Merged Now What?

[Spanx]

No I think this one is fair(ish) comment. My data is from about 2008 and a different product but it was almost impossible for exporters to compete vs domestic product in Brazil thanks to tariffs on some products.

The UK couldn't negotiate it's own trade terms and was tied to the EU process. Now we can negotiate our own terms if we want to.

Of course the EU were already negotiating a deal and now we will have to start from square one again.

The 64,000 dollar question is whether we get a better deal being out of the EU and on what kind of timeframe.

That these countries are expressing an interest is meaningless until we see some actual agreements and actual trade terms.

I'm not sure of the trade terms but it hasn't stopped VW having a car plant in Brazil.

If we still made my our own cars maybe we could have had a plant there?

 

[The Don]

You were given a vote.

If remain had won, I would have been collectively outvoted.

True, but you made a subjective statement when you said that:

There are very strong reasons why people voted to leave the EU.

I disagree, from what a read and understood the reasons why many people voted to leave were weak not least because they cast their vote based on deliberate misinformation

Most polls had put remain ahead.
I went to bed believing that remain had won. Saddened, but resigned to remaining in and that would have been the end of it for me.
I was amazed and elated that it wasn't the end of it.

Nice story, so what ?

We must all accept the results of a democratic vote.
Now we need to make it work.

I'm not suggesting that we don't accept the results of a democratic vote but I think it's a bit rich to say that we need to make it work when it seems that the Leave campaign didn't bother to develop a post-Brexit vision and instead expected the Remain campaign to do all of the heavy lifting.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The UK's membership of the EU hasn't worked out

By what measure?

Customs tariff barriers can make UK companies less competitive.

Now we're in a position to do tariff free deals with countries we couldn't do deals with before (because of rule TFEU207 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E207:en:HTML ).

And we should do tariff free deals.

Actually we were in a position to do tariff free deals VIA the EU. In some cases we already had them. Voting leave has torn up these agreements and work in progress. It's hard to see that as a step forward.

Only because of the uncertainty caused by David Cameron and George Osborne not having a contingency plan.

Perhaps they should have had a contingency plan but had DC decided what Leave meant I'm sure he would have been criticised. This is the problem. Leave was never defined. Lots of people voted leave to get the immigrants out and would not have voted for EEA if it was spelled out that is what Leave meant.

Meanwhile non EU migrants were being discriminated against by the UK government before the referendum. Requirements included paying more than a thousand pounds just to be here, and earnings of more than £35k or facing deportation.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...ng-less-35000-employees-americans-australians

The discrimination against people who aren't from the EU is disgusting and needs to be addressed. Unfortunately one of the people who increased discrimination is now Prime Minister (can I remind you that she was a remainer?)

Yes and this was often used by Leave as somehow something that would be improved by leaving the EU when in fact it has nothing to do with the EU. The government could have put in place points based immigration for non-EU citizens if it wanted to. It could have welcomed Aussies and Americans if it wanted to. It doesn't. The only benefit of Leave is that we can now treat EU people just as badly.

I'm not sure of the trade terms but it hasn't stopped VW having a car plant in Brazil.

If we still made my our own cars maybe we could have had a plant there?

Actually looks like R-R was a bad example as they already supply Embraer engines and I don't think there is a local competitor.

But yes the only way around it was to open a local plant - that's kind of the whole point. But that doesn't make sense in a lot of circumstances unless domestic demand in Brazil is sufficient to support a plant. Cars can do it.

 

[Airfix]

By what measure?

Industrial decline. Fisheries. Democratic deficit. General displeasure with it.

Actually we were in a position to do tariff free deals VIA the EU.

With the Commissioners doing the negotiating on behalf of 27 other governments as well as ours. The conflicts of interest are magnified, and take years to resolve.
It can take over ten years for the EU to negotiate tariff free deals with other countries.

In some cases we already had them.

In some cases we did, that doesn't mean they were good deals.

Voting leave has torn up these agreements and work in progress. It's hard to see that as a step forward.

TTIP will no longer apply. That was a big concern in the referendum remember ?

Also remember that the official leave campaign were a cross party campaign, not the government.
They (Vote Leave) did run a rubbish campaign though, it needs to be said.

Perhaps they should have had a contingency plan but had DC decided what Leave meant I'm sure he would have been criticised. This is the problem. Leave was never defined. Lots of people voted leave to get the immigrants out and would not have voted for EEA if it was spelled out that is what Leave meant.

Remain was never fully defined by the Britain Stronger IN Europe campaign either, it could be argued that most people in the remain camp don't know what the EU's long term aims are.

David Owen who had campaigned for remain in the 1975 referendum had since changed his mind after seeing the Maastricht treaty and had become Euroskeptic fearing for the future of the NHS in a market based economy in which privatisation is promoted across the whole EU.

Yes and this was often used by Leave as somehow something that would be improved by leaving the EU when in fact it has nothing to do with the EU. The government could have put in place points based immigration for non-EU citizens if it wanted to.

Points based rules for non EU migrants were introduced on the 29th of Feb 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7269790.stm
But did nothing to address any immigration from the EU as that would have been illegal under EU law.

I'm ok with immigration myself.

It could have welcomed Aussies and Americans if it wanted to. It doesn't. The only benefit of Leave is that we can now treat EU people just as badly.

The government of the day can be replaced with one who treats every nationality more fairly.

Actually looks like R-R was a bad example as they already supply Embraer engines and I don't think there is a local competitor.

Yes they sell the AE 3007, which is made in America by Rolls Royce's American subsidiary formerly known as Allison, they don't sell British made turbofans to Brazil. Customs tariff rates may well lower on imports from America (but I do not know whether that is the case).

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm not sure of the trade terms but it hasn't stopped VW having a car plant in Brazil.

Contributing to the Brazilian domestic product. It's called inward investment and is much encouraged, not least by tariffs on foreign product.

If we still made my our own cars maybe we could have had a plant there?

That's called outward investment and has always been at the root of the British problem.

Lots of cars are produced in the UK due to inward investment (much welcomed). At the time, of course, that was inward to the EU. Now it would just be inward to the UK (or will be if this travesty goes through) which has got to be less attractive.

 

[Klimax]

A deal that punishes the UK would result in a trade war, nobody wants a trade war. It would also be illegal under WTO's Most Favoured Nation rules (the EU is a member of the WTO and has to comply with WTO laws just as we have had to comply with EU laws).

According to the ONS there is a trade defict of £77bn.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....union-to-uk-trade-and-investment-/sty-eu.html



Germany, France, Spain, the Czech Republic and Italy sell a lot of cars to us, they wouldn't be happy if a reciprocated tariff barrier came in. It would harm their exports and could cost jobs.

Hahahaha. Your country is third tier for us. You are not really important market. (First is domestic and Germany, then Russia, China and some other markets, you are part of "rest")

And frankly, you are just spouting nonsense, nothing more. You should actually read up on things in question, because so far you are massively ignorant with strong blinders on.

But then, why should I care how bit idiocies will GB make? (Well, my poor relatives are stuck in that mess) Every single idiocy will just make MY country stronger and make OUR voice more important.

Heh, you even repeated same idiocy, "democratic deficity". How little you know, how little you comprehend. It's a bit sad to see so much of energy wasted on idiotic posts. Just repeating stuff without comprehension. (AS evidence by your ignorant thoughts about EEA.

Just reminder: EU has Commission (members nominated by national governments) and is very similar to parliamentary democracy, where administration itself is also made as part of coalitions and thus not directly influenced by public. No real difference and thus no deficit in democracy.
Then we have EU Parliament, direct voting by public. Definitely no deficit as Parliament has important role in legislative process of EU.
Council consists of members of governments of EU. No direct parallel. Only deficit of democracy is as big as is in each member country.

====

And finally reminder for every single brexiter: If you think that you have to deal only with France or Germany. Bad news for you. There is still Central and Eastern Europe. Say good bye to any good deal...

 

[CapelDodger]

In some cases we did, that doesn't mean they were good deals.

They were deals acceptable to all the member states of the EU so it's unlikely they were bad. It's also unlikely - not to say fanciful - that we will get a "better" deal as a single country, and not a very significant country at that. Don't let Trident and the Gold Medal count fool you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Heh, you even repeated same idiocy, "democratic deficity". How little you know, how little you comprehend. It's a bit sad to see so much of energy wasted on idiotic posts. Just repeating stuff without comprehension. (AS evidence by your ignorant thoughts about EEA.

Just reminder: EU has Commission (members nominated by national governments) and is very similar to parliamentary democracy, where administration itself is also made as part of coalitions and thus not directly influenced by public. No real difference and thus no deficit in democracy.
Then we have EU Parliament, direct voting by public. Definitely no deficit as Parliament has important role in legislative process of EU.
Council consists of members of governments of EU. No direct parallel. Only deficit of democracy is as big as is in each member country.

Well put.

Every day I see people going about their lives blissfully unaware of the "democratic deficit". And it's worth adding that to the extent there is a democratic deficit in the EU (the Parliament is not sovereign) it's because the sovereign members will not surrender any of their sovereignty. It's just not in the nature of sovereign states to do that. Look at the UN : exactly the same.

And finally reminder for every single brexiter: If you think that you have to deal only with France or Germany. Bad news for you. There is still Central and Eastern Europe. Say good bye to any good deal...

The best deal is clearly what we've already got. I think the penny's going to drop on that before anything irrevocable happens.

 

[Craig B]

... The people have voted for self governance, not xenophobia or a trade war.

This was about xenophobia, and if you don't think it was at least a major issue - I say the dominant one - you are deluding yourself very seriously.

 

[abaddon]

Both the official referendum campaigns were truly awful.
I did not vote because of Vote Leave, my views have been shaped by 25 or so years of watching the EU, from the time of the Maastrict debates in the commons.

I am well aware of why it was created, but what it has become now, is self serving and slightly sinister.
Lieutenant General Esa Pulkkinen is the EU's chief of military staff, I didn't vote for the EU to have a military staff, I don't know anyone who did.

We can get rid of our MEPs and our Prime Minister, but we can't elect or get rid of our Commissioner (except by referendum to leave the EU itself). There is a big democratic deficit.

Yes, we can elect MEPs to scrutinise the EU's laws and vote on them, but they can't propose the EU's laws and offer a new direction to the project.

In 2014, when the UK Independence Party got the most of the UK's EU Parliament seats, ex PM David Cameron appointed Jonathan Hill to be our Commissioner.

Here was a man from a party that came 3rd in a UK wide election, who was made our representative without our consent.

If you cannot remove the people who govern you, you do not live in a democracy.

There is no process in any EU country, for the democratic election of Commissioners.

That was a big reason in my voting to leave.

Remainers often say that we have influence in the EU, but as voters, we do not, because we cannot choose the policy makers.
We cannot choose the direction for the EU to go in.

We cannot elect people to cut it's budget or close departments. We cannot elect people to enlarge it's budget or open new departments. We have no influence. It is cut off from the voter.

I can go to my MP and lobby him, I can go to an MEP, but only a Commissioner can propose EU policy and they are not elected.

Did you or anyone vote for Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach?

 

[Airfix]

Did you or anyone vote for Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach?

He's not a politician, is he ? Apples and oranges...

 

[McHrozni]

A deal that punishes the UK would result in a trade war, nobody wants a trade war. It would also be illegal under WTO's Most Favoured Nation rules (the EU is a member of the WTO and has to comply with WTO laws just as we have had to comply with EU laws).

Not in the slightest. The UK basically has three options to choose from:

- remain in the common market - Norway-style deal, where UK simply follows the dictate of the EU with no formal input (definitely a punishment)
- leave the common market, but retain the rules that allow the London City to remain relatively intact - requires considerable concessions on the behalf of the UK (definitely a punishment)
- leave the common market and accept a notably smaller financial center of London City (definitely a punishment)

Good luck at negotiating one that isn't a punishment.

McHrozni

 

[Airfix]

This was about xenophobia, and if you don't think it was at least a major issue - I say the dominant one - you are deluding yourself very seriously.

Mass immigration (of mostly white people) from the European Union was an issue used by Vote Leave. And (without being xenophobic) they had a point. It's not possible to have a points based system for European migrants whilst being a member of the European Union, it's not xenophobic to propose such a system, a person of any nationality would be judged by their character, not their skin, mother tongue or their country.

However, in order to trade with the EU on a tariff free basis, one can either spend years / decades, trying to talk very obstinate zealous Commissioners round, or grit ones teeth and accept free movement (which is what I've suggested doing with the EEA option).

I did not vote to leave because of the official campaign, I voted because of my own studies.

 

[Darat]

Mass immigration (of mostly white people) from the European Union was an issue used by Vote Leave. And (without being xenophobic) they had a point. It's not possible to have a points based system for European migrants whilst being a member of the European Union, it's not xenophobic to propose such a system, a person of any nationality would be judged by their character, not their skin, mother tongue or their country.

However, in order to trade with the EU on a tariff free basis, one can either spend years / decades, trying to talk very obstinate zealous Commissioners round, or grit ones teeth and accept free movement (which is what I've suggested doing with the EEA option).

I did not vote to leave because of the official campaign, I voted because of my own studies.

Presumably after another referendum?

 

[Airfix]

Not in the slightest. The UK basically has three options to choose from:

- remain in the common market - Norway-style deal, where UK simply follows the dictate of the EU with no formal input (definitely a punishment)

We voters have never had any formal input anyway.
It's policy makers do not have to seek election on the back of a manifesto.

Nothing would change in that respect, except we'd save a lot of money (Just under £8.5bn a year) would be exempt from vast swathes of legislation, TFEU 101-107 for example, TFEU 207 for another, the railways directives, the The Services in the Internal Market Directive. Anything unrelated to the four freedoms of the common market or product safety standards, we would not have to obey.

As mentioned earlier, Norway is a special case, they've gone further than EEA treaty requirements. Norway's government have voluntarily opted into a lot of EU projects including the EU's Nordic Battlegroup (to which they contribute 50 soldiers).

Like Iceland, we would only have to do what is required to be in the EEA.

 

[Airfix]

Presumably after another referendum?

It is likely there would be another referendum.
I suppose there would need to be one, to decide how Brexit would be achieved. The option of how we leave the EU stated in the last polling card, was left wide open.

If such a referendum were to occur and the options were as follows:

*WTO MFN rules.
*EFTA - EEA agreement (pre existing free trade agreement).
*Seek new free trade agreement.

I would go EFTA EEA. It's the option of least disruption.

We've already established that we're leaving the EU, so yeah, we need to decide what the next step should be.

 

[McHrozni]

We voters have never had any formal input anyway.
It's policy makers do not have to seek election on the back of a manifesto.

Just like with almost any other policy, but this is only an issue with the EU for the some reason.

Like Iceland, we would only have to do what is required to be in the EEA.

If the EU agrees to it, that is.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

If the EU agrees to it, that is.

McHrozni

Good point. All of the non-EU-but-in-the-EEA countries are comparatively small with comparatively small economies. As such they place comparatively little distortion on EU trade as a whole. If the Leavers are correct and the UK economy really is such a "big beast" (and it is) then the EU and/or other EEA members may decide that the UK economy is too big to be in the EEA but out of the EU.

Upthread, Norway has already expressed that opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-uk-return-to-european-free-trade-association

 

[Airfix]

Norway hasn't ruled out British re-entry into EFTA.
They have said they would like a political veto if we were to rejoin the European Free Trade Association.

Remember, the Guardian article is biased, the paper was pro EU and anti Brexit. The journalist of that article has an agenda.

 

[Airfix]

Just like with almost any other policy, but this is only an issue with the EU for the some reason.

MPs and governments are elected on the basis of manifestos and can be held to account in elections.

If the EU agrees to it, that is.

McHrozni

You mean if EFTA agrees to it.
The EU has already agreed to the EEA agreement.