Glad to see your 'Remainers taking rot about sovereignty' spidey-sense was triggered this afternoon.
A combination of too much work and blood coming from.places it really shouldn't has meant my contributions are necessarily limited and perhaps a little short tempered at the moment. Nor am I currently very reassured by the actions of the NHS right now so apologies to all if I am less than civil of late.
Sorry to hear it. Sounds like fairly urgent investigation needed.
Glad to see your 'Remainers taking rot about sovereignty' spidey-sense was triggered this afternoon.
A combination of too much work and blood coming from.places it really shouldn't has meant my contributions are necessarily limited and perhaps a little short tempered at the moment. Nor am I currently very reassured by the actions of the NHS right now so apologies to all if I am less than civil of late.
I'm sure once the £350m a week starts to come through they'll be able to sort you out.
Not sure that is any comfort to Richard just now. My eldest has had similar problems but he has had treatment and is fine now - but the waiting is stressful - best wishes to you Richard
I'm sure that "you'll regain sovereignty" won't be any comfort to people who lose their jobs through Brexit either.
I am thoroughly disenchanted by Brexit and concerned for business in the main. I, like many, just want it over and hope wise heads come together and get us safely over the line to EEA. Heard Chuka earlier and for the first time I can recall I agreed with virtually everything he said
The Prince over the Water for new labour as a long shot maybe, or maybe not
There is a danger for people who do want a transitional deal in general, that if their cause is seen to be being hijacked, or being used as a front, by those who want to sneak Britain into a permanent deal. This may make a genuinely transitional deal less politically feasible.
Unfortunately we are all going to be sacrificed on the altar of stopping FOM. The irony of course is that I doubt immigration figures will change much, like the non-EU immigration figures which of course we have had control of all along.
In the end all the damage will end up having been pretty much for nothing just so a few nerds like Jacob Rees-Mogg can claim we are sovereign again. Thanks a bunch.
I just want some press person to visit Boston, find a foaming "get them out" leaver and ask "will you replace them picking vegetables"...
This looks like a non sequitur to me. Even after the East European accession to the EU, the UK had a visa system for seasonal labourers in the fruit and vegetable sector - it was withdrawn a few years later, but would likely be reintroduced in the event of the ending of free movement. An added bonus, if you're a minister with a target to aim for or in search for a statistic to wave at election time, is that folk who leave a couple of months after arriving don't show up into those net migration figures.
(I don't know if you have been to Boston but that place has been utterly transformed. Many of those who have lived there for years have decided that they don't like it so much as a result. Personally, I have lived in some areas with lots of migration, and some places with little, and been happy in both - but if somebody else has become uncomfortable or unhappy in their own town, I don't think I've the right to tell them that they are "wrong" to do so, leave alone "foaming at the mouth". If we are honest about it, using seasonal labour would not have had the same transformative effect.)
We have four options. 1. Stay in the EU. Would take a significant opinion swing OR exit clearly meaning disaster to make this politically viable 2. Join EFTA. "people voted to leave the single market" they say to a question that mentioned the EU and only the EU. The nutjob press would have a stroke it would be that worked up 3. A transitional deal into a CETA style deal in 2025 - because thats how long it will take. I suspect the EU won't offer a lengthy enough transition making that impossible 4. Hard Brexit. And then food shortages and then riots. All by the end of the first week.
Surely it won't take many more "negotiations" before its clear that our options are 1 or 2. 4 has been threatened and laughed at. 3 is impossible. Which leaves EFTA and bollocks to the immigration arguments or staying in and bollocks to the whole thing. [snip]
Why is 3 impossible?
If no other argument convinces you, it's impossible because of the level of competence and the capacity of the UK government.
At least, in contrast to option 2, it requires us (probably*) to negotiate only with Barnier's team and then get approval by QMV. Options 1 and 2 would (again probably) require the unanimous formal treaty consent of all 27 EU countries and in the case of option 2, of the four EFTA states as well.
* I say 'probably' because the exact legal position is as clear as mud, and partly depends on what exactly is in the agreement.
No it would not. We would only need the agreement of EFTA, not of the EU. The EU cannot dictate who is a member of EFTA and they cannot prevent us remaining a member of the EEA as no mechanism exists to throw a member out unless they are in breach of the treaty.
I'm sure that "you'll regain sovereignty" won't be any comfort to people who lose their jobs through Brexit either.
Just as the 'we're all so better off Remaining/soft Brexit' has been so comforting to people that have had their wages held down as the same time as competition for housing/public services is driven up by freedom of movement.
No it would not. We would only need the agreement of EFTA, not of the EU. The EU cannot dictate who is a member of EFTA and they cannot prevent us remaining a member of the EEA as no mechanism exists to throw a member out unless they are in breach of the treaty.
So you keep saying. However, you are about the only person in the universe who doesn't accept that we are signatories to the EEA treaty (which is a treaty between the EFTA states and the EU states) in our capacity as an EU state, and therefore wouldn't automatically switch to the other side of the agreement.
There is a danger for people who do want a transitional deal in general, that if their cause is seen to be being hijacked, or being used as a front, by those who want to sneak Britain into a permanent deal. This may make a genuinely transitional deal less politically feasible.
And it doesn't provide an easy way out of the difficult Article 50 negotiations which is how some seem to present it.
If the hardline Brexiteers buy into 'Norway for now' as a solution, why should the EU trust that anything they agree to will endure when 'for now' runs out? There will need to be cast-iron guarantees on all the issues being discussed at the moment, and that will not be painless for the UK.
We have four options. 1. Stay in the EU. Would take a significant opinion swing OR exit clearly meaning disaster to make this politically viable 2. Join EFTA. "people voted to leave the single market" they say to a question that mentioned the EU and only the EU. The nutjob press would have a stroke it would be that worked up 3. A transitional deal into a CETA style deal in 2025 - because thats how long it will take. I suspect the EU won't offer a lengthy enough transition making that impossible 4. Hard Brexit. And then food shortages and then riots. All by the end of the first week.
Surely it won't take many more "negotiations" before its clear that our options are 1 or 2. 4 has been threatened and laughed at. 3 is impossible. Which leaves EFTA and bollocks to the immigration arguments or staying in and bollocks to the whole thing. [snip]
Why is 3 impossible?
If no other argument convinces you, it's impossible because of the level of competence and the capacity of the UK government.
At least, in contrast to option 2, it requires us (probably*) to negotiate only with Barnier's team and then get approval by QMV. Options 1 and 2 would (again probably) require the unanimous formal treaty consent of all 27 EU countries and in the case of option 2, of the four EFTA states as well.
* I say 'probably' because the exact legal position is as clear as mud, and partly depends on what exactly is in the agreement.
No it would not. We would only need the agreement of EFTA, not of the EU. The EU cannot dictate who is a member of EFTA and they cannot prevent us remaining a member of the EEA as no mechanism exists to throw a member out unless they are in breach of the treaty.
Much as I would very much like us to join EFTA, I just don't think the public will see the difference, or will take to:
"Le EU est mort, vive l'EFTA".
With all kinds of commentators saying: "but don't you see..it's really different..."
And it doesn't provide an easy way out of the difficult Article 50 negotiations which is how some seem to present it.
If the hardline Brexiteers buy into 'Norway for now' as a solution, why should the EU trust that anything they agree to will endure when 'for now' runs out? There will need to be cast-iron guarantees on all the issues being discussed at the moment, and that will not be painless for the UK.
I think this is a good point - the EU27 would be very loath to accept an EEA arrangement which is just a stepping-stone out. They (not unreasonably) want our status to be resolved so they can get on with their affairs.
It's unclear whether they'd accept an EEA arrangement at all, of course.
Glad to see your 'Remainers taking rot about sovereignty' spidey-sense was triggered this afternoon.
A combination of too much work and blood coming from.places it really shouldn't has meant my contributions are necessarily limited and perhaps a little short tempered at the moment. Nor am I currently very reassured by the actions of the NHS right now so apologies to all if I am less than civil of late.
That's worrying. I hope it gets sorted and you well soon.
I just want some press person to visit Boston, find a foaming "get them out" leaver and ask "will you replace them picking vegetables"...
This looks like a non sequitur to me. Even after the East European accession to the EU, the UK had a visa system for seasonal labourers in the fruit and vegetable sector - it was withdrawn a few years later, but would likely be reintroduced in the event of the ending of free movement. An added bonus, if you're a minister with a target to aim for or in search for a statistic to wave at election time, is that folk who leave a couple of months after arriving don't show up into those net migration figures.
(I don't know if you have been to Boston but that place has been utterly transformed. Many of those who have lived there for years have decided that they don't like it so much as a result. Personally, I have lived in some areas with lots of migration, and some places with little, and been happy in both - but if somebody else has become uncomfortable or unhappy in their own town, I don't think I've the right to tell them that they are "wrong" to do so, leave alone "foaming at the mouth". If we are honest about it, using seasonal labour would not have had the same transformative effect.)
Yes, it shouldn't be too difficult to run a visa scheme for unskilled seasonal workers in certain industries such as agriculture. If we want to encourage them to look locally first we could auction the visas.
Unfortunately we are all going to be sacrificed on the altar of stopping FOM. The irony of course is that I doubt immigration figures will change much, like the non-EU immigration figures which of course we have had control of all along.
In the end all the damage will end up having been pretty much for nothing just so a few nerds like Jacob Rees-Mogg can claim we are sovereign again. Thanks a bunch.
All because Blair failed to impose a few transition controls in 2004
Remember when Osborne and Cameron were getting absolutely slated on this site for warning about the dangers of Brexit. If you read this thread it feels that the massive majority view is now that they were right. Its incredible how peoples opinion change when reality faces them.
I only popped on here to wish you all the best. Managed to sidetrack myself making a couple of Brexit-related points, but hopefully that is a flaw you of all people can forgive me for!
I know all too well that when the blood's in the wrong place, it's time to pay attention. Do whatever you need to look after yourself properly - work (and PB!) can, if necessary, wait.
To add to my previous post, many Brexiteers are openly saying that the solution to the Irish border issue is for Ireland to leave the EU. The EU cannot agree to anything that leaves open the opportunity for a future UK government to create problems for Ireland. What is the UK government's position?
We have four options. 1. Stay in the EU. Would take a significant opinion swing OR exit clearly meaning disaster to make this politically viable 2. Join EFTA. "people voted to leave the single market" they say to a question that mentioned the EU and only the EU. The nutjob press would have a stroke it would be that worked up 3. A transitional deal into a CETA style deal in 2025 - because thats how long it will take. I suspect the EU won't offer a lengthy enough transition making that impossible 4. Hard Brexit. And then food shortages and then riots. All by the end of the first week.
Surely it won't take many more "negotiations" before its clear that our options are 1 or 2. 4 has been threatened and laughed at. 3 is impossible. Which leaves EFTA and bollocks to the immigration arguments or staying in and bollocks to the whole thing. [snip]
Why is 3 impossible?
If no other argument convinces you, it's impossible because of the level of competence and the capacity of the UK government.
At least, in contrast to option 2, it requires us (probably*) to negotiate only with Barnier's team and then get approval by QMV. Options 1 and 2 would (again probably) require the unanimous formal treaty consent of all 27 EU countries and in the case of option 2, of the four EFTA states as well.
* I say 'probably' because the exact legal position is as clear as mud, and partly depends on what exactly is in the agreement.
No it would not. We would only need the agreement of EFTA, not of the EU. The EU cannot dictate who is a member of EFTA and they cannot prevent us remaining a member of the EEA as no mechanism exists to throw a member out unless they are in breach of the treaty.
Much as I would very much like us to join EFTA, I just don't think the public will see the difference, or will take to:
"Le EU est mort, vive l'EFTA".
With all kinds of commentators saying: "but don't you see..it's really different..."
That is of course the issue. One that I think.could only be decided by either a decision in Parliament or a vote by the people. It is not something that should be decided by the executive.
The idea that Brexit won't go ahead seems rather laughable. If there was a referendum there are 2 possible results. One would be 90% Remain, 10% leave on a 35% turnout, the other would be 60% leave, 40% remain on a 70% turnout.
All I can say is thank goodness we have David Davis negotiating Brexit rather than Faisal Islam or twitter. It's just sad to see some remain voters still a year later being angry about what is in reality a fantastic opportunity.
A combination of too much work and blood coming from.places it really shouldn't has meant my contributions are necessarily limited and perhaps a little short tempered at the moment. Nor am I currently very reassured by the actions of the NHS right now so apologies to all if I am less than civil of late.
Hope it clears up quickly and that you can ease up a bit. Good luck, and do press to be seen quickly.
To add to my previous post, many Brexiteers are openly saying that the solution to the Irish border issue is for Ireland to leave the EU. The EU cannot agree to anything that leaves open the opportunity for a future UK government to create problems for Ireland. What is the UK government's position?
That's easy to answer. The UK's position is that if we negotiate a tariff-free and largely frictionless trade deal, which is what we want to do, then the Irish border problem goes away. Indeed that is the logical outcome of the EU's stance, but they don't seem to have quite made the logical connection yet.
No it would not. We would only need the agreement of EFTA, not of the EU. The EU cannot dictate who is a member of EFTA and they cannot prevent us remaining a member of the EEA as no mechanism exists to throw a member out unless they are in breach of the treaty.
So you keep saying. However, you are about the only person in the universe who doesn't accept that we are signatories to the EEA treaty (which is a treaty between the EFTA states and the EU states) in our capacity as an EU state, and therefore wouldn't automatically switch to the other side of the agreement.
Sweden and Portugal were signatories to the EEA agreement as EFTA members. They switched without issue.
There is a danger for people who do want a transitional deal in general, that if their cause is seen to be being hijacked, or being used as a front, by those who want to sneak Britain into a permanent deal. This may make a genuinely transitional deal less politically feasible.
And it doesn't provide an easy way out of the difficult Article 50 negotiations which is how some seem to present it.
If the hardline Brexiteers buy into 'Norway for now' as a solution, why should the EU trust that anything they agree to will endure when 'for now' runs out? There will need to be cast-iron guarantees on all the issues being discussed at the moment, and that will not be painless for the UK.
I know some are suggesting it but I am not advocating a Norway for now solution. I would see it as a settled end point.
Glad to see your 'Remainers taking rot about sovereignty' spidey-sense was triggered this afternoon.
A combination of too much work and blood coming from.places it really shouldn't has meant my contributions are necessarily limited and perhaps a little short tempered at the moment. Nor am I currently very reassured by the actions of the NHS right now so apologies to all if I am less than civil of late.
Remember when Osborne and Cameron were getting absolutely slated on this site for warning about the dangers of Brexit. If you read this thread it feels that the massive majority view is now that they were right. Its incredible how peoples opinion change when reality faces them.
... We have four options. 1. Stay in the EU. Would take a significant opinion swing OR exit clearly meaning disaster to make this politically viable 2. Join EFTA. "people voted to leave the single market" they say to a question that mentioned the EU and only the EU. The nutjob press would have a stroke it would be that worked up 3. A transitional deal into a CETA style deal in 2025 - because thats how long it will take. I suspect the EU won't offer a lengthy enough transition making that impossible 4. Hard Brexit. And then food shortages and then riots. All by the end of the first week.
Surely it won't take many more "negotiations" before its clear that our options are 1 or 2. 4 has been threatened and laughed at. 3 is impossible. Which leaves EFTA and bollocks to the immigration arguments or staying in and bollocks to the whole thing.
Pretty much. Hard Brexit isn't quite as cataclysmic as that. Something will be agreed for the transition. We just have to pony up the cash. Nevertheless it will be highly unpleasant. 3 and 4 crucially are the same thing - definitively out. By EFTA you mean the European Economic Area or Single Market agreement, where we we sign up to EU obligations without any input into them. And by the way, it is not a given that the EU and EFTA countries will accept us into the EEA. We have to make the case, which will depend on our commitment to the EEA and not flounce out in five years time.
Robbie Gibb is an interesting appointment, it's been quite apparent they've been lacking a comms director for a few months, not sure who the stand-in was but they didn't do a very good job.
Glad to see your 'Remainers taking rot about sovereignty' spidey-sense was triggered this afternoon.
A combination of too much work and blood coming from.places it really shouldn't has meant my contributions are necessarily limited and perhaps a little short tempered at the moment. Nor am I currently very reassured by the actions of the NHS right now so apologies to all if I am less than civil of late.
Hope it is solved soon Richard.
I think you're remarkably chipper on here given the febrile times!
Remember when Osborne and Cameron were getting absolutely slated on this site for warning about the dangers of Brexit. If you read this thread it feels that the massive majority view is now that they were right. Its incredible how peoples opinion change when reality faces them.
The opinions of a few shrill Gina Miller types on the forum are not the same as how people feel in the real world. It's been rather sidelined as a topic of conversation and a new story in recent weeks due to Greenfell and the rise of Corbyn.
Let's not forget recession, punishment budget, break-up of the union and war. Cam and Osborne promised so much and delivered so little.
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Remember when Osborne and Cameron were getting absolutely slated on this site for warning about the dangers of Brexit. If you read this thread it feels that the massive majority view is now that they were right. Its incredible how peoples opinion change when reality faces them.
The opinions of a few shrill Gina Miller types on the forum are not the same as how people feel in the real world. It's been rather sidelined as a topic of conversation and a new story in recent weeks due to Greenfell and the rise of Corbyn....
Not in the real and far from shrill world of business.
Though I'll grant Corbyn and fire risk assessments are also topics.
Glad to see your 'Remainers taking rot about sovereignty' spidey-sense was triggered this afternoon.
A combination of too much work and blood coming from.places it really shouldn't has meant my contributions are necessarily limited and perhaps a little short tempered at the moment. Nor am I currently very reassured by the actions of the NHS right now so apologies to all if I am less than civil of late.
I'm sure once the £350m a week starts to come through they'll be able to sort you out.
Nope. The NHS is really not fit for purpose and no amount if money thrown at it will sort it out.
I was on holiday recently and got chatting to a couple that both work for the NHS, she has a been a nurse for 34 years and he is an ambulance driver, non-emergency.
I asked them if more money was the solution and they both said no, it is a case of spending the money properly. Loads of managers, chief nurses, more layers of senior nurses before you get to matron and then the sisters, so much money wasted.
I'm much more inclined to agree with them than a bunch of anarchists frothing at the mouth,
Remember when Osborne and Cameron were getting absolutely slated on this site for warning about the dangers of Brexit. If you read this thread it feels that the massive majority view is now that they were right. Its incredible how peoples opinion change when reality faces them.
The opinions of a few shrill Gina Miller types on the forum are not the same as how people feel in the real world. It's been rather sidelined as a topic of conversation and a new story in recent weeks due to Greenfell and the rise of Corbyn....
Not in the real and far from shrill world of business.
Though I'll grant Corbyn and fire risk assessments are also topics.
Its weird - in my business almost everyone reports doing well out of Brexit. Weaker pound helps our often Export led trade (which often features several domestic B2B purchases in a chain that regularly ends with a ROW end user).
I think Brexiters are panicking too much and Remainers excitedly overreaching themselves, but I detect an emerging consensus that EFTA-EEA is something that both Brexiters and Remainers could live with. It's better than a hard exit that backfires, or this very slippery conniving attempt to sell a permanent transition state that amounts to a BINO. Which would just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the long-term.
Of course, the EU also know this, so will be wary of releasing the UK into such an arrangement, but political competition and economic alternatives would force them to up their game.
The state should work with business to help the UK maximise the benefits of automation and other technological changes, Jeremy Corbyn has said.
How does this fit with his ban on driverless trains? I presume he means go ahead develop automation but every machine will require a human supervisor on £75k a year.
The state should work with business to help the UK maximise the benefits of automation and other technological changes, Jeremy Corbyn has said.
How does this fit with his ban on driverless trains? I presume he means go ahead develop automation but every machine will require a human supervisor on £75k a year.
It means ataking account of the needs of the people who will be displaced and not just throwing thgem on the scrap-heap.
Same as was done by creating all the new jobs in the coalfields. Or something!!!
Glad to see your 'Remainers taking rot about sovereignty' spidey-sense was triggered this afternoon.
A combination of too much work and blood coming from.places it really shouldn't has meant my contributions are necessarily limited and perhaps a little short tempered at the moment. Nor am I currently very reassured by the actions of the NHS right now so apologies to all if I am less than civil of late.
It may not be relevant, but I should be able to get some good recommendations for gastroenterologists if you need (I'm on the board of a company in the space so can get to most of the KOLs)
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Not really. Ireland possesses the Euro and would understandably want a say in those institutions that control it, plus it would be unique as the only English speaking country inside the EU.
... We have four options. 1. Stay in the EU. Would take a significant opinion swing OR exit clearly meaning disaster to make this politically viable 2. Join EFTA. "people voted to leave the single market" they say to a question that mentioned the EU and only the EU. The nutjob press would have a stroke it would be that worked up 3. A transitional deal into a CETA style deal in 2025 - because thats how long it will take. I suspect the EU won't offer a lengthy enough transition making that impossible 4. Hard Brexit. And then food shortages and then riots. All by the end of the first week.
Surely it won't take many more "negotiations" before its clear that our options are 1 or 2. 4 has been threatened and laughed at. 3 is impossible. Which leaves EFTA and bollocks to the immigration arguments or staying in and bollocks to the whole thing.
Pretty much. Hard Brexit isn't quite as cataclysmic as that. Something will be agreed for the transition. We just have to pony up the cash. Nevertheless it will be highly unpleasant. 3 and 4 crucially are the same thing - definitively out. By EFTA you mean the European Economic Area or Single Market agreement, where we we sign up to EU obligations without any input into them. And by the way, it is not a given that the EU and EFTA countries will accept us into the EEA. We have to make the case, which will depend on our commitment to the EEA and not flounce out in five years time.
I think the EU would be delighted by the EEA as they'd have "won" on the four freedoms, and could point to us and exclaim how we no longer had a say in making the rules.
Of course, unofficially, we still absolutely would.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
There is a danger for people who do want a transitional deal in general, that if their cause is seen to be being hijacked, or being used as a front, by those who want to sneak Britain into a permanent deal. This may make a genuinely transitional deal less politically feasible.
And it doesn't provide an easy way out of the difficult Article 50 negotiations which is how some seem to present it.
If the hardline Brexiteers buy into 'Norway for now' as a solution, why should the EU trust that anything they agree to will endure when 'for now' runs out? There will need to be cast-iron guarantees on all the issues being discussed at the moment, and that will not be painless for the UK.
I know some are suggesting it but I am not advocating a Norway for now solution. I would see it as a settled end point.
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Not really. Ireland possesses the Euro and would understandably want a say in those institutions that control it, plus it would be unique as the only English speaking country inside the EU.
Annexing Ireland would seem the sensible thing to do. Back to the pound and the good old days before 1922.
I think Brexiters are panicking too much and Remainers excitedly overreaching themselves, but I detect an emerging consensus that EFTA-EEA is something that both Brexiters and Remainers could live with. It's better than a hard exit that backfires, or this very slippery conniving attempt to sell a permanent transition state that amounts to a BINO. Which would just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the long-term.
Of course, the EU also know this, so will be wary of releasing the UK into such an arrangement, but political competition and economic alternatives would force them to up their game.
Which would be to everyone's benefit.
I think this has always been the case - that the 'Implementation period' that May talked about in January was a disguise for EEA (or a shadow EEA type agreement). However. via EFTA it is a very different agreement, because it dramatically changes the balance of power between EFTA and the EU. It makes EFTA the 4th largest 'trader' in the world after the USA, China and the EU, and might revive the pressure in Norway and Switzerland to come to a better EU -EFTA than the current Swiss bilateral and EEA - a true EFTA-EU FTA.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
That's a misreading of the situation. What you were observing was an indication that the interests of the UK were to be in the Eurozone, not outside it.
We have four options. 1. Stay in the EU. Would take a significant opinion swing OR exit clearly meaning disaster to make this politically viable 2. Join EFTA. "people voted to leave the single market" they say to a question that mentioned the EU and only the EU. The nutjob press would have a stroke it would be that worked up 3. A transitional deal into a CETA style deal in 2025 - because thats how long it will take. I suspect the EU won't offer a lengthy enough transition making that impossible 4. Hard Brexit. And then food shortages and then riots. All by the end of the first week.
Surely it won't take many more "negotiations" before its clear that our options are 1 or 2. 4 has been threatened and laughed at. 3 is impossible. Which leaves EFTA and bollocks to the immigration arguments or staying in and bollocks to the whole thing. [snip]
Why is 3 impossible?
If no other argument convinces you, it's impossible because of the level of competence and the capacity of the UK government.
At least, in contrast to option 2, it requires us (probably*) to negotiate only with Barnier's team and then get approval by QMV. Options 1 and 2 would (again probably) require the unanimous formal treaty consent of all 27 EU countries and in the case of option 2, of the four EFTA states as well.
* I say 'probably' because the exact legal position is as clear as mud, and partly depends on what exactly is in the agreement.
No it would not. We would only need the agreement of EFTA, not of the EU. The EU cannot dictate who is a member of EFTA and they cannot prevent us remaining a member of the EEA as no mechanism exists to throw a member out unless they are in breach of the treaty.
Much as I would very much like us to join EFTA, I just don't think the public will see the difference, or will take to:
"Le EU est mort, vive l'EFTA".
With all kinds of commentators saying: "but don't you see..it's really different..."
It's not EFTA. It's the European Free Trade Association.
A group of independent countries collaborating to encourage free trade.
Exactly what people wanted to join when they voted in 1975.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
That's a misreading of the situation. What you were observing was an indication that the interests of the UK were to be in the Eurozone, not outside it.
Absolutely not.
Optimal Currencies Areas only work if they are, well, optimal. Given the fundamental divergence between the UK and the continental economies - even over something as basic as level of home ownership and the length of the average mortgage - a single interest rate would never work for the UK and, for example, Germany.
We have four options. 1. Stay in the EU. Would take a significant opinion swing OR exit clearly meaning disaster to make this politically viable 2. Join EFTA. "people voted to leave the single market" they say to a question that mentioned the EU and only the EU. The nutjob press would have a stroke it would be that worked up 3. A transitional deal into a CETA style deal in 2025 - because thats how long it will take. I suspect the EU won't offer a lengthy enough transition making that impossible 4. Hard Brexit. And then food shortages and then riots. All by the end of the first week.
Surely it won't take many more "negotiations" before its clear that our options are 1 or 2. 4 has been threatened and laughed at. 3 is impossible. Which leaves EFTA and bollocks to the immigration arguments or staying in and bollocks to the whole thing. [snip]
Why is 3 impossible?
If no other argument convinces you, it's impossible because of the level of competence and the capacity of the UK government.
At least, in contrast to option 2, it requires us (probably*) to negotiate only with Barnier's team and then get approval by QMV. Options 1 and 2 would (again probably) require the unanimous formal treaty consent of all 27 EU countries and in the case of option 2, of the four EFTA states as well.
* I say 'probably' because the exact legal position is as clear as mud, and partly depends on what exactly is in the agreement.
No it would not. We would only need the agreement of EFTA, not of the EU. The EU cannot dictate who is a member of EFTA and they cannot prevent us remaining a member of the EEA as no mechanism exists to throw a member out unless they are in breach of the treaty.
Much as I would very much like us to join EFTA, I just don't think the public will see the difference, or will take to:
"Le EU est mort, vive l'EFTA".
With all kinds of commentators saying: "but don't you see..it's really different..."
It's not EFTA. It's the European Free Trade Association.
A group of independent countries collaborating to encourage free trade.
Exactly what people wanted to join when they voted in 1975.
It's an easy sell.
The hardest part is when people come back with what Remain said about it in the campaign - most of which was hopelessly misleading.They'll have to take it all back and admit that people like Dan Hannan and Richard North were correct.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
That's a misreading of the situation. What you were observing was an indication that the interests of the UK were to be in the Eurozone, not outside it.
Absolutely not.
Optimal Currencies Areas only work if they are, well, optimal. Given the fundamental divergence between the UK and the continental economies - even over something as basic as level of home ownership and the length of the average mortgage - a single interest rate would never work for the UK and, for example, Germany.
You are just attempting to rationalise your own prejudices because you don't like the political implications. Is the UK an optimal currency area? Does it really matter?
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
That's a misreading of the situation. What you were observing was an indication that the interests of the UK were to be in the Eurozone, not outside it.
Absolutely not.
Optimal Currencies Areas only work if they are, well, optimal. Given the fundamental divergence between the UK and the continental economies - even over something as basic as level of home ownership and the length of the average mortgage - a single interest rate would never work for the UK and, for example, Germany.
I'd give up if I was you Charles, he hasn't got a clue
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Not really. Ireland possesses the Euro and would understandably want a say in those institutions that control it, plus it would be unique as the only English speaking country inside the EU.
Annexing Ireland would seem the sensible thing to do. Back to the pound and the good old days before 1922.
Why stop at Ireland? Let's make "Empire 2.0" a real empire!
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
That's a misreading of the situation. What you were observing was an indication that the interests of the UK were to be in the Eurozone, not outside it.
Absolutely not.
Optimal Currencies Areas only work if they are, well, optimal. Given the fundamental divergence between the UK and the continental economies - even over something as basic as level of home ownership and the length of the average mortgage - a single interest rate would never work for the UK and, for example, Germany.
You are just attempting to rationalise your own prejudices because you don't like the political implications. Is the UK an optimal currency area? Does it really matter?
Yes, it is hugely important.
I'd use the US as an example of an non-optimal currency area rather than the UK (the principles are the same but it's more obvious in the US).
If you don't have an optimal currency area, but you do have a common currency and free movement of people, then you only have two alternatives: (1) accepting that certain regions of the currency area will be impoverished/depopulated or (2) massive fiscal transfers to prevent this.
I think that (1) is unethical. I don't think that (2) works politically unless you have a demos. New York and California accept the fact that they subsidise Arkansas and Montana. London and the South East are more or less okay with subsidising the other parts of the country. Germany doesn't want to subsidise Greece.
I'd be amazed if this is correct. Firstly, the Lisbon treaty (like all other treaties) are written to take into account the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which would tend to suggest the complete opposite - that withdrawal of any notice before it object comes into effect, is unilaterally available, so long as it is in good faith.
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Not really. Ireland possesses the Euro and would understandably want a say in those institutions that control it, plus it would be unique as the only English speaking country inside the EU.
Annexing Ireland would seem the sensible thing to do. Back to the pound and the good old days before 1922.
Why stop at Ireland? Let's make "Empire 2.0" a real empire!
USA, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and India but not Pakistan, Nigeria or South Africa.
The hardest part is when people come back with what Remain said about it in the campaign - most of which was hopelessly misleading.They'll have to take it all back and admit that people like Dan Hannan and Richard North were correct.
Yep. It's a shame they are not listened to.more. Richard North was directly communicating with the Secretary General of EFTA to get an understanding of the legal.position of the UK vis a vis EFTA and EEA membership. I wonder if anyone actually in a position of authority in the UK actually bothered to do that.
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Not really. Ireland possesses the Euro and would understandably want a say in those institutions that control it, plus it would be unique as the only English speaking country inside the EU.
Sorry I didn't explain the context. Ireland's former ambassador to Canada suggested Ireland should follow the UK out of the EU. In doing so it could associate with its closest trading partner and would avoid aggravating border issues with three North.
If you don't have an optimal currency area, but you do have a common currency and free movement of people, then you only have two alternatives: (1) accepting that certain regions of the currency area will be impoverished/depopulated or (2) massive fiscal transfers to prevent this.
This is just Keynesian dogma. A member of the Eurozone has all the economic tools it needs to remain competitive even in the absence of fiscal transfers.
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Not really. Ireland possesses the Euro and would understandably want a say in those institutions that control it, plus it would be unique as the only English speaking country inside the EU.
Annexing Ireland would seem the sensible thing to do. Back to the pound and the good old days before 1922.
Why stop at Ireland? Let's make "Empire 2.0" a real empire!
USA, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and India but not Pakistan, Nigeria or South Africa.
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Not really. Ireland possesses the Euro and would understandably want a say in those institutions that control it, plus it would be unique as the only English speaking country inside the EU.
Annexing Ireland would seem the sensible thing to do. Back to the pound and the good old days before 1922.
Why stop at Ireland? Let's make "Empire 2.0" a real empire!
USA, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and India but not Pakistan, Nigeria or South Africa.
Not New Zealand? They're the only one that is even ininitesimally likely to want to join.
If you don't have an optimal currency area, but you do have a common currency and free movement of people, then you only have two alternatives: (1) accepting that certain regions of the currency area will be impoverished/depopulated or (2) massive fiscal transfers to prevent this.
This is just Keynesian dogma. A member of the Eurozone has all the economic tools it needs to remain competitive even in the absence of fiscal transfers.
Not when the value of the currency is being controlled for the benefit of just one or two members
Brexit forces a real if unpalatable choice on Ireland, where arguably Ireland will lose more by staying with the EU than entering into an association agreement with the UK, for reasons of geography and the fact that its island is cut in two. But the question answers itself. Rightly or wrongly Ireland sees its future in the EU. If even Ireland chooses the EU despite all the reasons for sticking with the UK agreements, it demonstrates the depth of isolation that the UK will experience post-Brexit
Not really. Ireland possesses the Euro and would understandably want a say in those institutions that control it, plus it would be unique as the only English speaking country inside the EU.
Sorry I didn't explain the context. Ireland's former ambassador to Canada suggested Ireland should follow the UK out of the EU. In doing so it could associate with its closest trading partner and would avoid aggravating border issues with three North.
I would prefer that, but it's Ireland's choice.
There is a lot of history with the UK of course, which drives its political priorities too.
This is of course utter bollocks. No one outside of the actual negotiating parties has any idea how the negotiations are going and all these claims of disaster are either wishful thinking or pure guesswork.
If you don't have an optimal currency area, but you do have a common currency and free movement of people, then you only have two alternatives: (1) accepting that certain regions of the currency area will be impoverished/depopulated or (2) massive fiscal transfers to prevent this.
This is just Keynesian dogma. A member of the Eurozone has all the economic tools it needs to remain competitive even in the absence of fiscal transfers.
No, it doesn't. By definition it doesn't have access to monetary policy.
In a Keynesian world, government budgets would be managed to run a surplus in the good times allowing flexibility for the bad times. Unfortunately we live in the real world.
The fundamental adjustment that you need to make is a reduction in real wages+social costs (or an increase in productivity) to make a country cost-competitive vs. other parts of the currency area. Although we have seen that happen in some countries post 2008 it took a crisis of that magnitude to make it possible and we still have unbelievable levels of unemployment in these countries.
Any system that results youth unemployment of 45% (Greece) , 41% (Spain), 35% (Italy), 24% (France) is unethical. (The UK, for comparison, is 12%, while Germany - which is the big winner from the Eurozone - is 7%)
If you don't have an optimal currency area, but you do have a common currency and free movement of people, then you only have two alternatives: (1) accepting that certain regions of the currency area will be impoverished/depopulated or (2) massive fiscal transfers to prevent this.
This is just Keynesian dogma. A member of the Eurozone has all the economic tools it needs to remain competitive even in the absence of fiscal transfers.
Tell that to Greece, Italy and Spain. Germany might well be flourishing, but Southern Europe most certainly isn't. @Charles' point is that without a single EU demos theres no willingness on the part of the Germans and Dutch to subsidise the South, as needs to happen inside a fixed currency union.
The hardest part is when people come back with what Remain said about it in the campaign - most of which was hopelessly misleading.They'll have to take it all back and admit that people like Dan Hannan and Richard North were correct.
Yep. It's a shame they are not listened to.more. Richard North was directly communicating with the Secretary General of EFTA to get an understanding of the legal.position of the UK vis a vis EFTA and EEA membership. I wonder if anyone actually in a position of authority in the UK actually bothered to do that.
A lot of Dr North's research was very good, and Flexcit had a lot of good info in it. I ended up disagreeing with him quite strongly on both his final 'Lichtenstein' solution and his approach to campaigning. He can be a little prickly too, which is why sometimes his ideas find less favour than they might with some people. But set that aside, a lot of what he writes is worth reading.
Thank you for the link. 'Slapped down immediately' doesn't exactly come across as 'careful analysis of arguments' does it? As he points out, the Irish political class are refusing to engage in the topic - which is a pity, because if any country stands to be royally fecked over in Brexit its blameless Ireland.
I think Brexiters are panicking too much and Remainers excitedly overreaching themselves, but I detect an emerging consensus that EFTA-EEA is something that both Brexiters and Remainers could live with. It's better than a hard exit that backfires, or this very slippery conniving attempt to sell a permanent transition state that amounts to a BINO. Which would just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the long-term.
Of course, the EU also know this, so will be wary of releasing the UK into such an arrangement, but political competition and economic alternatives would force them to up their game.
Which would be to everyone's benefit.
I think this has always been the case - that the 'Implementation period' that May talked about in January was a disguise for EEA (or a shadow EEA type agreement). However. via EFTA it is a very different agreement, because it dramatically changes the balance of power between EFTA and the EU. It makes EFTA the 4th largest 'trader' in the world after the USA, China and the EU, and might revive the pressure in Norway and Switzerland to come to a better EU -EFTA than the current Swiss bilateral and EEA - a true EFTA-EU FTA.
EFTA gives British leadership of an alternative power centre within Europe. It causes minimal economic fallout in the short-term, it can be completed by 2022 (easily), it will be good for the quality of governance in both the EU and EFTA as they offer rival offerings to European nation states, and it firms up a good chunk of ongoing British influence in Europe.
I'm not sure if the EU and EFTA will grant it, but I hope they would.
Any system that results youth unemployment of 45% (Greece) , 41% (Spain), 35% (Italy), 24% (France) is unethical. (The UK, for comparison, is 12%, while Germany - which is the big winner from the Eurozone - is 7%)
Spain's recorded youth unemployment rate in the mid-90s, before the Euro, was over 40% and higher than it is today. Was that the fault of the unethical Euro too?
This is of course utter bollocks. No one outside of the actual negotiating parties has any idea how the negotiations are going and all these claims of disaster are either wishful thinking or pure guesswork.
There's an awful lot of commentators who seem rather upset that we're not doing the Brexit negotiations in public, and are filling in the blank pages with their own beliefs and prejudices.
Any system that results youth unemployment of 45% (Greece) , 41% (Spain), 35% (Italy), 24% (France) is unethical. (The UK, for comparison, is 12%, while Germany - which is the big winner from the Eurozone - is 7%)
Spain's recorded youth unemployment rate in the 90s, before the Euro, was over 40% and higher than it is today. Was that the fault of the unethical Euro too?
Looks like was higher in recent years than it has ever been:
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
Certainly losing the argument over the design of the Euro was the key moment of departure within the Tory party. It's incredible to look back and see Bill Cash making approving comments about the counter-proposal of a hard ECU. Nevertheless, having lost the argument we should have pressed on instead of sitting on the sidelines in ever more sullen resignation.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
No one outside of the actual negotiating parties has any idea how the negotiations are going and all these claims of disaster are either wishful thinking or pure guesswork.
Except we do know
Sir Ivan Rogers, our estimable and respected ambassador to the EU, warned we risked getting the sequencing of the talks wrong. Get the important trade stuff done before agreeing on the size of our divorce payment, he told them, otherwise they will hold us to ransom. They fired him, did the opposite, and are now facing the consequences.
Civil servants in the key Brexit departments tell how they have been discouraged from devising innovative policy in case it leaks and embarrasses the uber-cautious occupant of No 10. The departments are anyway hopelessly understaffed and lacking in expertise. The EU watches all this, understanding its own heft, shaking its head at our daily misapprehensions and vainglorious boasts, and simply waits.
On Thursday, in front of the European Economic and Social Committee in Brussels, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, delivered the frankest and most detailed exposition yet of what awaits us. “The decision taken by the UK to leave the EU will have major consequences. It is my duty to say so,” he warned.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
If we had joined the euro - I think leaving would have been almost impossible without economic turmoil.
How quickly Leavers abandon the need to control immigration when they realise that the current path of the Brexit negotiations is leading down a very unpromising path.
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Be fair Alastair. There are a fair few of us on here who made it absolutely clear from the very start that we were not interested in immigration controls. Maybe few who go as far as I do in wanting open borders for all nationalities but still plenty who did not in any way campaign on the basis of ending freedom of movement.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
diverging
That's a misreading of the situation. What you were observing was an indication that the interests of the UK were to be in the Eurozone, not outside it.
Absolutely not.
Optimal Currencies Areas only work if they are, well, optimal. Given the fundamental divergence between the UK and the continental economies - even over something as basic as level of home ownership and the length of the average mortgage - a single interest rate would never work for the UK and, for example, Germany.
You are just attempting to rationalise your own prejudices because you don't like the political implications. Is the UK an optimal currency area? Does it really matter?
Yes, the UK could have joined the euro. We'd have had an even bigger boom up until 2007. Then we'd have had an almighty crash in 2008-2009 and, with no devaluation capability, or domestic quantitative easing option, our employment and housing markets would have had to take the hit, coupled with whatever relief the ECB granted us, although we'd have had a partial say in that.
We'd also have had to contribute more to bailouts.
We'd have had more of a voice in shaping the future of the EU, from the inside, but that wouldn't have stopped its direction of closer union, and we'd have signed up to it whilst staring down the neck of fiscal and banking union, common defence, common asylum and immigration policies and all the rest.
Is it true the UK didn't want all that because of the political implications?
Too right. Many major policy decisions would have been removed from Westminster for good, and - saving the fullscale break-up of the EU - we probably could never left without massive consequences that would make even the hardest of Brexits look like a light nettle rash.
But no - the sovereignty argument didn't really hold water for me; it was like arguing we're locked in a cell when the door was unlocked and there were instructions to operate the handle printed on the door. We were in the room because we chose to be in the room; we were never incarcerated.
you don't for one moment think the mad Brexiters will accept this do you?
And I like the analogy of the cell.
That was true so long as we were in a position where we could select which standards/commitments made sense.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
The Euro changed everything. The UK could have stayed in the EEC long-term (forever) up until about 1988.
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
Certainly losing the argument over the design of the Euro was the key moment of departure within the Tory party. It's incredible to look back and see Bill Cash making approving comments about the counter-proposal of a hard ECU. Nevertheless, having lost the argument we should have pressed on instead of sitting on the sidelines in ever more sullen resignation.
We would have destroyed not only our own economy but the Euro itself. If you have any liking for the currency at all you should be eternally grateful that we did not join.
Comments
The Prince over the Water for new labour as a long shot maybe, or maybe not
In the end all the damage will end up having been pretty much for nothing just so a few nerds like Jacob Rees-Mogg can claim we are sovereign again. Thanks a bunch.
(I don't know if you have been to Boston but that place has been utterly transformed. Many of those who have lived there for years have decided that they don't like it so much as a result. Personally, I have lived in some areas with lots of migration, and some places with little, and been happy in both - but if somebody else has become uncomfortable or unhappy in their own town, I don't think I've the right to tell them that they are "wrong" to do so, leave alone "foaming at the mouth". If we are honest about it, using seasonal labour would not have had the same transformative effect.)
If the hardline Brexiteers buy into 'Norway for now' as a solution, why should the EU trust that anything they agree to will endure when 'for now' runs out? There will need to be cast-iron guarantees on all the issues being discussed at the moment, and that will not be painless for the UK.
"Le EU est mort, vive l'EFTA".
With all kinds of commentators saying: "but don't you see..it's really different..."
It's unclear whether they'd accept an EEA arrangement at all, of course.
I only popped on here to wish you all the best. Managed to sidetrack myself making a couple of Brexit-related points, but hopefully that is a flaw you of all people can forgive me for!
I know all too well that when the blood's in the wrong place, it's time to pay attention. Do whatever you need to look after yourself properly - work (and PB!) can, if necessary, wait.
All I can say is thank goodness we have David Davis negotiating Brexit rather than Faisal Islam or twitter. It's just sad to see some remain voters still a year later being angry about what is in reality a fantastic opportunity.
You read it here first. I have been posting that outcome for weeks.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/After-Brexit-will-Ireland-be-next-to-exit-1.pdf
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/cricket/event/28287560/market?marketId=1.132367469
I think you're remarkably chipper on here given the febrile times!
Let's not forget recession, punishment budget, break-up of the union and war. Cam and Osborne promised so much and delivered so little.
You read it here first
Better think of your future
Time you straighten right out
Creating problems in town...
Yep.
(wrong band; right lyrics.)
Though I'll grant Corbyn and fire risk assessments are also topics.
I asked them if more money was the solution and they both said no, it is a case of spending the money properly. Loads of managers, chief nurses, more layers of senior nurses before you get to matron and then the sisters, so much money wasted.
I'm much more inclined to agree with them than a bunch of anarchists frothing at the mouth,
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/leo-varadkar-rejects-former-diplomat-advice-on-leaving-eu-1.3142365
just ensure the poison rumbled on forever.
I don't agree EEA-EFTA offers "nothing" on immigration.
It does offer an emergency brake, welfare and benefit qualifications and additional reserved occupations that are permitted to be offered to nationals only. None of that was in Dave's deal. There was a transitional (temporary) brake on welfare benefits, and that was it.
I also think that free movement would be lower just by virtue of us not being members of the EU politically, as the UK would have a different economic and political European dynamic. And if it did spike, we could pull the brake.
I also think there'd be benefits to Europe as a whole by forming a solid non-EU European alternative for nation states to consider, which I why I could see Ireland, Sweden, and perhaps Denmark joining as well in the long-term.
Of course, the EU also know this, so will be wary of releasing the UK into such an arrangement, but political competition and economic alternatives would force them to up their game.
Which would be to everyone's benefit.
How does this fit with his ban on driverless trains? I presume he means go ahead develop automation but every machine will require a human supervisor on £75k a year.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/cricket/event/28287560/market?marketId=1.132367469
Same as was done by creating all the new jobs in the coalfields. Or something!!!
Of course, unofficially, we still absolutely would.
The introduction of QMV (for good reasons) and the emerging signs of block voting by the Eurozone members changed this dynamic: we were in a position where we were committed to abiding by things that we didn't necessarily choose or vote for. A good example of this could be the attempt by the Eurozone to move clearing away from London. Yes, that was overturned by the European courts but - bluntly speaking - it was a huge red flag that an organisation of which we are a member ever tried to take it in the first place. That, for me, was a clear indication that the interests of the UK and the EU were diverging
A group of independent countries collaborating to encourage free trade.
Exactly what people wanted to join when they voted in 1975.
It's an easy sell.
Optimal Currencies Areas only work if they are, well, optimal. Given the fundamental divergence between the UK and the continental economies - even over something as basic as level of home ownership and the length of the average mortgage - a single interest rate would never work for the UK and, for example, Germany.
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/882989178610438146
I'd use the US as an example of an non-optimal currency area rather than the UK (the principles are the same but it's more obvious in the US).
If you don't have an optimal currency area, but you do have a common currency and free movement of people, then you only have two alternatives: (1) accepting that certain regions of the currency area will be impoverished/depopulated or (2) massive fiscal transfers to prevent this.
I think that (1) is unethical. I don't think that (2) works politically unless you have a demos. New York and California accept the fact that they subsidise Arkansas and Montana. London and the South East are more or less okay with subsidising the other parts of the country. Germany doesn't want to subsidise Greece.
This may help http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=optimum-currency-area&mhq5j=e2
There is a lot of history with the UK of course, which drives its political priorities too.
In a Keynesian world, government budgets would be managed to run a surplus in the good times allowing flexibility for the bad times. Unfortunately we live in the real world.
The fundamental adjustment that you need to make is a reduction in real wages+social costs (or an increase in productivity) to make a country cost-competitive vs. other parts of the currency area. Although we have seen that happen in some countries post 2008 it took a crisis of that magnitude to make it possible and we still have unbelievable levels of unemployment in these countries.
Any system that results youth unemployment of 45% (Greece) , 41% (Spain), 35% (Italy), 24% (France) is unethical. (The UK, for comparison, is 12%, while Germany - which is the big winner from the Eurozone - is 7%)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/
I'm not sure if the EU and EFTA will grant it, but I hope they would.
Spain's recorded youth unemployment rate in the mid-90s, before the Euro, was over 40% and higher than it is today. Was that the fault of the unethical Euro too?
Get well soon by the way!
http://blog.capitalogix.com/.a/6a00e5502e47b28833019103598430970c-600wi
For all the insults thrown at Brexiters ("mad", "foaming", "swivel-eyed" etc.) the most ardent Remainers never concede that most Britons and only a handful of MPs started that way, most went that way due to the evolution of the EU and its behaviour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/20/newsid_2516000/2516891.stm
Perhaps they should have thought about it before pandering to xenophobia.
Sir Ivan Rogers, our estimable and respected ambassador to the EU, warned we risked getting the sequencing of the talks wrong. Get the important trade stuff done before agreeing on the size of our divorce payment, he told them, otherwise they will hold us to ransom. They fired him, did the opposite, and are now facing the consequences.
Civil servants in the key Brexit departments tell how they have been discouraged from devising innovative policy in case it leaks and embarrasses the uber-cautious occupant of No 10. The departments are anyway hopelessly understaffed and lacking in expertise. The EU watches all this, understanding its own heft, shaking its head at our daily misapprehensions and vainglorious boasts, and simply waits.
On Thursday, in front of the European Economic and Social Committee in Brussels, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, delivered the frankest and most detailed exposition yet of what awaits us. “The decision taken by the UK to leave the EU will have major consequences. It is my duty to say so,” he warned.
We'd also have had to contribute more to bailouts.
We'd have had more of a voice in shaping the future of the EU, from the inside, but that wouldn't have stopped its direction of closer union, and we'd have signed up to it whilst staring down the neck of fiscal and banking union, common defence, common asylum and immigration policies and all the rest.
Is it true the UK didn't want all that because of the political implications?
Too right. Many major policy decisions would have been removed from Westminster for good, and - saving the fullscale break-up of the EU - we probably could never left without massive consequences that would make even the hardest of Brexits look like a light nettle rash.