Brexit Phase Two - Trade

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Not for the reasons you’d think. It still seems incredibly divisive and not brought up in the politer circles or at decent dinner parties.
It’s still meant to be a good method of starting a ruck in a bar
How common! Tad infra dig doncha know.
 
I think they will in due course. At the moment Labour can afford to leave HMG to twist in its self-generated wind.

Of course, Labour has its own internal divisions regarding Brexit but its direction of movement appears to be increasingly in favour of a customs union. I reckon that would attract a great deal of support.
When will they get it through their heads that Juncker has already ruled that out and that it will not be a Customs union rather an agreement that our Customs will mirror theirs. There is no alternative, but it's also not a major problem. Who do we form a customs Union with? Ourselves? Now since no one has answered the great conundrum that I have posed about trade deals and the Customs Union, it's clear that the EU have placed themselves in an untenable position with respect to trade deals of their own making. I also disagree with the principle that Labour can do that. It's hardly the voice of a valid opposition that is going to drive them into power. Once they get there, what then? The deals will be struck before the next election, so a Labour Government can offer what?
 
It's broad opinion stretches only as far as Remain, a stance it has held throughout.
The Times was pro remain to a degree, to balance out Murdoch's other press and because it's speaking to its readership. It's always had guest writers doing opinion pieces for either side - that's all this is.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
When will they get it through their heads that Juncker has already ruled that out and that it will not be a Customs union rather an agreement that our Customs will mirror theirs. There is no alternative, but it's also not a major problem. Who do we form a customs Union with? Ourselves? Now since no one has answered the great conundrum that I have posed about trade deals and the Customs Union, it's clear that the EU have placed themselves in an untenable position with respect to trade deals of their own making. I also disagree with the principle that Labour can do that. It's hardly the voice of a valid opposition that is going to drive them into power. Once they get there, what then? The deals will be struck before the next election, so a Labour Government can offer what?

So it’s a customs union in all but name, basically all we do is do whatever they deem acceptable, as in copying their rules and regs we can carry on trading (for a price)
We aren’t in the customs union we are in a tariff arrangement and everyone’s happy and there’s no single market it’s an unrestricted trading area.
 
When will they get it through their heads that Juncker has already ruled that out and that it will not be a Customs union rather an agreement that our Customs will mirror theirs. There is no alternative, but it's also not a major problem. Who do we form a customs Union with? Ourselves? Now since no one has answered the great conundrum that I have posed about trade deals and the Customs Union, it's clear that the EU have placed themselves in an untenable position with respect to trade deals of their own making. I also disagree with the principle that Labour can do that. It's hardly the voice of a valid opposition that is going to drive them into power. Once they get there, what then? The deals will be struck before the next election, so a Labour Government can offer what?
Where has Juncker ruled out a customs union? Barnier said it was time for UK to decide if they wanted to go down the road of a customs union and the Brit Gov (ie, TM) ruled it out completely, not Juncker.
Please show where Juncker has said no talks on a customs union.
Feb 5th Wall Street journal
The U.K. government said Monday that Britain wouldn’t be constrained by the European Union’s customs union after Brexit, pleasing right-wingers in the ruling Conservative Party but worrying others who fear it will damage Britain’s trade with its major trading partners.

Inside a customs union, countries trade tariff-free among themselves but impose common external tariffs on goods coming from outside. Its drawback is that it prevents member countries from implementing free-trade agreements for goods with nonmembers.
“We will be leaving the EU and the customs union, and it is not government policy to be members of the customs union or a customs union,” Mrs. May’s spokesman James Slack said.


Politico 5th Feb 2018
Downing Street has ruled out staying in the EU’s customs union, in what is being seen as a victory for Brexiteers ahead of the start of talks on a post Brexit transition Tuesday.
A senior No. 10 source said Sunday evening that any form of a customs union is out of the question, after recent confusion over whether Prime Minister Theresa May would consider staying in it to allow easier trade with the bloc post Brexit.


(and plenty of others)
Barnier, and Juncker, have just said there will be "unavoidable" barriers if UK doesn't enter into a Customs Union and that it should make up its mind if it wants to or not.

I feel you are making things up just to try and get some sly dig in. Juncker has not ruled out a customs union, Theresa May has.
 
I'm not saying it is all the fault of Remainiacs, not at all. I am just saying that Brexiteers are blameless :D
I believe that my honourable colleague from the "Some big boys did it and ran way Rainbow Lemming Coalition" is talking enough bollocks to make meerkatz blush.
 
You've repeatedly stated that the electorate can't be trusted to vote the right way in a referendum.

What changes that?
If the first referendum was stupid why should a second one be deemed any less stupid?

If a second one got a result that you wanted, why should that result stand and not the first result which somebody else wanted?

What reason is there to suppose that the result would be any different? Polls can't be relied on that say what the result might be, they certainly weren't for the first one.

Higgsy, you're coming across as somebody who only accepts democracy when a result of it is in his favour.

Unprincipled, I think is the word.
Working on the principle that an error can be corrected following the discovery of facts, it makes perfect sense to make a U turn. To blunder on regardless into a disaster because idiots failed to understand the consequences is an absurd notion.
 
A referendum is an act of direct democracy; democracy at its purest.

I suggest that the main reason for representative democracy is that everybody can't have an input at the same time. Meetings, debates, votes etc are constrained by time and numbers. At least that used to be the case.

Nowadays however, due to technology, we can have true democracy, with everybody having an input, if we so desire.

The level of intelligence/stupidity of the electorate is irrelevant. The electorate is the electorate and universal suffrage desirable. The alternative is to have self-selected elites decide on policy; the route to tyranny.

If an electorate is 100% stupid, they're still entitled, by numerical superiority, to self-determination.
The problem is not about democracy...the problem is about a referendum on complex subject matter beyond the scope of democracy. The reason why a referendum about life after death is inappropriate. The majority would vote for it but it is impossible to deliver. It's why patients in a hospital do not have referendums on the treatment of sick people. They don't understand disease and don't have the qualifications. It is also wrong for a majority to have vicarious powers that will adversely affect a large minority.
 
Working on the principle that an error can be corrected following the discovery of facts, it makes perfect sense to make a U turn. To blunder on regardless into a disaster because idiots failed to understand the consequences is an absurd notion.
Except that the 'error' is a subjective opinion, some or many might believe there is no error to be corrected.

And what happens if the result is the same?
 
The problem is not about democracy...the problem is about a referendum on complex subject matter beyond the scope of democracy. The reason why a referendum about life after death is inappropriate. The majority would vote for it but it is impossible to deliver. It's why patients in a hospital do not have referendums on the treatment of sick people. They don't understand disease and don't have the qualifications. It is also wrong for a majority to have vicarious powers that will adversely affect a large minority.
Surely even more wronger for the minority to have the power to overrule the wishes of the majority.

Patients in hospital, or indeed anywhere else in the UK, are the final arbiters of their treatment.

It's clear Higgsy that you don't like democracy - your prerogative - but what system of governance would you wish to live under?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Bacongrills The NAAFI Bar 254
Good CO Brexit 349
ACAB The NAAFI Bar 470

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top