Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
This is the big danger, of course (big lines of trucks at customs posts ...).

I think they were polite, but a major problem remains ...

The Times just wrote:

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...eged-on-promise-to-help-theresa-may-kq0t5fktn )

It seems to me it is really up to European leaders to make some concessions at this point (in their own interest), more than up to Theresa May who is in a very difficult position, stuck between Europe and her own parliament. If, through some European concessions, she can win a few dozen votes in the House of Commons, she could save face and then go back to the people with a new referendum (choice between her deal, remaining and a worrying no deal), this could create a new dynamics.
Click to expand...
What concessions could they make to make the deal palatable to (at the minimum) 117 Tory MPs?
 
Darat said:
What concessions could they make to make the deal palatable to (at the minimum) 117 Tory MPs?
Click to expand...
This was briefly explained in the Times article I linked to (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...eged-on-promise-to-help-theresa-may-kq0t5fktn ): it would seem that many British Parliament Members cannot stand the idea of Britain "trapped" in a legally binding customs union with the European Union indefinitely (i.e. with no time limit, because of the Irish backstop).

This point of view is perhaps to some extent understandable (I mean, "not crazy", and not "nebulous"). Indeed, what is the point of leaving the EU if the UK still depends on some EU rules, it has no longer control on? Can you imagine democratically elected MPs transforming the proud UK into some kind of European colony "for ever"? It seems to me that a possible solution to this concern (though I do not consider myself to be an expert on these issues) would be to limit this mandatory Customs Union to a maximum of five years (if it ever happens, see the internet and Google for details).
 
fagin said:
So effectively, kicking the can a bit longer?
Click to expand...
To some extent, yes, perhaps (giving people a few more years to reflect calmly and intelligently about the situation. Also, a Customs Union could be renewed if it has been liked). Another aspect is that one needs to distinguish beween Customs Union on the one hand, and free trade on the other hand (free trade being more crucial, if I understand it right).
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
This was briefly explained in the Times article I linked to (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...eged-on-promise-to-help-theresa-may-kq0t5fktn ): it would seem that many British Parliament Members cannot stand the idea of Britain "trapped" in a legally binding customs union with the European Union indefinitely (i.e. with no time limit, because of the Irish backstop).

This point of view is perhaps to some extent understandable (I mean, "not crazy", and not "nebulous"). Indeed, what is the point of leaving the EU if the UK still depends on some EU rules, it has no longer control on? Can you imagine democratically elected MPs transforming the proud UK into some kind of European colony "for ever"? It seems to me that a possible solution to this concern (though I do not consider myself to be an expert on these issues) would be to limit this mandatory Customs Union to a maximum of five years (if it ever happens, see the internet and Google for details).
Click to expand...
That isn't a concession that is major change.
 
Darat said:
I still am at a loss as to why he keeps getting interviewed on matters he has no expertise on in regards to Brexit. Yes if you want an expert on the internal fighting within the Tory party interview him otherwise he had nothing more to add to the debate than any other back bench MP.
Click to expand...

Depending on your point of view this is either the BBC's pro-Brexit bias or their commitment to a definition of 'balance' that means both sides get treated with a measure of respect completely unrelated to whether they're genuine experts presenting a reasoned and well supported position or self promoting, selfish, liars that are willing to spout any bollox if they think it will gain them or their friends a little more power, cash or publicity.

And Mogg is bad enough but I believe Farrage has been on Question Time more than any other guest.
 
Darat said:
That isn't a concession that is major change.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, there is no contradiction between (significant) concession and major change. Actually, the whole European idea of demanding payment for market access and free trade is rather dubious, in my opinion, because free trade is in everybody's interest. This makes me think of some criminal gang in El Salvador or in Yemen demanding payment for "protection" ("Pay up, or else ..."). If the EU (not the Eurozone) was disbanded, and free trade agreement were quickly struck between the various countries, there would no longer be "payment for market access", everybody would have access to everybody's market, everybody would love it, and bye bye Brexit problems ...
 
Michel H said:
As far as I know, there is no contradiction between (significant) concession and major change. Actually, the whole European idea of demanding payment for market access and free trade is rather dubious, in my opinion, because free trade is in everybody's interest. This makes me think of some criminal gang in El Salvador or in Yemen demanding payment for "protection" ("Pay up, or else ..."). If the EU (not the Eurozone) was disbanded, and free trade agreement were quickly struck between the various countries, there would no longer be "payment for market access", everybody would have access to everybody's market, everybody would love it, and bye bye Brexit problems ...
Click to expand...

Dubious?

There are costs involved in administering things. Why should the (leaving) UK get a free ride, leaving the remaining members to pay?

I also think you are missing a couple of points about what the EU is.
 
Michel H said:
As far as I know, there is no contradiction between (significant) concession and major change. Actually, the whole European idea of demanding payment for market access and free trade is rather dubious, in my opinion, because free trade is in everybody's interest. This makes me think of some criminal gang in El Salvador or in Yemen demanding payment for "protection" ("Pay up, or else ..."). If the EU (not the Eurozone) was disbanded, and free trade agreement were quickly struck between the various countries, there would no longer be "payment for market access", everybody would have access to everybody's market, everybody would love it, and bye bye Brexit problems ...
Click to expand...

You might want to give some thought as to why the Single Market was created... why a single market is better than a collection of Free Trade Agreements between a number of countries in close proximity.

Then you ought to give some thought to what supra-national structures you would need in order to make this Single Market possible and how you are going to fund that.

Once you've done that, you'll realize that it's only logical that member states have to contribute and that non-EU countries that want frictionless access to that Single Market (i.e. reap the benefits) should also be required to contribute.
 
fagin said:
Dubious?

There are costs involved in administering things. Why should the (leaving) UK get a free ride, leaving the remaining members to pay?

I also think you are missing a couple of points about what the EU is.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is no need to administer free trade (it is just the simplest way of trading). Free trade means that there is no tariff, so you actually save on customs management costs when trade becomes free. Of course, there are some rules and standards in economic activity, but this can be managed in each country (with cooperation, which is of course always desirable, as widely as possible).

And I maintain that the EU can actually be considered (in some areas) as a criminal organization, involved in the dirty business of persecuting and even perhaps torturing people (see for example: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...hansk-people-s-republic-to-sanctions-list/pdf ).

I (strongly) suspect the EU of plotting to impose unnecessary tariffs to the UK once it leaves the Union, which it has every right to do, even if this backfires terribly on its own (European) economy.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
This was briefly explained in the Times article I linked to (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...eged-on-promise-to-help-theresa-may-kq0t5fktn ): it would seem that many British Parliament Members cannot stand the idea of Britain "trapped" in a legally binding customs union with the European Union indefinitely (i.e. with no time limit, because of the Irish backstop).

This point of view is perhaps to some extent understandable (I mean, "not crazy", and not "nebulous"). Indeed, what is the point of leaving the EU if the UK still depends on some EU rules, it has no longer control on? Can you imagine democratically elected MPs transforming the once proud UK into some kind of European colony "for ever"? It seems to me that a possible solution to this concern (though I do not consider myself to be an expert on these issues) would be to limit this mandatory Customs Union to a maximum of five years (if it ever happens, see the internet and Google for details).
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom