third countries give to the EU, or higher.
Tariffs on our imports will be set by our WTO Most Favoured Nation schedules. Third countries are only likely to agree those schedules if they are at least as good as the tariff regime they already incur on trade with us, which they possibly get via a preferential trade agreement with the EU. And under MFN rules you have to give your best tariffs to everyone. On the other hand the third country will give us THEIR MFN tariffs which are possibly higher than those they gave via a preferential trade agreement with the EU. They cannot give the UK lower tariffs under MFN without lowering tariffs for everyone else. Finally, if third countries already get our best tariffs without having to reciprocate they don't have a lot of incentive to do an FTA with us. In any case no-one wants to do them anymore.
I wouldn't however dismiss downsides for Brexit headbangers. There is a lot of rhetoric in it and just explaining all this stuff goes to show how mediocre Brexit will be.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
But presumably Israel can't export to the EU via Turkey?
WTO people, WTO. This angels dancing on the head of a pin argument about the 'deal' just so we can keep the EU making more money off us than we do off them is RISIBLE. Exactly the sort of nonsense that made people vote for Brexit in the first place. World piggy bank Britain has to stop whilst we still have a pot to piss in.
But even if we go WTO, I presume we're still going to remain members of some EU administered programmes, right?
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
But presumably Israel can't export to the EU via Turkey?
Of course; that's true of EEA countries too. Switzerland has an FTA with China, and an FTA with the EU. This doesn't mean you can import iPhones into Switzerland and then back out to the UK.
If Hillary had won wouldn't it still be a "Divided States of America"?
Incidentally, she only carried 20 States plus Washington DC.
the divided states of america is not a reference to the result, it is in the manner of which this election was fought which revealed the deep divisions of america. no one can say that wasn't a divisive campaign. but atleast an MP wasn't shot dead I suppose.
WTO people, WTO. This angels dancing on the head of a pin argument about the 'deal' just so we can keep the EU making more money off us than we do off them is RISIBLE. Exactly the sort of nonsense that made people vote for Brexit in the first place. World piggy bank Britain has to stop whilst we still have a pot to piss in.
But even if we go WTO, I presume we're still going to remain members of some EU administered programmes, right?
Or is Erasmus or CERN a step too far?
I don't know enough about either to make an informed judgement on their value, and I can't say that either suggestion intrigues me enough to explore further.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Not in the customs union, but in a customs union with the EU. The difference is subtle, but the latter makes a lot more sense.
Am I the only one finding James Wolffe unimpressive ?
Former Dean of Faculty no less. But yes. Richard Kean did an eloquent hatchet job on him yesterday quoting amongst other things a paper by a certain James Wolffe.
With the greatest of respect to him it is really not clear why the Scottish government thought it was useful to intervene in this.
If there was a world of zero tarrifs, quotas, import & export restrictions which countries would benefit & which would suffer from the current status quo ?
If there was a world of zero tarrifs, quotas, import & export restrictions which countries would benefit & which would suffer from the current status quo ?
Countries which subsidise their industries would do well and countries which import goods and export services would do well.
WTO people, WTO. This angels dancing on the head of a pin argument about the 'deal' just so we can keep the EU making more money off us than we do off them is RISIBLE. Exactly the sort of nonsense that made people vote for Brexit in the first place. World piggy bank Britain has to stop whilst we still have a pot to piss in.
But even if we go WTO, I presume we're still going to remain members of some EU administered programmes, right?
Or is Erasmus or CERN a step too far?
There are non-EU members participating in CERN and Erasmus!
If Hillary had won wouldn't it still be a "Divided States of America"?
Incidentally, she only carried 20 States plus Washington DC.
the divided states of america is not a reference to the result, it is in the manner of which this election was fought which revealed the deep divisions of america. no one can say that wasn't a divisive campaign. but atleast an MP wasn't shot dead I suppose.
That's true nunu, but they need to work on their vote-counting!
WTO people, WTO. This angels dancing on the head of a pin argument about the 'deal' just so we can keep the EU making more money off us than we do off them is RISIBLE. Exactly the sort of nonsense that made people vote for Brexit in the first place. World piggy bank Britain has to stop whilst we still have a pot to piss in.
But even if we go WTO, I presume we're still going to remain members of some EU administered programmes, right?
Or is Erasmus or CERN a step too far?
There are non-EU members participating in CERN and Erasmus!
That's exactly my point. My point is that we tend to group all payments to the EU together as one thing (because that's how we pay right now).
Post-Brexit, we'll have a more a la carte menu, and it's highly likely (to my mind) that there are programmes we'll want to stay involved in. Blue_rog mentioned the medicines agency, there's also the European Space Agency, Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, etc.
Norway actually breaks down how much it pays and for what. Of it's €850m of annual payments to the EU, €450m is to be a member of specific programmes.
If there was a world of zero tarrifs, quotas, import & export restrictions which countries would benefit & which would suffer from the current status quo ?
If you believe in free trade the world would benefit. But it's a bit like the arguments for globalisation. There are losers as well as winners. In the UK, farmers would likely be losers. Remaining steel mills as well.
However, it won't be a world of zero tarrifs, quotas, import & export restrictions. If anything it's becoming less of one. When we Brexit we will see more of those barriers from countries we trade with because we leave the EU trading system, including the SIngle Market and the EU FTA portfolio.
WTO people, WTO. This angels dancing on the head of a pin argument about the 'deal' just so we can keep the EU making more money off us than we do off them is RISIBLE. Exactly the sort of nonsense that made people vote for Brexit in the first place. World piggy bank Britain has to stop whilst we still have a pot to piss in.
But even if we go WTO, I presume we're still going to remain members of some EU administered programmes, right?
Or is Erasmus or CERN a step too far?
There are non-EU members participating in CERN and Erasmus!
That's exactly my point. My point is that we tend to group all payments to the EU together as one thing (because that's how we pay right now).
Post-Brexit, we'll have a more a la carte menu, and it's highly likely (to my mind) that there are programmes we'll want to stay involved in. Blue_rog mentioned the medicines agency, there's also the European Space Agency, Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, etc.
Norway actually breaks down how much it pays and for what. Of it's €850m of annual payments to the EU, €450m is to be a member of specific programmes.
And such payments would be a much easier sell for the government than something that looks awfully like a membership fee for something we are no longer a member of.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Not in the customs union, but in a customs union with the EU. The difference is subtle, but the latter makes a lot more sense.
If Tyndall has trouble distinguishing between them what hope Redwood, Cash, Mogg, et al?
Mr. NorthWales, I'm not paying attention because the saturation coverage bores me, but it's worth remembering people said the same of Lord Hutton before his conclusions emerged.
I do agree and maybe it is right not to speculate but it is just the impression I had today
Right I've decided on my view on the Supreme Court decision - when I was watching yesterday (ill) I thought Sumption was definitely going to find against the government. From twitter today it appears he's testing the other side very well indeed. So whichever way he rules, whether for the appellant or government dissenting or majority view is the correct decision.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
But presumably Israel can't export to the EU via Turkey?
Should be OK. The goods will be checked at the Turkish border and are then good to go anywhere within the EU and Turkey. They can do that because those goods attract the same tariffs as they would have done if they entered by Rotterdam for example. However, if they entered by Norway they would be controlled and attract tariffs when they pass into the EU
This discussion about the nuances of the type of customs union is PB Leaving at its finest. Similar to everyone agreeing pre-vote that an EFTA/EEA solution was the right thing and, moreover, was nailed on.
As @Luckyguy1983 says, it's all poncing around on the head of a pin by the intelligentsia. Joe Leaver will have nothing to do with a or the Customs Union. To him, that's not leaving. He wants out and quick.
I am even beginning to have some sympathy for Davis, which is a sentence I never thought I'd write.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.
That's why Turkey has a car industry and Norway doesn't.
This discussion about the nuances of the type of customs union is PB Leaving at its finest. Similar to everyone agreeing pre-vote that an EFTA/EEA solution was the right thing and, moreover, was nailed on.
As @Luckyguy1983 says, it's all poncing around on the head of a pin by the intelligentsia. Joe Leaver will have nothing to do with a or the Customs Union. To him, that's not leaving. He wants out and quick.
I am even beginning to have some sympathy for Davis, which is a sentence I never thought I'd write.
David Davis is turning out to be an impressive Minister.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.
That's why Turkey has a car industry and Norway doesn't.
Elon Musk would be delighted if we copied Norway's policies on cars.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.
That's why Turkey has a car industry and Norway doesn't.
This discussion about the nuances of the type of customs union is PB Leaving at its finest. Similar to everyone agreeing pre-vote that an EFTA/EEA solution was the right thing and, moreover, was nailed on.
As @Luckyguy1983 says, it's all poncing around on the head of a pin by the intelligentsia. Joe Leaver will have nothing to do with a or the Customs Union. To him, that's not leaving. He wants out and quick.
I am even beginning to have some sympathy for Davis, which is a sentence I never thought I'd write.
When push comes to shove, who will have the job of telling the bad news to Joe Leaver? It can only be Boris Johnson, who will immediately have no further purpose and can be pushed out to clear the way for David Davis to become Foreign Secretary with what remains of his department being merged with the FCO.
As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has and (b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.
Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.
That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.
That's why Turkey has a car industry and Norway doesn't.
Comments
The justice suggested that if there was a large vote of MP's in favour of serving A50 he couldn't see how the justices could grant an injunction against the serving of A50. However as the exchanges continued Sky switched away and they have done this before and it is so frustrating
I wonder if the justice had tonight's vote in mind
(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU
I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.
To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.
If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/07/uk-space-agency-esa-contributions/
EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.
Plus I'm much happier in the Tory tent peeing inside.
If we stopped buying German cars, they would stop accumulating worthless credits, and would all get to drive new Mercedes.
Plus George Osborne will need people like me when when he becomes Tory Leader/PM in a few years time.
Will there be a Brexit arrow?
Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)
I'm told the pensions industry is still in mourning over Steve Webb's loss.
Filled your boots, have you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein
BTW, IDS never lost a GE as leader!
He's currently 10/1 on Betfair.
The CCHQ and Lib Dem Press Office twitter accounts are having a spat, it is epic. These are the opening salvos, it goes on.
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/806441538452619264
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/806503617083674624
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/806504970858151940
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/806505615724052481
LEAVE won 263 of those
REMAIN won only 119
*But*, the weighted average mean tariff for goods coming into the EU is just 1.0%* **, and that's below most large trading blocs and countries***. Sure we might want to cut the tariffs on cars down the line, but there's no rush to do so.
Unfortunately, I think it may be politically unacceptable. It's not taking back control if we don't get to set the tariff on imported steel.
* http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS
** the weighted average tariffs flatter the EU, as they are pulled down by lots of tariff free oil and gas
*** Canada is 0,8%, but pretty much everyone else is higher
Some of the more fuckwitted Leavers want to see the whip removed from MPs who vote in line with their constituents.
Incidentally, she only carried 20 States plus Washington DC.
"Look at those foolish Brits, reduced to the status of Turkey, but with a bigger bill."
Incidentally, they have some very strange customs in parts of europe. Not sure I want to be part of that union.
http://www.tariff-tr.com/FreeTradeAgreements.aspx
http://yoikk.gov.tr/upload/idb/ftascompatibilitymode.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/turkey/
It's the difference between the EU Customs Union and being in a customs union with the EU.
I expect TM will provide an overview of the UK's position and then seek a straight vote on A50, maybe even before 31st March 2017
Tariffs on our imports will be set by our WTO Most Favoured Nation schedules. Third countries are only likely to agree those schedules if they are at least as good as the tariff regime they already incur on trade with us, which they possibly get via a preferential trade agreement with the EU. And under MFN rules you have to give your best tariffs to everyone. On the other hand the third country will give us THEIR MFN tariffs which are possibly higher than those they gave via a preferential trade agreement with the EU. They cannot give the UK lower tariffs under MFN without lowering tariffs for everyone else. Finally, if third countries already get our best tariffs without having to reciprocate they don't have a lot of incentive to do an FTA with us. In any case no-one wants to do them anymore.
I wouldn't however dismiss downsides for Brexit headbangers. There is a lot of rhetoric in it and just explaining all this stuff goes to show how mediocre Brexit will be.
Or is Erasmus or CERN a step too far?
With the greatest of respect to him it is really not clear why the Scottish government thought it was useful to intervene in this.
Post-Brexit, we'll have a more a la carte menu, and it's highly likely (to my mind) that there are programmes we'll want to stay involved in. Blue_rog mentioned the medicines agency, there's also the European Space Agency, Erasmus, Gallileo, CERN, etc.
Norway actually breaks down how much it pays and for what. Of it's €850m of annual payments to the EU, €450m is to be a member of specific programmes.
However, it won't be a world of zero tarrifs, quotas, import & export restrictions. If anything it's becoming less of one. When we Brexit we will see more of those barriers from countries we trade with because we leave the EU trading system, including the SIngle Market and the EU FTA portfolio.
From twitter today it appears he's testing the other side very well indeed. So whichever way he rules, whether for the appellant or government dissenting or majority view is the correct decision.
As @Luckyguy1983 says, it's all poncing around on the head of a pin by the intelligentsia. Joe Leaver will have nothing to do with a or the Customs Union. To him, that's not leaving. He wants out and quick.
I am even beginning to have some sympathy for Davis, which is a sentence I never thought I'd write.
https://twitter.com/AndyWoodcock/status/806530867996852224
(incidentally, in 2010 the London Bridge to West Croydon and Crystal Palace services did become part of London Overground).