Post EU Referendum

You're on Page 1524 of 1566
Go to
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Post brexit news, like the commonwealth countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, plus Brazil and to the US objecting to the WTO regarding the UK receiving a share of current EU quotas.
    Currently under wto rules those countries have agreed quotas for certain categories of exports to the EU.
    If sales in one market such as the UK declines then they can switch sales to another.
    If the UK takes a share of current quotas their EU market is smaller.
    These major economies do not want brexit affecting current agreements with the EU.
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: So that's what all these delegations this year were about
    Did watch the link.
    May has other things on her mind at the moment.
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    I thought that would bring Bipat back out - things I do for you!

    Quote: If you can bring yourself to read the 'other' thread you will read much positive post Brexit trade news.
    Yes, like, also today, Chinese snub the leader of the global leader in favour of that pesky American!
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: Iceland were never in the EU. They were a candidate for membership but they suspended negotiations in 2013 and withdrew their application in 2015, which might be what you were thinking of.
    Yup. They are however an EEA country, so follow EU rules.
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: Yup. They are however an EEA country, so follow EU rules.
    In my research, it looks as if the current government might look into restarting their candidacy for accession, so we'll see how that goes. I suppose if Norway are OK following EU rules while not being a full member, it can work for Iceland too.

    Could even work for the UK if they'd ever stop bickering with everyone.
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: Iceland were never in the EU. They were a candidate for membership but they suspended negotiations in 2013 and withdrew their application in 2015, which might be what you were thinking of.
    Exactly that. Thanks
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: Exactly that. Thanks
    I'm here to help, sailor.
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: In my research, it looks as if the current government might look into restarting their candidacy for accession, so we'll see how that goes. I suppose if Norway are OK following EU rules while not being a full member, it can work for Iceland too.

    Could even work for the UK if they'd ever stop bickering with everyone.
    Norway makes it work because they used their oil revenue wisely.

    European Economic Area (EEA) & Switzerland
    The EEA is composed of all EU members states as well as the following:
    Iceland
    Liechtenstein
    Norway
    The EEA extends the single market to all 31 member states and allows nationals of participating countries to travel freely between them.
    Switzerland is not part of the EEA, but has an agreement that extends the single market to include it.
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: Norway makes it work because they used their oil revenue wisely.

    European Economic Area (EEA) & Switzerland
    The EEA is composed of all EU members states as well as the following:
    Iceland
    Liechtenstein
    Norway
    The EEA extends the single market to all 31 member states and allows nationals of participating countries to travel freely between them.
    Switzerland is not part of the EEA, but has an agreement that extends the single market to include it.
    And this is a cooperative that the UK doesn't want to entertain staying in, even if they do end up leaving the EU in 75 years, or how ever long it takes for the wankers in charge to work out which end's their arse and which is their elbow?
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote:
    Quote: Just out of interest, Eric, how do you reconcile Corbyn's undeniable hard Brexit leanings with your own anti-Brexit stance ?
    Why do they need "reconciling"? Corbyn has never been an EU enthusiast, but not because of "immigrants" or "gravy trains" etc, but because it is a capitalist organization. Which of course it is.

    I can't speak for Eric
    , but when it comes to making choices we make them from those that are available, not those that aren't. Corbyn's domestic proposals are by and large the only ones that address our truly pressing issues in the UK - pressing for those that are not the most wealthy. Would it be good if he were also to want to keep us in the EU? Sure. But if he doesn't, then it is what it is at this point.

    "Taking sides" and claiming that one side is all wrong and the other side is perfect is a bit silly, played out here on BE as well as in the media, and reduces some very important decisions to a partisan game of goodies and baddies.
    I don't see why not - can I delegate you to do so in the absence of any comment from me in future?
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Contrary to what appears to be popular belief on here, I haven't actually been holding on to any great hopes for a non Brexit and I don't see that happening unless there's a decisive shift in public opinion. I'll disagree with people who post contentious things about the UK or the EU, which appears to be enough to get me the Remoaner tag but I don't actually see any point in Labour sacrificing itself on the altar of single market membership in order to satisfy Tory remainers, who wouldn't vote for them anyway

    Quote: I seem to remember that Eric reconciles his positions by imagining that Corbyn isn't really a Hard Brexiteer. A recipe for cognitive dissonance for the poor fella I should think.
    I certainly think Labour have a rather different attitude and have left themselves plenty of room for manouevre while the Tories have been painting themselves into a corner. I don't know how the "we could stay in the Single Market if the rules were changed" would play out over the long term but I suspect it's almost definitely doomed to failure, which leaves the possibility of accepting the current rules in full in order to remain a member. Is British public opinion currently up for that? I certainly don't think so but it might change, if things develop in the right (or wrong, depending on how one looks at it, since it would almost certainly involve a worsening of economic circumstances) direction.

    I think Labour wants a closer relationship with the EU than the Tories do on non-trade matters and they're far less likely, in my opinion, to be happy to accept a no deal. I'd rather have them negotiating with their flexibility on matters like the ECJ and immigration in order to try to come up with a compromise. At the moment the Tories are down a blind alley with this bespoke interim arrangement idea.

    Other than that, I'm with LIW. Pressing domestic matters come first for Labour and they were what the protest vote element of Brexit was all about. Sure, it would have been better to have addressed them whilst remaining an EU member but we've had the wrong governments for too long. Now there's a chance of a better one, I'll accept that as a consolation but I'd never have thought of it as a worthwhile sacrifice prior to the referendum. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over Brexit and see how things stand with the public when they've finished, for the time being.
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: And while we are squaring Eric's circles.... how does he reconcile his previous position that the Commission was part of a capitalist plot by genocidal maniacs to fiscally water board the Greek people to extinction with his current blind faith in them looking after his rights better than the British government - just asking ;-)
    I don't think I've ever made any great claims to being a model of consistency - in fact, just this week, I posted this
    Quote: I've got lots of views - some of them are contradictory.
    Not that I think they are on this occasion but just so you know, it wouldn't bother me in the least if they were

    What would bother me is any inconsistency of my opinion with the facts but I'm satisfied that on that score, with regard to the matter relevant to this thread, I'm in the clear.

    In fact, rather than me dredge up post after post in which I have very clearly explained why it is that I hold that view and have you contradict me at every turn, I'll just leave you with this excellent summary from the very reliable Jonathan Portes, whose job it is to work with the facts, which agrees in every detail (if memory of my own posts serves) with what I have been saying all along. Published yesterday on the New Statesman's website - here's a couple of short excerpts for flavour but obviously well worth reading the whole thing
    Quote:
    Earlier this week the European parliament passed a resolution declaring that in its view “sufficient progress” had not been made in the Brexit negotiations to move to the next stage....The resolution called for the UK government to table proposals that would "safeguard the full set of rights that 4.5 million EU and UK citizens currently enjoy". The parliament’s chief representative in the negotiations, Guy Verhofstadt (not known for understatement) said: “Why are we discussing citizens’ rights? This could be settled immediately!” This aroused the ire of Nick Timothy, the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, who responded by tweeting: “I was in government when the UK tried to get agreement on citizens' rights in 2016. The EU refused.”

    Astonishingly, there are still people who believe this myth.

    ...

    ...the idea that the UK made any sort of concrete proposal, unilateral or otherwise – let alone one that actually guaranteed current rights - is fiction. The record is clear: the EU27 made a proposal, and the UK has responded with one that is less generous, both to UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU, and EU citizens here.

    Some people criticised the Prime Minister for using EU citizens as “bargaining chips” to secure the rights of UK citizens elsewhere in the EU. That misses the point. It would be more accurate to state that she is using UK citizens as bargaining chips to reduce the rights of EU citizens.
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ts-eu-citizens
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: I don't think I've ever made any great claims to being a model of consistency - in fact, just this week, I posted this

    Not that I think they are on this occasion but just so you know, it wouldn't bother me in the least if they were

    What would bother me is any inconsistency of my opinion with the facts but I'm satisfied that on that score, with regard to the matter relevant to this thread, I'm in the clear.

    In fact, rather than me dredge up post after post in which I have very clearly explained why it is that I hold that view and have you contradict me at every turn, I'll just leave you with this excellent summary from the very reliable Jonathan Portes, whose job it is to work with the facts, which agrees in every detail (if memory of my own posts serves) with what I have been saying all along. Published yesterday on the New Statesman's website - here's a couple of short excerpts for flavour but obviously well worth reading the whole thing
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ts-eu-citizens
    I agree you aee in the clear on this thread and thanks for your honest response. I had not seen your post acknowledging your views can, on occasion, be contradictory so apologize as you had, in fact, already squared that circle - my bad

    I do think you are being a tad unfair implng I contradict you at every turn as I often agree with what you say, in part or in full. Like you, and to avoid boring everyone else, I won't dredge up my posts to prove this.........
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: Contrary to what appears to be popular belief on here, I haven't actually been holding on to any great hopes for a non Brexit and I don't see that happening unless there's a decisive shift in public opinion. I'll disagree with people who post contentious things about the UK or the EU, which appears to be enough to get me the Remoaner tag but I don't actually see any point in Labour sacrificing itself on the altar of single market membership in order to satisfy Tory remainers, who wouldn't vote for them anyway


    I certainly think Labour have a rather different attitude and have left themselves plenty of room for manouevre while the Tories have been painting themselves into a corner. I don't know how the "we could stay in the Single Market if the rules were changed" would play out over the long term but I suspect it's almost definitely doomed to failure, which leaves the possibility of accepting the current rules in full in order to remain a member. Is British public opinion currently up for that? I certainly don't think so but it might change, if things develop in the right (or wrong, depending on how one looks at it, since it would almost certainly involve a worsening of economic circumstances) direction.

    I think Labour wants a closer relationship with the EU than the Tories do on non-trade matters and they're far less likely, in my opinion, to be happy to accept a no deal. I'd rather have them negotiating with their flexibility on matters like the ECJ and immigration in order to try to come up with a compromise. At the moment the Tories are down a blind alley with this bespoke interim arrangement idea.

    Other than that, I'm with LIW. Pressing domestic matters come first for Labour and they were what the protest vote element of Brexit was all about. Sure, it would have been better to have addressed them whilst remaining an EU member but we've had the wrong governments for too long. Now there's a chance of a better one, I'll accept that as a consolation but I'd never have thought of it as a worthwhile sacrifice prior to the referendum. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over Brexit and see how things stand with the public when they've finished, for the time being.
    I agree with all of that, particularly the bit about us having the wrong Government for too long and in my humble opinion this goes back to at least the mid 80s
  • Re: Post EU Referendum
    Quote: I do think you are being a tad unfair implng I contradict you at every turn as I often agree with what you say, in part or in full.
    I fear you misunderstood the comment - it was specifically with reference to this matter, on which we have very clearly been in disagreement and what I thought would be likely to happen if I repeated myself. You do indeed occasionally make it clear that you agree with me.