He made some very pertinent and scathing comments in 2015 about the damage done to the union by the way the Tory election campaign used the SNP as a bogeyman in England.
1. Who do you think should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence?
2. Who do you think should have the right to decide the timing of a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence, if it were to happen?
3. Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
He made some very pertinent and scathing comments in 2015 about the damage done to the union by the way the Tory election campaign used the SNP as a bogeyman in England.
It's difficult to see the UK other than as a very damaged animal being plucked off piece by piece by various predators. Chris Patten made some very salient points yesterday.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
We were in the EU which was a pretty big block on getting a trade deal with those countries.
You don't need a country trade deal to export to outside the EU. That's a bloody excuse ! Germany is in the EU and it is the largest exporter in the world.
Roger said "nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past".
The EU may have had a trade deal or maybe not. But we are in exactly the same position as Germany. They can export with or without a trade deal. We can't.
It's difficult to see the UK other than as a very damaged animal being plucked off piece by piece by various predators. Chris Patten made some very salient points yesterday.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
We were in the EU which was a pretty big block on getting a trade deal with those countries.
You don't need a country trade deal to export to outside the EU. That's a bloody excuse ! Germany is in the EU and it is the largest exporter in the world.
Roger said "nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past".
The EU may have had a trade deal or maybe not. But we are in exactly the same position as Germany. They can export with or without a trade deal. We can't.
I'm not sure how you can so confidently say that? Surely the point of a trade deal is that it encourages trade.
It's difficult to see the UK other than as a very damaged animal being plucked off piece by piece by various predators. Chris Patten made some very salient points yesterday.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
We were in the EU which was a pretty big block on getting a trade deal with those countries.
You don't need a country trade deal to export to outside the EU. That's a bloody excuse ! Germany is in the EU and it is the largest exporter in the world.
Roger said "nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past".
The EU may have had a trade deal or maybe not. But we are in exactly the same position as Germany. They can export with or without a trade deal. We can't.
Don't forget all the existing EU trade deals, and the Japanese one that is forming at the moment. Which we will suddenly be outside of.
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them. prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
Yes, like the failed Soviet bloc economies. Import substitution becomes the mantra when a country cannot earn enough foreign exchange from exports to finance imports. The Law of Comparative Advantage says if it is cheaper to import than making it yourself [ all things considered ] then you should import and use resources in more productive areas.
In other words, do not produce bananas on the Pennines. Import from Antigua.
I agree. But the UK is an efficient car producer. The current expansion will bring further economies of scale. Half our EU trade deficit is with Germany alone and half that is for cars.
Britain’s auto industry may never ever have the ability to increase the level of local material to over half in its automobiles ... the CEO of the nation’s greatest automaker Jaguar Land Rover informed Reuters.
Just around 40 percent of the parts that go into the average British-built vehicle are made locally .... Yet the needed investment in services and skills could take years to flourish, and the volumes involved might not justify the costs.
“It will take a long time, if at all it can be managed,” JLR CEO Ralf Speth informed Reuters.
“Jaguar Land Rover is the most significant automobile company in the UK and the only one which really designs, engineers as well as produces in the UK. The volume is still too small to really attract a substantial Tier 1 supplier,” he said.
Britain doesnt not have significant providers such as Bosch or Michelin which assist significant carbuilding nations like Germany and France respectively to attain a higher level of regional components."
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them. prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
Yes, like the failed Soviet bloc economies. Import substitution becomes the mantra when a country cannot earn enough foreign exchange from exports to finance imports. The Law of Comparative Advantage says if it is cheaper to import than making it yourself [ all things considered ] then you should import and use resources in more productive areas.
In other words, do not produce bananas on the Pennines. Import from Antigua.
I agree. But the UK is an efficient car producer. The current expansion will bring further economies of scale. Half our EU trade deficit is with Germany alone and half that is for cars.
Britain’s auto industry may never ever have the ability to increase the level of local material to over half in its automobiles ... the CEO of the nation’s greatest automaker Jaguar Land Rover informed Reuters.
Just around 40 percent of the parts that go into the average British-built vehicle are made locally .... Yet the needed investment in services and skills could take years to flourish, and the volumes involved might not justify the costs.
“It will take a long time, if at all it can be managed,” JLR CEO Ralf Speth informed Reuters.
“Jaguar Land Rover is the most significant automobile company in the UK and the only one which really designs, engineers as well as produces in the UK. The volume is still too small to really attract a substantial Tier 1 supplier,” he said.
Britain doesnt not have significant providers such as Bosch or Michelin which assist significant carbuilding nations like Germany and France respectively to attain a higher level of regional components."
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
Yes, like the failed Soviet bloc economies. Import substitution becomes the mantra when a country cannot earn enough foreign exchange from exports to finance imports. The Law of Comparative Advantage says if it is cheaper to import than making it yourself [ all things considered ] then you should import and use resources in more productive areas.
In other words, do not produce bananas on the Pennines. Import from Antigua.
I agree. But the UK is an efficient car producer. The current expansion will bring further economies of scale. Half our EU trade deficit is with Germany alone and half that is for cars.
That is whre we will be hit badly. BMW will still sell cars in the UK even with 10% tariff as most of their competitors are in the same boat. What about Qashqai with an additional 10% on the sales price ?
The UK car industry is in a real pickle. Not only will exports be hurt by the WTO tariff but , for the time being, the components also get more expensive since 60% of the supply chain come from imports. It is a double whammy ! Apparently, they recognise that but it will take years to even bring it to 50% - let alone 33%.
It's difficult to see the UK other than as a very damaged animal being plucked off piece by piece by various predators. Chris Patten made some very salient points yesterday.
The most interesting being that nothing stood in the way of trade deals with India and China and Australia in the past. But as a trade commissioner the rule of thumb was that for every mile in distance trade with that country became twice as difficult.
We were in the EU which was a pretty big block on getting a trade deal with those countries.
I should have said 'nothing stood in the way of trading with.....'
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
Yes, like the failed Soviet bloc economies. Import substitution becomes the mantra when a country cannot earn enough foreign exchange from exports to finance imports. The Law of Comparative Advantage says if it is cheaper to import than making it yourself [ all things considered ] then you should import and use resources in more productive areas.
In other words, do not produce bananas on the Pennines. Import from Antigua.
Of course we can't produce bananas in the Pennines. The land is all taken up by the Yorkshire Tea plantations!
There is currently a thread on my company's intranet discussing how to go about obtaining UK Permanent Residency. Someone has made the point that "the absence list (list of days spent out of the country) is not a requirement any more".
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
You keep saying that I am sure you would not kill yourself over the rock.Surely Spain Gibraltar and the UK do not want a closed border again.
I have friends there, visit there, and I've had a "Keep Gibraltar British" sticker on my car for over 15 years.
Sovereignty is not on the table. Other bilateral arrangements can be discussed, of course, including how to best maintain a working border.
I have been there many times I thought sovereignty was never on the table without Gibraltar's consent.However I am sure they are not happy with the vote for Brexit after over 90% of them voted to remain.
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
You keep saying that I am sure you would not kill yourself over the rock.Surely Spain Gibraltar and the UK do not want a closed border again.
I have friends there, visit there, and I've had a "Keep Gibraltar British" sticker on my car for over 15 years.
Sovereignty is not on the table. Other bilateral arrangements can be discussed, of course, including how to best maintain a working border.
I have been there many times I thought sovereignty was never on the table without Gibraltar's consent.However I am sure they are not happy with the vote for Brexit after over 90% of them voted to remain.
The Chief Minister of Gibraltar has reiterated that their loyalty to Britain is absolute and undiminished.
Watch his select committee evidence from last month.
I can't see the Brexit transition arrangement being other than open-ended and contingent on the successful completion of a comprehensive trade agreement. So the UK and EU agree on the shape of a comprehensive trade agreement during the Article 50 talks, which we can loosely refer to as "Canada Plus". We then enter into the transition arrangement, which is essentially doing what we are told by the EU while we hammer out the PTA, an obviously sub-optimal arrangement for us.
The issue is that the EU side won't have nearly the same sense of urgency in getting the PTA sorted that we do. The transition arrangement gives them the continuity they need, while the uncertainty falls entirely on the UK side. Businesses will find it easier to invest in the rEU in preference to the UK so they don't have to deal with the shifting sands of continuing versus new business regulation and taxation. Trade Officials in Canberra and Ottawa will give Mr Fox and his successors a warm welcome to their offices while making it clear they are waiting for the new setup before proceeding with their own PTAs with Britain. The EU doesn't even need to deliberately stall. Ten years is how long this kind of trade agreement takes. The UK is not likely to walk away if something is happening on the PTA. Eventually (roughly fifteen years after starting out) we will get the arrangement the UK originally wanted.
By then the EU will have made its point. The UK will be a much ground down place. As Donald Tusk says, the EU doesn't need to punish the UK. Brexit does the punishment for it.
I can't see the Brexit transition arrangement being other than open-ended and contingent on the successful completion of a comprehensive trade agreement. So the UK and EU agree on the shape of a comprehensive trade agreement during the Article 50 talks, which we can loosely refer to as "Canada Plus". We then enter into the transition arrangement, which is essentially doing what we are told by the EU while we hammer out the PTA, an obviously sub-optimal arrangement for us.
The issue is that the EU side won't have nearly the same sense of urgency in getting the PTA sorted that we do. The transition arrangement gives them the continuity they need, while the uncertainty falls entirely on the UK side. Businesses will find it easier to invest in the rEU in preference to the UK so they don't have to deal with the shifting sands of continuing versus new business regulation and taxation. Trade Officials in Canberra and Ottawa will give Mr Fox and his successors a warm welcome to their offices while making it clear they are waiting for the new setup before proceeding with their own PTAs with Britain. The EU doesn't even need to deliberately stall. Ten years is how long this kind of trade agreement takes. The UK is not likely to walk away if something is happening on the PTA. Eventually (roughly fifteen years after starting out) we will get the arrangement the UK originally wanted.
By then the EU will have made its point. The UK will be much ground down place. As Donald Tusk says, the EU doesn't need to punish the UK. Brexit does the punishment for it.
Given we are in perfect regulatory alignment with the EU I cannot see a deal taking ten+ years.
Mr. Royale, if Gibraltar wishes to stop being British, that's a matter for them, and their view should be respected. But so long as they wish to be British it would horrendous and unforgivable to betray the people of Gibraltar by trampling over their right to self-determination in return for 30 pieces of silver.
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
The EU have said that its a matter for Britain & Spain, after the UK has left the EU - its bilateral - they want to keep out of it.....
I hope you are right. I doubt Spain will be able to veto Brexit over it, but we should put down our markers now.
22. After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
You keep saying that I am sure you would not kill yourself over the rock.Surely Spain Gibraltar and the UK do not want a closed border again.
I have friends there, visit there, and I've had a "Keep Gibraltar British" sticker on my car for over 15 years.
Sovereignty is not on the table. Other bilateral arrangements can be discussed, of course, including how to best maintain a working border.
I have been there many times I thought sovereignty was never on the table without Gibraltar's consent.However I am sure they are not happy with the vote for Brexit after over 90% of them voted to remain.
Indeed. And if Spain were to offer sufficient guarantees of autonomy and financial support, might it be possible that a majority of Gibraltarians would vote to join Spain in a referendum?
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
You keep saying that I am sure you would not kill yourself over the rock.Surely Spain Gibraltar and the UK do not want a closed border again.
I have friends there, visit there, and I've had a "Keep Gibraltar British" sticker on my car for over 15 years.
Sovereignty is not on the table. Other bilateral arrangements can be discussed, of course, including how to best maintain a working border.
I have been there many times I thought sovereignty was never on the table without Gibraltar's consent.However I am sure they are not happy with the vote for Brexit after over 90% of them voted to remain.
Indeed. And if Spain were to offer sufficient guarantees of autonomy and financial support, might it be possible that a majority of Gibraltarians would vote to join Spain in a referendum?
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
Tough titties. If getting a good Brexit deal means giving away Gibraltar, so be it.
Why should 32,000 people be allowed to deny 60 odd million Brits a good deal?
If Gibraltar is sold out, I'll be lobbying my MP, and every Tory Brexit MP I can think of, to reject the deal outright.
I will also quit the Tory Party.
What has Gibraltar ever done for us?
I've asked Keiran to get Opinium to poll on it, would UK voters be ok with giving away Gibraltar to Spain in exchange for a good Brexit deal?
If only Remain had warned of this during the campaign.
WE should sell Gibraltar for €60 bn. I think we need that sum........
Against their wishes? What a democrat!
The residents of Diego Garcia are laughing at that!
So, your argument is that because we've behaved very badly towards one group of British nationals, we should behave very badly towards another.
We have to do what is in the greater good.
We did it with Diego Garcia and we might have to do the same for Gibraltar.
How do you think the citizens of the UK would feel if we slip into an economic disaster/WTO that could have been avoided if we had ceded Gibraltar to Spain?
Surely that is a given, since all treaties have to be agreed by all members?
In theory a pure divorce deal would be QMV.
All aspects of this are QMV. The whole Article 50 process is decided by QMV with the exception of any decision on an extension which has to be unanimous. In addition any trade talks outside of Article 50 are also by QMV under the current EU rules.
Richard what is your view should we get a transition deal for a year or three?
I honestly don't know. Obviously the negotiations are not going to result in the sort of relationship that I have hoped for. which would be membership of the EEA but outside the Customs Union - a Norway type solution. So on trade I think transitional arrangements should be in place until the process is completed.
But for the non trade issues I am not sure it is necessary or desirable. A transitional arrangement on things like security or legal issues does not seem practical. Nor does one for things like the Irish border. I am conscious that the last time someone tried to put in place a transitional arrangement for the Irish border in 1922 it was used as an excuse to maintain the British control of areas which should have returned to Eire. Transitional Arrangements have a nasty habit of becoming permanent and often this is not to the benefit of either side.
I certainly don't think there should be transitional arrangements for the status of expats on either side. They need certainty and security for their lives and a transitional relationship is just kicking the can down the road. Which as we have seen from the Greek crisis is a favourite EU tactic.
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
Tough titties. If getting a good Brexit deal means giving away Gibraltar, so be it.
Why should 32,000 people be allowed to deny 60 odd million Brits a good deal?
If Gibraltar is sold out, I'll be lobbying my MP, and every Tory Brexit MP I can think of, to reject the deal outright.
I will also quit the Tory Party.
What has Gibraltar ever done for us?
I've asked Keiran to get Opinium to poll on it, would UK voters be ok with giving away Gibraltar to Spain in exchange for a good Brexit deal?
If only Remain had warned of this during the campaign.
WE should sell Gibraltar for €60 bn. I think we need that sum........
Against their wishes? What a democrat!
The residents of Diego Garcia are laughing at that!
So, your argument is that because we've behaved very badly towards one group of British nationals, we should behave very badly towards another.
We have to do what is in the greater good.
We did it with Diego Garcia and we might have to do the same for Gibraltar.
How do you think the citizens of the UK would feel if we slip into an economic disaster/WTO that could have been avoided if we had ceded Gibraltar to Spain?
It's a false choice. We're not going to slip into economic disaster. And if we do, it's most unlikely that throwing the Gibraltarians to the wolves would avert it.
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
Tough titties. If getting a good Brexit deal means giving away Gibraltar, so be it.
Why should 32,000 people be allowed to deny 60 odd million Brits a good deal?
There are different levels of good deals. Giving away Gibraltar would not be worth it and we could still get a generally good deal. if that is the price they are asking, when they have no legal claim to the place, then they are being unreasonable.
Surely that is a given, since all treaties have to be agreed by all members?
In theory a pure divorce deal would be QMV.
All aspects of this are QMV. The whole Article 50 process is decided by QMV with the exception of any decision on an extension which has to be unanimous. In addition any trade talks outside of Article 50 are also by QMV under the current EU rules.
Richard what is your view should we get a transition deal for a year or three?
I honestly don't know. Obviously the negotiations are not going to result in the sort of relationship that I have hoped for. which would be membership of the EEA but outside the Customs Union - a Norway type solution. So on trade I think transitional arrangements should be in place until the process is completed.
But for the non trade issues I am not sure it is necessary or desirable. A transitional arrangement on things like security or legal issues does not seem practical. Nor does one for things like the Irish border. I am conscious that the last time someone tried to put in place a transitional arrangement for the Irish border in 1922 it was used as an excuse to maintain the British control of areas which should have returned to Eire. Transitional Arrangements have a nasty habit of becoming permanent and often this is not to the benefit of either side.
I certainly don't think there should be transitional arrangements for the status of expats on either side. They need certainty and security for their lives and a transitional relationship is just kicking the can down the road. Which as we have seen from the Greek crisis is a favourite EU tactic.
thx
Yes as we discussed upthread, the issue as well as anything is that it would straddle the GE2020 and that means there is a non-trivial risk that a new administration might do something dramatic one way or the other (deposition of Jezza and a new Lab leader committed to Remain on the one hand, or deposition of Tezza and a new Cons leader committed to Hard Brexit, etc, etc, etc).
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
I don't see Spain incorporating Gibraltar as a price of a Brexit deal. There is a principle of self-determination and rule by law that matters to the EU and its members. Also I doubt the other EU countries will want Gibraltar to be the sticking point in the Brexit deal. The wording in the framework document is very careful.
It does mean Spain claims a say over Gibraltar, perhaps similar to that of Ireland over Northern Ireland under the Good Friday agreement. The UK will have to deal with that claim as part of the Brexit settlement.
Much improved but in the current context this is interesting:
"A current account deficit of £19.5 billion was recorded with the EU in Quarter 4 2016 whilst a surplus of £7.4 billion was recorded with non-EU countries."
This can come as no shock - we voted to Leave, the pound adjusted back much more to true value and thereby surpressed imports whilst boosting exports. The trade deficit is one we need to manage just as much as the fiscal deficit (and note more than all of it is with the EU). Good news. More please. Faster please.
What I thought was interesting about it is that free, uninhibited trade is so much more in the EU's interest than ours. It is really a no brainer for them.
Whilst the increase in the export of goods is indeed very welcome I would be cautious about reading too much into 1 quarter's figures, especially a quarter that is flattered by comparison with a truly horrendous Q3. Our trade deficit is deep rooted, based on poor savings ratios, a large if declining government deficit and poor productivity. The rebalancing of Sterling gives some short term help but the underlying position will prevail unless we resolve the underlying problems.
Indeed. We should stop buying so much stuff from the EU! I expect the years to come will see a sharply increased pressure on import substitution for many categories of imports from the EU.
Yes, like the failed Soviet bloc economies. Import substitution becomes the mantra when a country cannot earn enough foreign exchange from exports to finance imports. The Law of Comparative Advantage says if it is cheaper to import than making it yourself [ all things considered ] then you should import and use resources in more productive areas.
In other words, do not produce bananas on the Pennines. Import from Antigua.
Of course we can't produce bananas in the Pennines. The land is all taken up by the Yorkshire Tea plantations!
Everybody knows that Derbyshire is the home of the commercial banana.
Mr. Royale, if Gibraltar wishes to stop being British, that's a matter for them, and their view should be respected. But so long as they wish to be British it would horrendous and unforgivable to betray the people of Gibraltar by trampling over their right to self-determination in return for 30 pieces of silver.
It's an inevitable result of the OUT vote in the referendum that Scotland and Gibraltar would be put at risk (maybe even NI). That was pointed out many times on here. Presumably you Remainers are happy with that.
Mr. Royale, if Gibraltar wishes to stop being British, that's a matter for them, and their view should be respected. But so long as they wish to be British it would horrendous and unforgivable to betray the people of Gibraltar by trampling over their right to self-determination in return for 30 pieces of silver.
It's an inevitable result of the OUT vote in the referendum that Scotland and Gibraltar would be put at risk (maybe even NI). That was pointed out many times on here. Presumably you Remainers are happy with that.
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
I can't see the Brexit transition arrangement being other than open-ended and contingent on the successful completion of a comprehensive trade agreement. So the UK and EU agree on the shape of a comprehensive trade agreement during the Article 50 talks, which we can loosely refer to as "Canada Plus". We then enter into the transition arrangement, which is essentially doing what we are told by the EU while we hammer out the PTA, an obviously sub-optimal arrangement for us.
The issue is that the EU side won't have nearly the same sense of urgency in getting the PTA sorted that we do. The transition arrangement gives them the continuity they need, while the uncertainty falls entirely on the UK side. Businesses will find it easier to invest in the rEU in preference to the UK so they don't have to deal with the shifting sands of continuing versus new business regulation and taxation. Trade Officials in Canberra and Ottawa will give Mr Fox and his successors a warm welcome to their offices while making it clear they are waiting for the new setup before proceeding with their own PTAs with Britain. The EU doesn't even need to deliberately stall. Ten years is how long this kind of trade agreement takes. The UK is not likely to walk away if something is happening on the PTA. Eventually (roughly fifteen years after starting out) we will get the arrangement the UK originally wanted.
By then the EU will have made its point. The UK will be much ground down place. As Donald Tusk says, the EU doesn't need to punish the UK. Brexit does the punishment for it.
Given we are in perfect regulatory alignment with the EU I cannot see a deal taking ten+ years.
Yes. The deal will be done quickly.
There are no questions of harmonisation and allowing access because these are already in place; merely a trade off of who is prepared to sacrifice what they currently have to show that "full single market membership is better than the UK have".
I get the impression that our government have timetabled this more coherently than the naysayers and doom-mongers wish to credit them with.
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
"IIRC"? It was signed in 1713. Is there something you're not telling us, Tithonus?
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
I think you're trolling.
No, I'm giving PBers a history lessons.
Britain's role in the slave trade is a national embarrassment and we should help rectify that vile error because one of Britain's finest achievements was helping end the slave trade.
Over my dead body will Spain get their hands on Gibraltar.
Spain can piss off.
Tough titties. If getting a good Brexit deal means giving away Gibraltar, so be it.
Why should 32,000 people be allowed to deny 60 odd million Brits a good deal?
There are different levels of good deals. Giving away Gibraltar would not be worth it and we could still get a generally good deal. if that is the price they are asking, when they have no legal claim to the place, then they are being unreasonable.
If we thought the same about the Falklands.........
Two days ago the PM vowed ‘absolutely steadfast’ support for Gibraltar, now the Remainers wish to abandon it all together or flog it off to Spain. It’s a funny old world…
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
I think you're trolling.
Yeah, agree with that. I can't be arsed to rise to the bait.
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
I think you're trolling.
No, I'm giving PBers a history lessons.
Britain's role in the slave trade is a national embarrassment and we should help rectify that vile error because one of Britain's finest achievements was helping end the slave trade.
Which has got sod all to do with Gibraltar today. The slave trade ended 184 years ago.
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
I think you're trolling.
No, I'm giving PBers a history lessons.
Britain's role in the slave trade is a national embarrassment and we should help rectify that vile error because one of Britain's finest achievements was helping end the slave trade.
First we return Gibraltar and then we flatten Liverpool and Bristol?
I can't see the Brexit transition arrangement being other than open-ended and contingent on the successful completion of a comprehensive trade agreement. So the UK and EU agree on the shape of a comprehensive trade agreement during the Article 50 talks, which we can loosely refer to as "Canada Plus". We then enter into the transition arrangement, which is essentially doing what we are told by the EU while we hammer out the PTA, an obviously sub-optimal arrangement for us.
The issue is that the EU side won't have nearly the same sense of urgency in getting the PTA sorted that we do. The transition arrangement gives them the continuity they need, while the uncertainty falls entirely on the UK side. Businesses will find it easier to invest in the rEU in preference to the UK so they don't have to deal with the shifting sands of continuing versus new business regulation and taxation. Trade Officials in Canberra and Ottawa will give Mr Fox and his successors a warm welcome to their offices while making it clear they are waiting for the new setup before proceeding with their own PTAs with Britain. The EU doesn't even need to deliberately stall. Ten years is how long this kind of trade agreement takes. The UK is not likely to walk away if something is happening on the PTA. Eventually (roughly fifteen years after starting out) we will get the arrangement the UK originally wanted.
By then the EU will have made its point. The UK will be much ground down place. As Donald Tusk says, the EU doesn't need to punish the UK. Brexit does the punishment for it.
Given we are in perfect regulatory alignment with the EU I cannot see a deal taking ten+ years.
Plus three years from referendum to formal EU exit. CETA took thirteen years from initiation (it's still not fully adopted). Compared with the EU/UK bilateral the two regulatory regimes are further apart, as you say, which could make negotiation quicker for the UK one. The time was largely spent on dealing with Canadian requests for exemptions, not because of EU inefficiency incidentally. On the other hand the regulatory regimes don't actually change in Canada while we are moving to a completely new one, and that will likely make negotiations longer.
It's a piece of string, which is my point. Ten years for the PTA negotiation sounds about right, and fifteen years for the whole process.
I'm still waiting for a decent response to my earlier question.
What has Gibraltar ever done for us?
I suspect we'd not have won in N.Africa during WW2 without Gibraltar and the Med would have been an Axis lake and therefore no invasion of Italy or southern France - but was that us not the Gibraltarians themselves?
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
I think you're trolling.
No, I'm giving PBers a history lessons.
Britain's role in the slave trade is a national embarrassment and we should help rectify that vile error because one of Britain's finest achievements was helping end the slave trade.
Not very good lessons - or at least actively misleading ones. How long did we retain the Asiento for?
Edit: as you're an expert, I assume you don't need to go to a third party source (or Wikipedia as its commonly called).
In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.
So what, most polls also show Scots want no referendum before Brexit talks are concluded (and would vote No anyway) and as legally and constitutionally Westminster is sovereign May will refuse a referendum until then
So you don't think it relevant that the majority of Scots think Westminster should acquiesce to Holyrood's request?
Hmmm, seems there is some sort of contradiction there between that older poll and the more recent poll.
The questions in the more recent poll sponsored by the SNP were different, and some might dispute their neutrality....
FWIW I think these figures will only move one way as the Brexit negotiations stumble along and the "Unionist" parties keep up their blocking of IndyRef2 stance. I sense the MSM are going to be increasingly conflicted in all of this !!
Political journos lik, get presover.
By definition the Scottish Parliament is not sovereign in this matter, or have I missed something?
These are the start and end tweets of a Kenny Farquharson twitter stream on IndyRef2
Attacks the very foundations of democracy? I'd buy that if they were so empowered, but they aren't.
It's not an entirely worthless argument, particularly as they would argue they should be so empowered, but it is hyperbolistic. It might be prudent to follow the will as expressed by the Scottish Parliament for the reasons they give, but the matter is specifically reserved, so it was not intended they simply have the power to do it, and the overall national's democratic representatives still have the input. If one has no affinity to that overall nation, obviously that's more of an issue.
Spain hopes to be able to negotiate the situation of Gibraltar bilaterally with the United Kingdom once negotiations on the Brexit between the British and the European Union (EU) have been completed.
I'm still waiting for a decent response to my earlier question.
What has Gibraltar ever done for us?
I suspect we'd not have won in N.Africa during WW2 without Gibraltar and the Med would have been an Axis lake and therefore no invasion of Italy or southern France - but was that us not the Gibraltarians themselves?
Eisenhower had his base in Gib to plan the invasion of North Africa, yes. His command bunker tunnels are now a data centre.
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
I think you're trolling.
No, I'm giving PBers a history lessons.
Britain's role in the slave trade is a national embarrassment and we should help rectify that vile error because one of Britain's finest achievements was helping end the slave trade.
Not very good lessons - or at least actively misleading ones. How long did we retain the Asiento for?
Edit: as you're an expert, I assume you don't need to go to a third party source (or Wikipedia as its commonly called).
I have to confess my knowledge of The War of Spanish Succession isn't as detailed as other areas of history, but I know the general salient points.
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
Doesn't it also say Jews should not be allowed or something? Shockingly, historic agreements contain unpalatable elements.
Spain can ask for it back, but they cannot demand it if anyone. What reason do we have to go against the curent wishes of our citizens there? Is the EU really going to punish the Gibraltarians because Spain regrets signing a treaty 300 years ago and we won't hand it back for no reason?
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
Doesn't it also say Jews should not be allowed or something? Shockingly, historic agreements contain unpalatable elements.
Spain can ask for it back, but they cannot demand it if anyone. What reason do we have to go against the curent wishes of our citizens there? Is the EU really going to punish the Gibraltarians because Spain regrets signing a treaty 300 years ago and we won't hand it back for no reason?
Yes, no Jews or Moors to live in the city. Which means I'm personally breaking an international Treaty. I've always found that kind of cool.
Comments
So the order of questions (as anticipated) was:
1. Who do you think should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence?
2. Who do you think should have the right to decide the timing of a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and Independence, if it were to happen?
3. Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Leading, much?
I will also quit the Tory Party.
Just around 40 percent of the parts that go into the average British-built vehicle are made locally .... Yet the needed investment in services and skills could take years to flourish, and the volumes involved might not justify the costs.
“It will take a long time, if at all it can be managed,” JLR CEO Ralf Speth informed Reuters.
“Jaguar Land Rover is the most significant automobile company in the UK and the only one which really designs, engineers as well as produces in the UK. The volume is still too small to really attract a substantial Tier 1 supplier,” he said.
Britain doesnt not have significant providers such as Bosch or Michelin which assist significant carbuilding nations like Germany and France respectively to attain a higher level of regional components."
http://speedlux.com/uk-cars-not-meet-made-britain-threshold-says-jaguar-land-rover-ceo/
Would you support or oppose holding another Scottish independence referendum before the UK leaves the EU?
Support: 39
Oppose: 61
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/would-you-support-or-oppose-holding-another-scottish-independence-referendum-be#table
The whole point of splitting international trade deals from Brexit negotiations was so Fox (or whoever) could focus on them without getting distracted
I'm not surprised by those saying they would.
I've asked Keiran to get Opinium to poll on it, would UK voters be ok with giving away Gibraltar to Spain in exchange for a good Brexit deal?
If only Remain had warned of this during the campaign.
The UK car industry is in a real pickle. Not only will exports be hurt by the WTO tariff but , for the time being, the components also get more expensive since 60% of the supply chain come from imports. It is a double whammy ! Apparently, they recognise that but it will take years to even bring it to 50% - let alone 33%.
Sovereignty is not on the table. Other bilateral arrangements can be discussed, of course, including how to best maintain a working border.
Not everyone is as cynical as you.
Seriously though, it was a vital output at the mouth of the Mediterranean.
It's no wonder you support Osborne.
Watch his select committee evidence from last month.
The issue is that the EU side won't have nearly the same sense of urgency in getting the PTA sorted that we do. The transition arrangement gives them the continuity they need, while the uncertainty falls entirely on the UK side. Businesses will find it easier to invest in the rEU in preference to the UK so they don't have to deal with the shifting sands of continuing versus new business regulation and taxation. Trade Officials in Canberra and Ottawa will give Mr Fox and his successors a warm welcome to their offices while making it clear they are waiting for the new setup before proceeding with their own PTAs with Britain. The EU doesn't even need to deliberately stall. Ten years is how long this kind of trade agreement takes. The UK is not likely to walk away if something is happening on the PTA. Eventually (roughly fifteen years after starting out) we will get the arrangement the UK originally wanted.
By then the EU will have made its point. The UK will be a much ground down place. As Donald Tusk says, the EU doesn't need to punish the UK. Brexit does the punishment for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_03_17_eu_draft_guidelines.pdf
We did it with Diego Garcia and we might have to do the same for Gibraltar.
How do you think the citizens of the UK would feel if we slip into an economic disaster/WTO that could have been avoided if we had ceded Gibraltar to Spain?
But for the non trade issues I am not sure it is necessary or desirable. A transitional arrangement on things like security or legal issues does not seem practical. Nor does one for things like the Irish border. I am conscious that the last time someone tried to put in place a transitional arrangement for the Irish border in 1922 it was used as an excuse to maintain the British control of areas which should have returned to Eire. Transitional Arrangements have a nasty habit of becoming permanent and often this is not to the benefit of either side.
I certainly don't think there should be transitional arrangements for the status of expats on either side. They need certainty and security for their lives and a transitional relationship is just kicking the can down the road. Which as we have seen from the Greek crisis is a favourite EU tactic.
Yes as we discussed upthread, the issue as well as anything is that it would straddle the GE2020 and that means there is a non-trivial risk that a new administration might do something dramatic one way or the other (deposition of Jezza and a new Lab leader committed to Remain on the one hand, or deposition of Tezza and a new Cons leader committed to Hard Brexit, etc, etc, etc).
It would certainly make for a volatile 2019/2020.
It does mean Spain claims a say over Gibraltar, perhaps similar to that of Ireland over Northern Ireland under the Good Friday agreement. The UK will have to deal with that claim as part of the Brexit settlement.
Honestly.
It's almost reminiscent of Lammy, keen to break up British territory in a fit of political pique, on a hunt for pecuniary advantage.
As part of The Treaty of Utrecht that ceded Gibraltar to us, didn't the deal also give us exclusivity on the slave trade in Spanish colonies in the Americas?
If so, a bloody shameful deal, out of embarrassment we should give Gibraltar back.
There are no questions of harmonisation and allowing access because these are already in place; merely a trade off of who is prepared to sacrifice what they currently have to show that "full single market membership is better than the UK have".
I get the impression that our government have timetabled this more coherently than the naysayers and doom-mongers wish to credit them with.
I believe that Trump had two reasons for wanting the Presidency:
1) His ego. Only I, the great businessman and dealer, can make America great again.
2) His business empire. What better way to burnish the Trump image and promote his assets - notwithstanding any Russian pay-off.
He is currently failing on both fronts.
His approval ratings are rock bottom and still falling. He uses rallies of his own people to keep his spirits up. His ego is taking a beating.
His brand is also taking a beating. His business dealings are under close scrutiny. He and his family are distracted from running the business.
What's in it for him? He knows when to throw a losing hand. He's adept at blaming others for his failures.
I think he will resign this year blaming everyone but particularly the Republican Party. "You had your chance and you blew it".
Britain's role in the slave trade is a national embarrassment and we should help rectify that vile error because one of Britain's finest achievements was helping end the slave trade.
I can't be arsed to rise to the bait.
What has Gibraltar ever done for us?
It's a piece of string, which is my point. Ten years for the PTA negotiation sounds about right, and fifteen years for the whole process.
Edit: as you're an expert, I assume you don't need to go to a third party source (or Wikipedia as its commonly called).
So what's changed?
As @gordeau tweeted:
27 Spain wanted us to mention Gibraltar. Spain and UK have to sort it
His command bunker tunnels are now a data centre.
And all of my in-laws live there!
Edit. Sorry; realise someone has posted that. Only just come on this site this morning.
I'm open to a private offer up to £500 liability if you want to avoid Betfair's commision/PC by the way.
Nobody else has that.
Spain can ask for it back, but they cannot demand it if anyone. What reason do we have to go against the curent wishes of our citizens there? Is the EU really going to punish the Gibraltarians because Spain regrets signing a treaty 300 years ago and we won't hand it back for no reason?
Which means I'm personally breaking an international Treaty.
I've always found that kind of cool.