Another new Brexit thread

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

To be fair though, we are wanting to move away from regulatory alignment, that’s the main point. If it did stay the same then you’re right, there would be no (or very little) issue. We stopped pursuing that approach though.

We really do need to stop this reframing of reality with some of this. If we maintained regulatory alignment then all the issues people have around the ECJ or “unelected beurocrats” essentially go away as we’d have it in our own domestic law anyway. Even most people historically on remain wouldn’t have a problem with that I imagine. Our government doesn’t want that though.

I see what you mean, but I think market forces will largely ensure we remain aligned with or without EU or UK govt interference. If the EU has a standard which a product members either buy or sell must meet, then UK traders wishing to either buy from or sell to the EU states must meet that standard or do buisness elsewhere?
To take the chlorinated chicken example. If the UK lowered it's own standards tomorrow to make this ok, it doesn't mean we are any more able to buy chlorinated chicken from, or sell it to the EU states than we are today.

 

[mcfc1632]

I’m not sure that the friction can be described as EU constructs. What the EU have constructed is a system that removes the friction. As part of the EU we were part of the system and we benefitted from the lack of friction. I don’t think people appreciated how simple some things have been in the EU and how much more hassle they now face.
As an exercise I just went on the government web site to check my readiness for Jan 2021. Bearing in mind that my business doesn’t trade with the EU and I only travel there on my holidays, the list of things I now have to check is quite extensive - 14 distinct items I might need to do that I didn’t before we left.
This is going to be a shock to quite a few people that might not have been expecting it.

As someone that travels a lot in EU countries and benefits from the 'ease' of that travel - I am well aware of how many 'inconveniences' that I might have to face (unless I take up the option of residency)

But what you do not mention is the cost to the UK for these conveniences

There is the straight-forward costs of the contributions - which were hefty enough

But that is/was the thin end of the wedge......

The costs of remaining in the EU were set to become far more impactful in terms other than simply monetary. If we had not made the decision to leave (and on the basis that we ever actually get to genuinely leave) then the costs would have become increasing levels of economic and political integration until the ambition of the EU's architects was achieved and the UK had become a part of a federated united states of Europe.

You will have read some posters speaking of opt-outs and vetoes. For some that is just them not understanding the subject beyond the superficial level - others are more knowledgeable but are being disingenuous

Matters have been in hand for a long time to render vetoes and opt-outs impotent - there is/was no avoiding full integration if we do not genuinely leave the union.

Just look at how difficult it is to leave a 'supposed Trading Bloc' even in 2020 - not many years from now the path to full integration would have been irreversible.

Yes - there has indeed been much convenience when taking your dog on hols etc. but for many of us that is insufficient benefit when set against the costs of submitting to full blown integration and the transfer of the responsibility for the setting the UK's key domestic policies to the EU

 

[mcfc1632]

To be fair though, we are wanting to move away from regulatory alignment, that’s the main point. If it did stay the same then you’re right, there would be no (or very little) issue. We stopped pursuing that approach though.

We really do need to stop this reframing of reality with some of this. If we maintained regulatory alignment then all the issues people have around the ECJ or “unelected beurocrats” essentially go away as we’d have it in our own domestic law anyway. Even most people historically on remain wouldn’t have a problem with that I imagine. Our government doesn’t want that though.

You are, I suggest, right - and wrong..

@Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese is absolutely correct that there will be no change from alignment on day 1 or even following day 1, until there is an active decision to diverge

You are right that at that point and if any changes were deemed to reflect inappropriate 'non-alignment' then this could lead to the 'difficulties'.

But what we are wanting is the right - as an independent nation - to determine for ourselves in the future if there should be any changes to alignment - there might be decisions by the current and future governments that such a change of alignment is not desirable - and anyway, such decisions should follow discussions/negotiations between two trading partners.

Also the UK is seeking to retain control over the determination of our own key domestic policies - what the EU is seeking is to secure control over the UK's key domestic policies in perpetuity - truly a vassal state scenario - and a situation far worse than remaining a member.

I genuinely do not understand why that would seem right to any UK citizen?

Also, you say 'our government' - they have 4 years.

A trading relationship between the UK and the EU should be for generations and encompass the tenure of many governments - of different parties - not just the temporary stewardship of the blonde buffoon

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Parliament doing that is a breach of international law and is also unconstitutional as well.

You’re arguing from a political position not a legal one.

So far, no repercussions, no country threatening not to trade, nothing.
I think trying to prosecute a government implementing acts of Parliament may be problematic.
That’s if anyone is trying to.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I don’t know anyone championing the EU’s interests over ours to be fair, they’re arguing that what we are doing aren’t in our best interests.

I don’t really understand the logic if people are doing that though. This is politics, not football. If the party people want to get in don’t, then that shouldn’t stop them wanting the other party to do well as it has a direct influence on their life.

That’s also why any criticism shouldn’t just be shot down too. The dumbing down of politics is as evident in the populace as it is in Westminster at the minute. I suppose it’s a case of getting what we deserve ultimately...

Fair points.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Well done to the EU for abolishing customs duties - just because we are leaving doesn't mean they have to put them back.

There has to be an advantage to being a member of the Eu. They will not allow the benefits of being in the club without paying your subscriptions or abiding by the rules or no one would join or retain their membership. Plus (as you already know )... if you make it difficult or more expensive to sell goods from a third country in the Eu ... the demand for those goods doesn't drop away ... the simply sell more of the stuff produced in the Eu.

Strange that the only thing the Eu want to negotiate is fish .

 

[Ancient Citizen]

He's already there. It will be different for anyone doing it after 1st January. Just another case of the "I'm alright" brigade.

No, I’m here, but don’t live here, so I’m alright cock. I’m back in November, and out again in February. But I’ll send you pics of me crying my eyes out after all my dreams have been shattered in February.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

It's hard to argue with a lot of that. I would make the point however that all the ways in which you describe things being harder or worse post brexit are not actually the natural state of things. These frictions or obstacles you describe are all constructs and mechanisms of the EU. In short they are not promising to make our house better if we stay, just to burn it down if we leave. This probably goes some way to explaining the willingness to perpetrate what many perceive as a national act of self harm - a form of resistance, protest, or defiance if you will.
It is this reliance on fear / coercion by the EU, and the tactics widely labelled 'project fear' of remain campaigns that have led to the situation we are now in. It was a gamble by Cameron, and one that probably seemed a decent bet as similar tactics had persuaded us to reject electoral reform / PR and maintain the status quo in his largely forgotten electoral reform referendum of 2011. Emboldened by this he thought he could pull the same stunt to rid his own party of their historic schism on Europe and dispose of Farage and co. This time his horse didn't come in.

Bang on

 

[blueinsa]

It's hard to argue with a lot of that. I would make the point however that all the ways in which you describe things being harder or worse post brexit are not actually the natural state of things. These frictions or obstacles you describe are all constructs and mechanisms of the EU. In short they are not promising to make our house better if we stay, just to burn it down if we leave. This probably goes some way to explaining the willingness to perpetrate what many perceive as a national act of self harm - a form of resistance, protest, or defiance if you will.
It is this reliance on fear / coercion by the EU, and the tactics widely labelled 'project fear' of remain campaigns that have led to the situation we are now in. It was a gamble by Cameron, and one that probably seemed a decent bet as similar tactics had persuaded us to reject electoral reform / PR and maintain the status quo in his largely forgotten electoral reform referendum of 2011. Emboldened by this he thought he could pull the same stunt to rid his own party of their historic schism on Europe and dispose of Farage and co. This time his horse didn't come in.

Bingo.

 

[meltonblue]

You are, I suggest, right - and wrong..

@Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese is absolutely correct that there will be no change from alignment on day 1 or even following day 1, until there is an active decision to diverge

You are right that at that point and if any changes were deemed to reflect inappropriate 'non-alignment' then this could lead to the 'difficulties'.

But what we are wanting is the right - as an independent nation - to determine for ourselves in the future if there should be any changes to alignment - there might be decisions by the current and future governments that such a change of alignment is not desirable - and anyway, such decisions should follow discussions/negotiations between two trading partners.

Also the UK is seeking to retain control over the determination of our own key domestic policies - what the EU is seeking is to secure control over the UK's key domestic policies in perpetuity - truly a vassal state scenario - and a situation far worse than remaining a member.

I genuinely do not understand why that would seem right to any UK citizen?

Also, you say 'our government' - they have 4 years.

A trading relationship between the UK and the EU should be for generations and encompass the tenure of many governments - of different parties - not just the temporary stewardship of the blonde buffoon

Yes agree with a lot of that and I meant future divergence more than day one too.