So there is now an English national internet? Or you would like to have the English opt out just because - and what bureaucracy to oversea in case the English firm is in fact… well it is online and actually selling to whoever online is coming to it?
Now if you read the actual description not from the English tabloids, quoted above (from an English source).
So it allows the facilitation of the lower cost dispute resolution and refers - to ease the intra EU coordination.
I guess the great sin is it is a Non English nation conduit for refering.
or alternatively it makes no actual sense at all as the English Opt Out idea requires added oversight…
You mean it is in no one’s rational interest not to have a deal but it is in the EU members** rational interest **to not expose the EU and their countries to the risk of uncontrolled WTO member goods or the WTO actions if
Politicians have not one thing to do with this.
It is the bloody trade interests and the commercial interests not to have any english fuck up expose our commercial interests to the fiasco of the WTO waiver and the flood of the chinese, etc. goods OR the well founded penalties actions against EU (or both).
I do not know why it is so very hard for you all to understand that this is no longer the bilateral issue any more when we are in the world of the no deal.
And it is indeed in our dirty Continental commercial interests to protect against opening this enormous risk.
It is not “politicians” it is the laws and the multilateral international regulations agreed to and promoted by the Anglosaxons in fact.
I don’t know about lorry drivers, but I *would *expect EU customs officials to be well trained on the relevant laws and regulations - I’ve always found it so with the ones I’ve interacted with. And they all seemed to care.
For the people who still claim to not grasp what Leavers want, it’s an end to continuing and increasing social and political integration with the rest of Europe, and most of them either don’t know or don’t care about the economic issues. And, frankly, they are right to want those things, as that integration is damaging for many countries in the EU, especially the smaller ones, and those countries will end up with no more culture or identity than Wyoming.
Sadly, it’s politically impossible now to end that integration without ending the economic integration, and there seems to be no way to end that without crippling the UK and damaging the world economy, to a smaller extent. That’s why I voted Remain, not for any love of the EU as an institution, but beacuse I recognise the political reality that they will not allow free trade without trying to force political and social union.
The sad fact is that those things do not have to be connected at all, except for a few specific laws around trade, but the EU has the whip hand, and requires ongoing integration to justify its existence.
I don’t want to live in a United States of Europe, but the only other option is to live in a failing backwater, which would be far worse.
Someone responded to the difficulties of using consumer storage facilities for industrial goods, but I feel like a fundamental part of the magical thinking here has been ignored.
You think there are just a bunch of mostly empty consumer storage buildings sitting around? Why would businesses build more than 2x the useful capacity for this service?
It doesn’t in the UK, but it’s possible in the US. It’s probably not intentional but land and operating expenses can be very cheap in some parts of the country and such businesses can continue to function, sometimes even profitably, with a lot of excess capacity.
But it is a good point for the Brexit argument. The UK doesn’t have a bunch of mostly empty storage buildings waiting to be filled. As mentioned above, commercial warehouses are already at capacity in anticipation of a no deal Brexit and while I don’t have proof, I doubt with so few self-storage units that they are mostly empty, either.
Ramira, you do realise the sort of sneering, condescending attitude in your posts is a key part of why people voted to leave, don’t you? Or perhaps you just don’t care now that ship has sailed. That aside, as usual on this board this thread has been very informative, and I consider myself slightly better educated than before - thank you.
How will leaving the EU make the UK a “failing backwater”? The UK has been a world powerhouse for nearly a thousand years. I understand the Leave and Remain arguments, but find this argument specious.
I simply don’t understand this argument. Why would someone doing their best to be emphatic and stress facts in the face of a forest of misinformation be offensive? There seems to be a tendency among people to believe nonsense, and when corrected, ignore it, then later on, come back, spout said nonsense again (or someone else does), and be surprised when they’re corrected again, this time with the correcter being irritated that their efforts to inform don’t always seem worthwhile given the quality of debate.
I guess I just can’t understand the claim of ‘you got snippy with me when I said something about the seaworthiness of ships that was unfounded in reality, so I’m going to blow a hole in our ship just to show you!’ It’s Trumpism, pure and simple.
“The UK hass been a world powerhouse for nearly a thousand years” is a bit hyperbolic when we consider that it didn’t even exist until 300 years ago.
And the long span of history is not terribly relevant here; the UK was the world’s largest empire in 1900, but that tells us nothing about its political fortunes in the century to come.
The UK joined the EU precisely because it has stopped being a “world powerhouse”, and wasn’t even a regional powerhouse. In the 1950s and 1960s it was consistently underperforming its European neighbours who were in the (then) European Economic Community, and it was projected to fall further and further behind. That trend was reversed by joining the EEC/EU. In the present context that’s probably a more relevant consideration than the mythic history of a thousand-year Kingdom.
This is just brexiter wishful thinking. “We’ll leave the EU and do exactly what we like, but the EU and everyone in it will treat us exactly as if we were members of the EU.” It has consistently proved wrong since 2016, but the True Believers still cling to it.
No, really, we won’t treat you as if you’re a member. Brext means Brexit, to coin a phrase.
If you actually believed what you claim to believe, this wouldn’t follow at all. If, in a no-deal Brexit, UK goods were free to move exactly as they are now, there would be no reason at all for the UK to make a “last-minute agreement” or look for a “delay”. The UK would seek these things precisely because the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, for the UK and its trade, are truly dire.
Yes, everyone agrees that the UK/England is not what it was in 1650, but I don’t think that any conceivable set of circumstances in anyone’s great grandchildren’s lifetimes will reduce the UK to a “failing backwater.”
Let’s leave aside the “thousand years” nonsense, but the UK post-war managed the transition from globe-spanning empire to a position of very considerable influence in a gigantic continent-wide joint endeavour with our closest neighbours (and former enemies, most of them ). That’s a huge achievement, historically, for a great power reverting back to the mean dictated by population, resources etc. To walk away from that achievement, with the reduction in even just diplomatic and economic power, is perverse. The UK can’t stand alone any more, and hasn’t been able to for a long, long time.
Changing the subject: there seems to be no evidence that “the trend was reversed by joining the EEC/EU”. Rather, the EEC/EU significantly underperformed expectations after the UK joined, and the expected boost to the UK did not happen. And that was before the recent currency crisis: the economic majority view was that the rising tide of EEC/EU economic benefit would rise all boats, and erase the problem of miss-matched economies in the currency union. That turned out to be wrong too.
Customs is part of it. Both because the UK is leaving the Customs Union, and because it is leaving the Single Market, much congestion and chaos is expected at UK ports and supply-lines for the import of perishable goods are threatened. The UK imports an awful lot of perishable medicines, and doesn’t have the capacity to substitute with domestic production. Hence the threat to medical supplies. The UK is stockpiling perishable medicines in the weeks coming up to Brexit but, obviously, this can only alleviate the problem in the short term. If congestion continues after the stockpiles have been depleted or have expired, that’s a problem. At a minimum, the UK government will need to take control of cross-channel capacity and allocate some of it it to priority imports, including medicine, and also establish fast-track processing arrangements at at least one port for priority imports.
(Medicines would have to compete with other priorities. The UK imports half the food it consumes. And a large chunk of UK industry is dependent on just-in-time delivery of imported inputs; its viablity is threatened. So tough choices have to be made in prioritising imports.)
Separately, the UK is withdrawing from the EU’s medical regulatory/licensing scheme and won’t have a subsituted domestic scheme up and running by 29 March (or for a considerable time thereafter). If nothing were done there would be no approval/regulatory/licensing arrangements for pharmaceuticals in the UK from 29 March, which would result in all kinds of both legal and practical problems. In all likelihood the UK would address this by providing that, pending the establishment of their own regime, medicines approved under the EU regime continue to be autmoatcally approved for use in the UK. That largely solves the problem, though it leaves the UK with no voice in the supervision of the medical approval regime to, e.g., advocate for allocation resources to the approval of medicines for which there is a particular need in the UK.
I think the view is debatable, to put it no higher. Before joining the EU, UK GDP growth consistently underperformed Germany, France and Italy; since joining the EU, it has mostly outperformed them (apart from a hairy patch in the early 1990s, and again after 2008). Since these are all mid-size developed economies in the same region subject to many of the same external influences, this does suggest that being outside hampered the UK’s growth, while being inside has facilitated it.
Even leaving that aside, it’s simply not true that England has been a “world powerhouse” for a thousand years, or anything like it.
It depends, obviously, on what you mean by “failing backwater”. But if you mean that the UK will consistently underperform comparable European countries, falling further and further behind them in economic performance, and with a voice that carries less and less weight in European affairs, and possibly even suffering disintegration if NI or Scotland leave, yes, this is very much a possible outcome, and nothing the glories of the UK’s past history suggests otherwise.
). That’s a huge achievement, historically, for a great power reverting back to the mean dictated by population, resources etc. To walk away from that achievement, with the reduction in even just diplomatic and economic power, is perverse. The UK can’t stand alone any more, and hasn’t been able to for a long, long time.