Merged Now What?

[Airfix]

And she's also ruled out a points-based immigration system, as beloved of the Leavers.

Can't say I'm surprised, she indicated that she was against the points system before the referendum was held. She argued months ago that it "caused more immigration rather than less".

 

[Henri McPhee]

It makes total sense, relocate to Ireland or another EU country with excellent English if you're a services company. For the likes of Nissan and Toyota, replacing an entire plant is not so easy but they can gradually shoft production should they want to as new models come out.

That's why the business elite wanted to remain in the European Political Union.

 

[Aepervius]

But Brexit will happen. You need to get used to that.

Just as you may need to get used that your position is most probably not realistic.

 

[Airfix]

Just as you may need to get used that your position is most probably not realistic.

We may not join the EEA, but we will leave the EU. And trade will continue.

 

[The Don]

We may not join the EEA, but we will leave the EU. And trade will continue.

It will, the issue is whether it continues at a significantly lower level, especially in the service industries (especially financial services) where the UK is a world leader and we have a significant trade surplus with the rest of the world.

 

[Airfix]

Duplicate entry deleted.

 

[Airfix]

You are right that the majority of our exports go to the rest of the world, despite tariffs.

To me that is a positive indicator of what we can achieve without the EU.
I don't really see a reason for trade "significantly" falling. We also account for 16% of the EU's exports and there are strong reasons to find a free trade agreement even if it means compromises.

It is my hope that Brexit makes Britain more open and less protectionist than before.
As mentioned previously, I am anti customs tariffs.

 

[The Don]

You are right that the majority of our exports go to the rest of the world, despite tariffs.

....and our trade imbalance with the rest of the world is even worse than our trade imbalance with the EU.

To me that is a positive indicator of what we can achieve without the EU.

Why ? If anything it's a positive indicator of what can be achieved as part of the EU.

I don't really see a reason for trade "significantly" falling. We also account for 16% of the EU's exports and there are strong reasons to find a free trade agreement even if it means compromises.

I can, unless we are part of the EEA (which will make a lot of Brexiteers unhappy given the certain requirements for the movement of people, contribution to the EU budget and adherence to EU rules) then businesses like mine will no longer be able to sell into the EU.

It is my hope that Brexit makes Britain more open and less protectionist than before.
As mentioned previously, I am anti customs tariffs.

You may hope that but what if the UK's trade deal with China means that we have to have barriers to other countries ?

Being part of the EU and undertaking trade negotiations on that basis meant that we were operating from a position of strength. Post-Brexit we have much less leverage and will be more eager to get deals.

 

[CapelDodger]

More flatulence, this time from David Davis

David Davis vows to build national consensus on Brexit
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...is-vows-to-build-national-consensus-on-brexit

David Davis has said the British government is “determined to build a national consensus” around its negotiating position as it prepares to embark on Brexit talks with European countries, but said there would be no “veto” for Scotland.

The secretary of state for exiting the EU argued that he was confident the UK would not need to indulge in trade-offs that have been suggested by critics, but instead could control immigration and retain free trade.

Determined and confident. Practically a done deal, then.

The shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, attacked Davis for failing to put forward a detailed plan about how Britain was likely to win the concessions, arguing that “his positive vision is just a pipe dream”.

The only certainty is that Parliament is not going to be allowed to mess up the deal - the best deal - that Davis is going to win us.

The minister, who said his department now had 180 staff in London and 120 officials in Brussels ...

Wtf are they doing?

Arguing that he would seek to find a position that would be acceptable to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as well as to English councils and small and large businesses, Davis said he was seeking a “unique to Britain and not an ‘off-the-shelf’ solution”.

Heaven forfend Davis be seen in anything not bespoke.

“This must mean controls on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe – but also a positive outcome for those who wish to trade in goods and services,” he added, conceding that the talks represented a “considerable” challenge.

A challenge that Davis is utterly incapable of comprehending, let alone coping with.

 

[GlennB]

More flatulence, this time from David Davis

In fairness, this was a dramatic and unexpected event dumped onto a collection of incompetents. There was no plan, as we know, so all we can really expect is a load of bodging until some kind of outcome happens.

The CTist in me sees the 2020 GE as 'a good one to lose' and the rise of Corbyn as a carefully orchestrated strategy by Labout eminences grises to come to the rescue with their real candidate.

The realist, however, tells me that they aren't that clever and we're all doomed to an eternal succession of utter wankers.

 

[CapelDodger]

In fairness, this was a dramatic and unexpected event dumped onto a collection of incompetents.

Too generous. They put a vat of excrement on a high shelf then pulled it down on their own heads.

There was no plan, as we know, so all we can really expect is a load of bodging until some kind of outcome happens.

Determined and confident bodging, though.

The CTist in me sees the 2020 GE as 'a good one to lose' and the rise of Corbyn as a carefully orchestrated strategy by Labout eminences grises to come to the rescue with their real candidate.

The realist, however, tells me that they aren't that clever and we're all doomed to an eternal succession of utter wankers.

There's chaos at the moment, but things could look a lot different in a year. They could, for instance, look a lot worse.

 

[CapelDodger]

Why ? If anything it's a positive indicator of what can be achieved as part of the EU.

Exactly.

I can, unless we are part of the EEA (which will make a lot of Brexiteers unhappy given the certain requirements for the movement of people, contribution to the EU budget and adherence to EU rules) then businesses like mine will no longer be able to sell into the EU.

Apparently such "off-the-shelf" options are off the table : we're going for something bespoke.

Of course when the deadline looms a few years up the road they'll be scrabbling for some refuge and the EEA may be it. Norway willing.

 

[ddt]

The only certainty is that Parliament is not going to be allowed to mess up the deal - the best deal - that Davis is going to win us.

But will it be an awesome deal? There's someone on the other side of the pond that could coach him in that.

Wtf are they doing?

Fiddling their thumbs? Filling out inflated expense forms? Learning French and/or German? BTW, what's the difference between "180 staff" in London vs. "120 officials" in Brussels?

Arguing that he would seek to find a position that would be acceptable to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as well as to English councils and small and large businesses, Davis said he was seeking a “unique to Britain and not an ‘off-the-shelf’ solution”.

Heaven forfend Davis be seen in anything not bespoke.

But what did the leader of the opposition think of that? I mean, of course, Angus Robertson.

A challenge that Davis is utterly incapable of comprehending, let alone coping with.

I wonder what he envisages "consensus" when nearly half of the voters voted to remain within the EU.

 

[MCel58]

So now we are told that the policy being considered is that you will only be able to come to Britain if you have a job that a British national cannot fill. This will be a nightmare for the thousands of employers who rely on EU labour for everything from medical and health services to fruit picking. I suspect that only the largest of businesses have international recruitment experience and very few have ever had to prove that they tried to recruit British citizens before recruiting from Europe. This will mean for many employers increased costs and another level of red tape and bureaucracy. Also, it does not bode well for UK citizens in the EU if we end up being treated in the same way.

 

[Giz]

So now we are told that the policy being considered is that you will only be able to come to Britain if you have a job that a British national cannot fill.

Sounds identical to the USA's work visa requirements.

 

[MCel58]

Sounds identical to the USA's work visa requirements.

Yes but the USA has a working age population of approx 205 million while the UK has one of approx 35 million with approximately 10-12% of that population being migrants.
This is just not enough to sustain both our economy and the tax burdens caused by a demographic where over 14.5 million people in the UK are over pensionable age with only 3.6% of that group being migrants. This figure is expected to rise with approximately another 3 million entering this band within the next 1-5 years. The rest of the population is made up of the 13.5 million young people aged between 0-15 who are also net dependants on the government in terms of tax and benefits. This figure has been falling steadily and would be lower if it did not include 25% of births from migrant families.
So we have built an economy that needs a minimum of approx 68% of the population to be in employment in order to meet the needs in terms of health, education, pensions, benefits and care of both our youngest citizens and our elderly population and we are now trying to do that with only approximately 56%.
History tell us that people who migrate to the UK for work are not necessarily migrating there for life, approximately 40% of migrants return to their home country or move to another country for work in what is now a more mobile job market.
Also migrants tend to be better qualified than UK workers with 48% holding a relevant qualification for the job against a UK citizen figure of 28%. Not the picture that is normally painted of migration in the UK.

 

[Airfix]

....and our trade imbalance with the rest of the world is even worse than our trade imbalance with the EU.

Actually our trade balance with the rest of the world is thus: 55.4% of exports, 46.8% of imports. http://webarchive.nationalarchives....union-to-uk-trade-and-investment-/sty-eu.html

So I would not say that it is worse.

Why ?

tariffs.

If anything it's a positive indicator of what can be achieved as part of the EU.

Why ? The EU has nothing to do with our direct exports to the USA, Canada, Australia etc.

I can, unless we are part of the EEA (which will make a lot of Brexiteers unhappy given the certain requirements for the movement of people, contribution to the EU budget and adherence to EU rules) then businesses like mine will no longer be able to sell into the EU.

As you know, I advocate membership of the EEA and am comfortable with the movement of Europeans even though it's not the fairest of migration systems, because we need to be flexible and capable of compromise when we go into negotiations.

You may hope that but what if the UK's trade deal with China means that we have to have barriers to other countries ?

Then we shouldn't sign a trade deal with China, simple.

Being part of the EU and undertaking trade negotiations on that basis meant that we were operating from a position of strength. Post-Brexit we have much less leverage and will be more eager to get deals.

Whilst the EU is anti protectionism between members it practices protectionism, whilst it dumps on the developing world, it uses tariff walls to impede the import of goods from the developing world, such as goods from African farmers.

Whilst it advocates free movement for members, the common immigration policy does not advocate the same free movement for people from other parts of the world. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:jl0001

Whilst they condemn the nation state, they busilly create a new nation state in Europe.

Whilst they condemn state aid towards corporations, they mandate it for European farmers via the C.A.P.

 

[McHrozni]

Why ? The EU has nothing to do with our direct exports to the USA, Canada, Australia etc.

I have news for you. You will not like it.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

That's the trouble. The major economies and/or trading blocs will know that the UK is desperate for a trade deal and will therefore play hardball with us. You want a deal with Country X or the Y Free Trade area ? Well they are going to try and ensure that deal is as advantageous as possible for themselves and as disadvantageous for the UK and for their competitors.

Countries like China which have been identified as growth markets know they have the whip hand.

 

[The Don]

As you know, I advocate membership of the EEA and am comfortable with the movement of Europeans even though it's not the fairest of migration systems, because we need to be flexible and capable of compromise when we go into negotiations.

I know you do, but the majority of those who voted Leave wanted severe restrictions on immigration and a significant minority wanted to stop immigration and start repatriation.

A post-Brexit solution which keeps us out of the EU but with the free movement of labour will be opposed by all those who voted Remain (because we lose EU membership and gain little or nothing in return) and the majority of those who voted Leave (because it doesn't address the issue of the "hoardes" or "swarms" of refugees).