Yeah. Perhaps people aspiring to be politicans in southern states should be required to submit proof that their family tree does fork.Originally Posted by F5 Dave
Geriatric hoon
Yeah. Perhaps people aspiring to be politicans in southern states should be required to submit proof that their family tree does fork.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
The Majestic Metal Wizard
So when I use the term Lie - I'm going to limit this to things that are so blatantly false as to be considered a Lie - some of the claims which have subsequently not been true were more reasonable and so not including them - I'll try to include a source for all of them, but some of the below are more an amalgamation of various claims - so it may not be a perfect match. Also - many make reference to a No-Deal Brexit.Russian money. Look, will you please keep to the party Line ?
List of Remoaner Lies: Yes, please. I for one would be interested. Thanks.
Food shortages.
This one is a bit tricky to navigate, since in NZ we also had 'shortages' due to Covid, Panic buying and other factors and so although there are some reports of 'Shortages' - whether this is actual shortages, or just Covid related ones is generally not articulated in the Article - The fact however that if the UK was having a Food Shortage to the point it was causing serious issues (as opposed to not being able to buy the usual brand of Jam that you like - as happened to me during our Lockdown) then we would be hearing about it in NZ.
Further to this - on why I consider it a lie - in a Post-Brexit world, even one with a no-deal, importation of goods would be fully controlled by the UK government, so there is no reason why you would have a shortage in terms of importing.
No medicine. - There are various claims here, and even post Brexit, it seems certain News organisations have been attempting to spin certain shortages as being related to Brexit - this article: Here provides a very good description of some of the issues around this:
In addition, we have the Covid Vaccine, where it is clear that Brexit has had the opposite effect - it has allowed the UK to be proactive with the Vaccine.But — despite the headlines — an unequivocal link between Brexit and medicines shortages has yet to be proven.
Planes grounded.
Now, as something of an Aviation Nerd, I've got some knowledge in this area - there are certain aspects of international travel that clearly require co-operation. However the fact is flights fly from the UK to other countries that aren't the EU and miraculously the relevant bodies (CAA, FAA, CASA etc.) have found a way to work together.
House price crash.
Again, this is more for a No-Deal brexit, but even reading the Guardian article it's clear that even with a deal, House prices would slow to 1.3% if there was a Brexit Deal. The reality?
7.3 percent rise in 2020
Half a million jobs lost. - Now this isn't even on the a Deal or No-Deal, it's just on a Vote to leave - well, turns out that Pre-Covid, it was the highest since 1971
Cost of £4,300 to every home.
It's our old mate George Osbourne again - this was an estimate due to Economy Shrinking - but it simply didn't happen, and I've included it in the lie list, because it was again, on the Vote to leave, as opposed to the actual exit.
Riots.
The premise for this was that the Food Shortages will cause Riots. Whilst there have been certainly Riots of late, none of them are in any way related to Brexit.
Super gonorrhea.
Now, I could grant you that the Covid outbreak would warrant considering these claims as at least plausible - however I have 2 issues with that - firstly is that the assumption implied is that the EU with all it's centralised regulation would be able to effectively control an outbreak of an infectious disease - as we saw in various EU countries, that wasn't the case. And secondly that it would be at the border that such issues would occur - but with Covid - it's been clear that because of Brexit, the UK has the right to simply shut the Border - so in this case - the reasons for why it was proposed as a risk are clearly not true and Covid has shown that EU or no EU - with a sufficiently nasty disease, everyone is fucked.
Donald Tusk at the EU said it would be the end of Western civilization as we know it.
Okay, this one is a bit of Hyperbole, to be sure - but the underlying point is still worthy of Ridicule Europe has experienced periods of peace prior to the EU - the Pax Britannica for example. The notion that the EU and the EU alone is responsible for Peace is laughable.
So there you go - those are the 'Claims' by the remain camp that were so outlandish at the time, that they were disputed as being alarmist and fear-mongering and subsequent events, even with Covid have shown them to be Lies.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
The Majestic Metal Wizard
I have absolutely no issue with any of these, nor should any reasonable member of Society.
Interesting isn't it... That a number of States changed their voting practices in breach of their own constitutions to allow mass mail-in voting, and now the Democrats want to 'Fortify' future elections by mandating the allowance of mass Mail-in Voting.
One might conjecture that they know without an easy to abuse system, they have no hope of getting into government....
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Hardcore Biker
Thanks for the various items and commentary. Good effort. Interesting to see what items that you singled out.
One of the challenges in trying to assemble a "big picture" view (using media articles) is that recent articles on specific topics are not always available for the relevant period. especially since the Brexit story unrolled over a period of four years (primarily 2019-2020). Furthermore:
- It overlapped with the Covid pandemic.
- It's difficult to distill and separate out possible media organisation bias.
From a first read, there are only three articles that I'd have listed in the "lie" category:
-The "job losses" article and the "Stg 4,300 loss per household" article were from 2016, prior to the initial Brexit Remain/Leave vote (as you stated). Both authors could be judged to have a vested interest in promoting a "Remain" outcome.
-As for the Donald Tusk article (also promoting a "Remain" stance), I'm undecided whether it belonged more in the Humour section ("destroy western political civilisation"), or it was simply an over-dramatic plea not to "rock the economic boat" prior to the Brexit vote.
Most of the articles listed were from the period Sept-Oct 2019, in the lead-up to the UK Dec 2019 general election, and preceding what transpired to be the start of the 2020 Transition period. [Brexit negotiation and Agreement drafting]
Think there was a considerable degree of uncertainty at that point in time, both over the upcoming UK election outcome, and (assuming the Conservatives were returned) how they would then choose to conduct Brexit negotiations (assuming subsequent progress to the Transition phase, and given the internal divisions within the Conservative party).
A "No-Deal" Brexit outcome was generally seen as the worst outcome for the UK, and I think the majority of the articles probably reflect the possibility of that outcome.
Given that a "No Deal" Brexit agreement was not actually taken off the table by Boris until Dec 2020 (right at the end of the Transition period), I can well understand concern over:
- Some food shortages and medicine shortages due to vehicle hold-up at EU-UK borders, assuming that : (i) vehicles returning to the UK were performing the second leg of a round trip, and that the first leg - product delivery into the EU - may have been delayed due to incorrect paperwork (ii) panic buying by UK citizens inducing limited product shortages.
- If some UK manufacturers were no longer able to export product into the EU (based on phyto-sanitary or other EU product compliance grounds), then reduced production in the UK may have led to some increase in unemployment over time - and some limited civil unrest. [The riots article did clearly state "worst case" scenario].
- The "reduced flights" article (Dec 2018) seemed more along the lines of an Open Letter to the UK government, asking for more information on the likely UK negotiation stance. While highlighting some of the areas that might be impacted (airline safety and border security), more about the need for ongoing contact and collaboration between UK and EU authorities.
[ I can recall reading articles by a number of UK manufacturing and exporting organisations during 2019, making similar call to the UK government. Many asking for more certainty whether a "No Deal" outcome was seriously "on the table", so that they could then start scoping out possible operational changes)].
- The super gonorrhea article seems less about pandemics, and more focused on the need to maintain contact and collaboration between UK and EU health authorities.
- I cannot see how widespread house price falls were being rationalised, even in 2019.
Thanks.
Forum whore
Little lucifer fire lighters .give the all over glow .and no thats
Not in anyway horrible.
As never know any of you.
In the street lol
Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk
Forum whore
I have to say honestly easy get middle finger than talk about.
Ones feelings lol .
Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk
Aio ki te Aorangi
Ahhhh, gaslighters. I now see the need.
There are forms for hurt feelings. If anything else is needed, that's what a pillow or a mum is for. Preferably yer own pillow and mum, but friends with benefits should span generations (said only to appease the upcoming Old Peoples Movement Matters crowd)
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
The Majestic Metal Wizard
No Probs, for me - I would have been happy with a No Deal Brexit personally - a lot of the claims, if they were more reasonable e.g. instead 'Planes Grounded and you won't be able to travel overseas' - it went with the more honest "There may be changes and some of them may have short-term impacts on travel whilst details are worked out" - I'd have not included them.
From my perspective - many of the Remain arguments start from a nugget of truth and then grew to the most outlandish and unreasonable version.
Edit: And sure - the $350 Million for the NHS from the Leave Camp followed the same path path, but overall, the major claims from the Leave side have been accurate.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Hardcore Biker
Thanks for the reply. While I'm not enamored by the "Boris deal" (the final Agreement signed December 2020), I think it is still an improvement over a No-Deal outcome.
Based on the key benefits that were being discussed as at deal signing date.
Neutral (under either Boris Deal or No Deal)
Sovereignty
- The UK regained its sovereignty [in truth it never lost it] and would be free to dictate its own foreign policy.
Legal Independence
- The Uk regained independence of the European Court of Justice.
Border Control
- The UK regained control over the UK-EU border and who may cross into and work within the UK.
Boris Deal
The key gains that I noted accruing from the Boris deal were:
1. No tariffs or quotas (for trading with the EU, which is the UK's largest trading bloc). Able to continue to trade with the EU and to avoid adverse impact upon exports to the EU bloc (provided that the UK does not diverge from existing EU environmental, product or labour standards).
2. Increased UK fishing allocation within UK waters. Though only of benefit to the UK if it could make and process larger catches, and improve fishing related income and profitability over and above that available through sale of fishing quota to the EU).
3. Boris could point to having honoured his election promise of delivering a Brexit Agreement (irrespective of its quality). He could also avoid totally "poisoning the well" in terms of future EU-UK political relations (in that an Agreement was concluded).
The following articles provided a fairly neutral high-level summary of categories within the Agreement:
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-e...l-at-a-glance/
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/eu-u...nd-benefits_en
I did note that even before the Boris deal had been concluded in the UK, the Conservative government had already posted its own summary of its negotiation achievements (with associated Us-Them / Win-Lose assessments).
https://www.scribd.com/document/4890...een&from_embed
I couldn't help feeling their assessments was very political (seeking just to shout out how well UK negotiators had supposedly performed). They were quite narrow in coverage, and seemed overly optimistic (even their spin doctor might have gotten slightly dizzy).
Some of the assessments were probably more notable for what they didn't say (e.g. Tax ; Financial Services).
1. Tax: The UK dependencies of Isle of Mann, Guernsay and Jersey used to have to comply with the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation. Now that the EU Code will no longer apply, UK financial authorities are now able to re-establish "ring fences" favouring non-resident tax payers and thus re-create full tax haven status.
2. Financial Services: Apart from the fact that "Services" (and particularly Financial Services) were not in scope for Brexit negotiation (despite significant contribution to UK GDP), the UK gained no concessions regarding (i) equivalence and (ii) portfolio delegation.
Once negotiation started in 2020, the EU was very quick to advise that “equivalence” (i.e. foreign company rules deemed equivalent to rules set by EU financial regulators) would be decided upon by the EU.
So if UK financial entities thought they would be able to continue to operate in the EU under then-current arrangements post Agreement (i.e. to receive EU operational benefits without being an EU member), they were told “No” fairly early on during the negotiation process.
Next, EU authorities advised that the current “delegations” regime (effectively “letter box company registration”) might no longer be accepted by EU financial regulators. Because the latter are difficult to monitor and regulate, US financial entities operating in London could be compelled to shift their operations to the EU bloc.
Even Boris was quickly forced to concede that UK financial services had not fared anywhere near as well as expected, and that "negotiation would be ongoing" in year 2021.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ncial-services
I feel that a careful reading of the final Agreement document - plus the passage of time - might render many of the UK "wins" as "draws" (or "still to be determined").
As for the quality of the final Agreement - and the realisation of benefits, I'll leave the final word to your old friend Rees Mogg in July 2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuVzSwSbkmc
No Deal
Even back in 2019, the UK government's own planning documents were indicating that a No-Deal outcome was less attractive.
https://www.vox.com/2019/9/11/208612...n-yellowhammer
Concern was so high at the time that (i) MP's then voted to force the government to reveal its No-Deal Brexit Plans (ii) An Act was passed in the Commons and Lords to prevent Boris from pursuing a No-Deal outcome.
Some of the additional impacts that I had noted re a No-Deal outcome were:
1. An estimated additional GDP loss (2%) over and above that estimated for the situation where an Agreement was successfully concluded.
2. Basic tariffs on certain food groups and medicines could now be applied. Default to (higher) WTO rates.
3. Not only tariffs on EU-UK trade, but the need for (extensive) new regulations - which could in turn affect cost and availability of good and services within the UK.
4. Companies and individuals engaged in cross-border business having to relocate personnel and operations, to obtain new operating licenses and registrations, and to make other operational adjustments. The increase in cost could result in imported goods (to the UK) becoming slightly more expensive, with a knock-on effect upon UK consumer spending.
5. Impact upon foreign manufacturing companies who had earlier set up operations in the UK as a means of gaining easier product entry into the EU (e.g. Japanese car manufacturers such as Honda and Nissan). Not just impact upon JIT manufacturing operations.
6. The risk of Stg currency devaluation due to economic uncertainty. Progressively push up inflation and also reduce real wages.
7. Possible drop in direct foreign investment in the UK (especially after the Northern Ireland Protocol episode). Willingness to violate international law makes foreign investors nervous.
8. No-Deal exit "divorce payments"being levied upon the UK under the Withdrawal Agreement (which were estimated at 39-41 billion euro payable over several decades).
9. Time and effort required to negotiate new FTA's with other countries (to offset loss of trade with the EU at a minimum). Outside of the EU, only 10% of the UK's export trade (including the new UK-Japan deal) would be covered by agreements.
UK's ability to conclude an FTA with the US on favourable terms to the UK.
Lastly, links to some documents assessing the attraction of a No-Deal outcome over time.
As of August 2019:
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/upl...plications.pdf
As at October 2020:
https://www.politico.eu/article/any-...sheries-trade/
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Yes and No - There are certain things in the Boris deal that I would have been happier paying the cost of a No-Deal to achieve.
FWIW - most of what you've written is very objective - so any part I skip - take that as a sign of either I agree with it, or that any quibbles I have are relatively minor
The Sovereignty question is an interesting one - and it comes down to which court is Superior. When Britain was in the EU, the European Court was superior - which means if a bit of Legislation was passed by the Government, upheld in the British Courts, it could be struck down in the ECJ.
That to me is a loss of Sovereignty, since the ECJ is not subject to the British Democratic System (and before anyone raises MEPs - they can't propose Legislation to the EU, like an MP can in the House of Commons - only the EU Commission, which is not elected, can do that)
Increased from the terms of the CFP, but not increased in terms to pre-EU Fishing rights - this has been a very sore spot for coastal communities that were decimated as per one of my previous posts by this.
His mantra was "Get Brexit Done' - not "Get a Brexit Deal" - in the event of a No Deal - the Brexiteer faction would still have considered Boris to have honoured his Mandate.
This type of question would often come up in the debate leading to Brexit and the over-arching point that the Brexit side used to make is "we will get to decide" - so if Britain decides it's in her best interest to Ring Fence and create a Tax Haven, so be it. If they decide it's not in their best interest, they will update the laws - but eitherway - Britain gets to decide.
The interesting thing with Financial Services is that a Draw is the most likely outcome - the EU as much as the UK needs the UK financial Services and Vice-Versa. Many of the issues raised I'm certain will have loopholes found by the Lawyers and the Accounting teams - but let's assume the worst case scenario - that the EU decides not to play nicely, Yes, it will hurt the UK, but given that the EU isn't very financially stable at the moment, it will hurt the EU even more.
That's because the Civil Service were full of Remoaners who never accepted the Brexit result and how dare the People vote against their best interests....
But jokes aside - Yellow Hammer was an absolute work of fearmongering fiction - and many of the things I put in the outright lies category have their genesis in Yellow Hammer.
"The Price of Freedom"
So this one again was bandied about a lot - but just because the WTO has a generic Tariff, doesn't mean that the UK is obligated to use it (this was something that also would come up alot) - Mogg used to have this out with many people - that the British Government could remove or lower tariffs for items ('Food, clothing and footwear') than either the WTO or EU Tariffs.
The problem with this one is that at the point of a No-Deal happening, unless the UK government repealed a bunch of Regulations (and wouldn't be nice if a Conservative Government did that for a change), then there would exist perfect regulatory alignment. Certainly in the future there would need to be agreements and such - however the UK trades with the rest of the world without requiring the framework of the EU. And there exists means to either recognize each others standards as being good enough (such as between NZ and UK) or to have a means to require certain things done for trade.
This IMO is stretching - because again it's talking about the cost of importing goods at the UK border - Let's assume that this was a real thing, then the UK government could introduce legislation or mechanisms to offset this (lowering of Tarrifs, exemptions, express processing).
See above - there's a great Clip of Mogg apologising that in a statement he had said goods were cleared inbound to the UK at the border in 10 seconds, which was false - it was (according the Customs) 8 seconds.
If memory serves - those predictions were made on the back of Mr Osbournes wild flights of Fancy.
Well, not so fast, The UK has specifically stated it will not do anything at the UK/Ireland Border to Jeopardize the Good Friday agreement. If the EU pursuant to it's own rules requires such a Border to be in effect, it will be a matter between the EU and Ireland, not the UK. There's no violation of international Law from the UK's part in any of this - there is only that whatever the EU Mandates for the rest of Ireland must be done between Ireland and the EU.
One of the key facts about a No-Deal Brexit was that if there is no Deal, the UK is not bound by any law to pay the EU money.
So on the last one - under Trump - there was every indication that a good Free Trade deal would have been done - Under Biden, he's following the globalist left-wing position of wanting to 'punish' the UK for Brexit (aka Saint Obama and his 'Back of the Queue' statement)
However as per one of my previous posts - the Covid situation has put a stall to about a year's worth of Trade Negotiation. I know that many of the former commonwealth countries (Us, Aus, Canada etc.) are quite keen for a Trade Deal with the UK.
Even in the event of a No Deal - the question has to be asked: What country wouldn't want a favorable trading relationship with the UK? The answer is virtually none - everyone would want a favorable deal with the UK, so it becomes merely a matter of negotiating it.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Hardcore Biker
Reply to post #2860 above.
Thanks for the reply. A few interesting comments.
1. ECJ Jurisdiction.
Think that ECJ jurisdiction would relate primarily to trade related issues within the EU. As to other matters relating to governance of the UK - or to UK trade with non EU countries, that should have been under the UK's own jurisdiction. And subject to votes in the Commons, Lords and Royal Assent.
Some mention of the "ring fence" around the ECJ and its powers was made in the following link (see Transition Period hyperlink).
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...eu-and-the-uk/
2. Fishing.
Point regarding coastal communities mentally noted earlier.
Suppose that these parties were on the "losing" side , in respect to income from sale of UK quota by the UK administration. Even if it was more profitable (at a UK level) to sell quota to EU fishing concerns, there would be no guarantee that these local UK fisheries would have been adequately compensated in turn (irrespective of which party was then in power in the UK).
3. Get Brexit Done.
Point noted. Although many assumed the UK was negotiating in expectation of successfully concluding an Agreement, the negotiating behaviour of the UK team during 2020 certainly kept people guessing. As late as mid October 2020, Boris will still telling the world (UK) that a “No Deal” has highly likely, and to prepare for it.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe...-nodeal-brexit
The EU even offered the UK the opportunity to extend the time available for negotiation and for document drafting – in mid to late December 2020 - when it finally came clear that a “No Deal” outcome had been avoided.
https://truepublica.org.uk/united-ki...nd-propaganda/
Then just before Christmas, it was Boris who pushed for a conclusion before the end of 2020 (“Let’s get it done”). Rushing the related Bill through the House of Commons, allowing MP’s only 4.5 hours to read and review the Agreement (1,246 pages) before a vote was called.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...mons-1.4447526
In terms of the Brexiteers who favoured a No Deal outcome, it would still be interesting to know the demographics of those who might have benefited accordingly.
4. Tax Havens.
The EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation had (I understand) heavy focus on suppressing money laundering activity. I just wondered which demographic would likely be a beneficiary of new / reinstated tax havens with looser restrictions on laundering. I doubt they would all be Saudi sheiks or Russian oligarchs.
5. Financial Services.
In terms of providing financial services prior to Brexit (2016), the London City was definitely best placed in terms of (i) time zone (ii) ability to offer a wide range of financial instruments and services (iii) experience in assembling financials deals and arranging funding. No argument.
But 4 years elapsed (prior to the Transition period) in which time banks / insurance companies / hedge funds had the opportunity to evaluate "the lie of the land" (e.g. whether the EU was willing to offer concessions), and whether they should relocate staff / operations / IT systems to the EU bloc (e.g. Frankfurt, Luxembourg, Dublin).
In the interim, a number of financial organisations did choose to move to the EU:
https://www.cityam.com/financial-ser...t-brexit-vote/
https://fortune.com/2020/10/01/banks...s-brexit-move/
And just prior to signing of the Brexit Agreement in December 2020, there were a few articles pondering how much trading business the City might lose.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020...fter-2020.html
By the end of February 2021, share trading on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) had fallen by up to 50%, Luxembourg had grown to be the second largest fund management centre, and Dublin had tripled its proportion of assets under management.
6. Yellow Hammer
Whether "an absolute work of fearmongering fiction" - or not, the existing government was the owner of the document. And if they didn't agree with the findings, they offered nothing in response to "correct the story". I'd have thought that if the government was able to table an alternative "story" (which looked both feasible and attractive), it was in their interests to have done so.
7. Price of Freedom.
If a government proposed to introduce a tax whose take would be equivalent to 2% of GDP, I'm not sure that it would be accepted quite as readily as your "Price of Freedom".
8. Removal of Regulations.
I thought that part of the initial justification for Brexit (from a Brexiteer's perspective) was the removal of "unfair" and "unreasonable" EU rules and regulations, so the current state of "perfect regulatory alignment" (with the EU) would seem to be a position that Brexiteers wanted to move away from.
While they may not want to perform wholesale "slash and burn" of regulations, the negotiation of non-EU FTA's would still involve time and cost in review, negotiation and re-drafting of rules and regulations.
9. Cross Border Traffic.
While I recognise that changes to cross-border process / procedure / IT system software / documentation might be short term (say over 3-6 months minimum), the transport companies involved still bear those costs upfront - and will likely seek to recover them through increased freight charges. Which will be passed on to importers - and customers - in turn.
Rees Mogg may have quoted previously existing border clearance times, but I doubt that they applied under the new operational regime. Given that the UK may no longer have access to the EU databases for product identification and registration (e.g. REACH), I doubt 8-10 seconds inbound clearance times in March 2021.
Your suggestions of "exemptions and express processing" will still imply some minimum form completion and processing (even if electronic) under the new regime.
For those factories operating under JIT, assume this requires prompt clearance for inbound traffic at the UK border each and every day. While this might happen, the same vehicles may be needed for deliveries later within the same week - and vehicle holdups for outbound vehicles returning to the EU (to be reloaded) might prevent them being available when expected (delaying subsequent deliveries).
In the case of Honda, they have decided to remain, but exit the UK in 2020. In contrast, Nissan have decided to remain in the UK for the time being.
https://www.dw.com/en/uk-honda-halts...ues/a-55884085
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8784846.html
The EU may also wish to encourage business activity (and employment) within the EU, and entice some UK-based manufacturers to relocate.
https://orientalreview.org/2020/12/2...little-people/
11. Currency.
Think the point is still a valid point. But it's just that we're not really in a position to be able to quantify it or debate it in any meaningful way.
12. Northern Ireland / Eire Border.
Think that there is a degree of semantics involved in your statement. It may not be a breach of international law, but it certainly threatened to create an operational problem for both Northern Ireland and Eire.
Both Irish parties were concerned, as many of their manufacturing supply chains span the Irish border, and a proposed return to a "hard border" brought back memories of the Troubles of the 1970's.
Boris has signed the Northern Ireland Protocol, which has indicated a logical UK border in the Irish Sea (and which avoided this situation). Anger was ignited when Boris subsequently threatened to back out of this arrangement .
Eventually, Boris backed down (thus preserving the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Ireland Protocol). But this decision occurred onlyafter the US had gotten involved, and had threatened not to commence and conclude a US-UK free trade agreement if the UK did not resolve the problem to Irish satisfaction. [ As well as Biden being of Irish stock, the Irish vote is important to the Democrats ].
https://sputniknews.com/us/202009091...d-pelosi-says/
Even then, this situation was not finallyresolved until December 2020, when Boris stated that they would in fact continue to honour the Northern Ireland Protocol.
13. Divorce Payments.
I'll be honest and say that I just tossed that item in near the end (just to see your response).
My understanding was that if the UK left with a "No Deal" outcome, Boris was taking the line that the UK was not obliged to make "divorce payments". However, given earlier UK commitments to contribute towards certain joint EU-UK programmes, the EU would be likely to take the UK to the ICJ to recover "nominal UK contributions".
https://fullfact.org/europe/no-deal-...-bill-payment/
There will still be some ongoing UK payments to the EU in any case:
https://www.bbc.com/news/51110096
14. FTA's.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47213842
UK-US FTA: I watch with interest. Not sure where you got the idea that Biden was left wing.
Think that any Democrat resistance to a US-UK FTA arose more from (i) the importance of the Irish vote (see 12. above) , and (ii) previous UK mutterings about wanting to enter into financial arrangements with the Chinese. Fortunately, Boris has since "seen the light" on both points, and he has returned to poking China with a "human rights" stick, as well as threatening to send a UK aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.
UK-Canada / Australia / NZ FTA's: Again, I'll watch with interest.
The most recent article that I have sighted re UK trade with NZ and Australia was in the context of a suggested wider agreement with Canada, Australia and NZ. I suppose being ex-colonies - and Five Eyes partners - has to be of some benefit to the UK (even if it did abandon us in 1973 to join the EC instead).
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/14...on-Anglosphere
Regarding NZ, I wouldn’t get overly excited about potential economic benefit of a NZ FTA to the UK:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9571421.html
In answer to your last question: What country wouldn't want a favorable trading relationship with the UK?
China perhaps ?
Kruger-Dunning Parts n Service
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket - Eric Hoffer
Kruger-Dunning Parts n Service
FYI the UK operates the same just in time distribution model that we have. It’s very reliant on road transport and cheap migrant labour. Unload times are very slow due to poor management practices so trucks effectively act as a floating 24 hr storage medium.
Their saving grace would be the abundance’s of grain mills and farmers market distribution of farm products locally. Still a very short buffer though as grain isn’t stockpiled in volumes of days gone by.
Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket - Eric Hoffer
Kiwibiker
Dirty Gaetz, another Trump loyalest scumbag. Love how he says it must be an ex girlfriend causing the shit for him. So I guess she is ex because 17 years old was just past it for him
The Majestic Metal Wizard
To keep this post readable - I'm just going to reference the Headings
Now, my understanding of both the previous setup and the setup under the article you linked is that where there is a conflict between Domestic Law and EU Law, the Superior domestic Court goes to the ECJ to get an interpretation on the EU law - which then the Superior domestic court is responsible for upholding.
In the Article it mentions a 4 year grace period for any issues occurring during the transition period, and then after that, any issues are handled in the usual manner (e.g. if the UK has breached EU law in the EU, then it can be called to account by the ECJ, in the same manner that the UK can do to the EU)
I would imagine that there would be quotas set aside for indigenous rights and then some set aside for international bidding - However should the international fishing cause an impact to the domestic market, the Quotas could be adjusted (much the same as in NZ)
Really, there's only 2 points in here to make - The EU has consistently offered the UK 'more time' - but I don't think that this was due to any benevolence or good will on the EUs part - The longer it went on, the more likely there was a possibility of forcing another referendum and the possibility of the UK staying in.
In terms of who benefitted - I'm going to quote Nigel Farrage as my example here - he famously stated that to stop being a Commodities trader and become a Politician - he took a massive Pay Cut - now, certainly he's not representative of all Brexiteers - but most of the ones that I've followed for the last 6 or so years have always made the argument on leaving the EU/No Deal on a point of principle and damn the consequences.
That's the funny thing about EU regulations, many of them have supposedly noble intents, but the application of them is abysmal - for example - all the website you click on where it asks you about your Cookie tracking preferences - you can thank the EU for that.
The Stock Exchange is by nature very risk averse, so it doesn't surprise me - but the main reasons for why London was always popular for Financial trading haven't fundamentally changed (Location, Language, Expertise, Prestige, History etc.) And also we have to factor in what impact Covid had on the numbers (considering the UK's nearly year long Lock down - I'm going out on a limb here and suggesting it's going to have an impact)
This is a tricky one - because of the way the Civil Service and the MPs have a degree of separation - however I've heard multiple prominent MPs tear Yellow Hammer to shreds (Rees Mogg, Farage, Bojo etc.) I'm not sure if that fulfills your requirement of having the Government 'Correct the Story'.
I can think of a few things, just here in NZ that I'd pay that increase in Tax to have fully restored.
This is a very fair point - given the relative speed at which the UK Government moves though I think it's a bit moot.
There are some things that definitely the UK would want to move away from the EU in terms of regulations - and for those, there would have to be some negotiation - but those items are likely to be things such as 'Whiskey requires to be aged for 3 years in a Wooden Barrel to be sold as Whiskey' as opposed to 'Yes, we use Sawdust and Horsemeat in our Butcheries' - My point here is it much like the Mogg clip I posted to Sugilite - Most modern western countries have high health and safety standards for most produce and so a degree of parity can be agreed upon.
Sure, change involves Cost - I can agree with that, however if we take the clearance as an example - the UK Government has the possibility to relax the rules to promote trade (yes, I know that rarely happens with Governments) but the overarching point is that by having direct control that isn't subject to oversight by the ECJ the UK Border can be optimised for the needs of the UK.
If we run that scenario to the logical conclusion - It's the EU businesses that are being deprived of Haulage resources that will ultimately harm them - Case in point - If the Germans can't get Car Transporters back across the border to sell Brts German cars, then that's seriously going to hurt the German economy.
In this case - everyone has a vested self interest to make sure the Spice Must Flow.
That's one view of it - but tbh I treat everything Pelosi says as a Lie unless proven otherwise. Even before the Boris Deal, Before Theresa's deal - the position from the Conservative government was very consistent on this point - they would not put up any physical border in Ireland. Now, in terms of semantics - I hear that - but I'm deferring to the last 6 years of discussion on this point from the UK Government - they won't do anything, if the EU requires such a physical Border, then that's on them.
The best Analogy I've heard on this is that if you are a Member of a Club and leave the Club, the Club can't force you to pay the Membership to fill a shortfall in their budget whilst also denying you access to the Club House.
In terms of International Law, I personally think the EU would have no leg to stand on - regardless of what projects it's committed to, once the UK is out, they are no longer bound by them.
Of course, if it's in Britains interests that some projects are completed, then they may well have decided to contribute, but that would be at the mandate of the British people and not the Mandate of Brussels.
Certainly for much of the Former Commonwealth, a Trade deal with the UK won't be a massive boon to the Economy, but it's still likely to be a net benefit to both countries. In terms of the other Trade Deals - I think once the globe has gotten over the current Cough, then we'll see some substantive progress on this front.
Allow me to counter: China most of all wants a favorable trading relationship with the UKIn answer to your last question: What country wouldn't want a favorable trading relationship with the UK?
China perhaps ?
(It's just our definition and their definition of Favorable aren't the same.....)
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks