Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by judy84

The uk is leaving the SM and CU.

May has no mandate for a hard Brexit. First, there was no mention of the Single Market or the Customs Union on the referendum ballot. And second, May lost her majority in the last General Election. If the British people wanted a hard Brexit, they would have given May a big majority, not a hung parliament.

The only democratic way to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union is either through another referendum or through a vote in the House of Commons. May is too scared to put her Brexit plan to a vote in the House of Commons because she knows the outcome won't be favourable.

Originally Posted by judy84

We manage to import billions of pounds of goods from non-Eu countries like USA by MaxFac arrangements already so there should be no trouble with EU countries.

THE U.S. is not Ireland and there is no such complex thing as the Good Friday Agreement in the commercial relations with the U.S.

Whether it's the customs partnership or the MaxFac fantasy, it won't work because 1. The Single Market and the Customs Union belong to the EU, therefore the Europeans set the rules, the British don't. 2. MaxFac won't prevent the smuggling of dangerous items (weapons, chemicals, mad cow disease, etc...). Therefore there must be checks, but the obvious consequence is that it will kill the Good Friday Agreement.

[seany65]

I disagree jacques22: How can we leave the EU without leaving the customs union and the single market and ending free movement of EU citizens?

There is no option but a hard brexit, if we are to actually leave the EU. Staying in the customs union and the single market and allowing free movement of EU citizens will mean we have not left the EU.

I'm fairly sure that most people who voted for brexit would've thought about that.

While I didn't think about the border in Ireland when I voted, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps looking at the idea for there being special routes or lanes etc. for goods vehicles so that they can be checked, while leaving domestic vehicles free from checks could be a reasonable compromise. Although I suspect those who have any power who don't want Brexit would scupper the idea.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by seany65

I disagree jacques22: How can we leave the EU without leaving the customs union and the single market and ending free movement of EU citizens?

There is no option but a hard brexit, if we are to actually leave the EU. Staying in the customs union and the single market and allowing free movement of EU citizens will mean we have not left the EU.

Norway, Iceland and Turkey are not EU members. Yet, Norway and Iceland have access to the single market because they are EEA members, and Turkey is part of the EU customs union.

Originally Posted by seany65

I'm fairly sure that most people who voted for brexit would've thought about that.

We don't know because it wasn't on the referendum ballot. And don't forget that some Leave campaigners claimed that it was possible to leave the EU and still be part of the single market and/or the customs union.

Originally Posted by seany65

While I didn't think about the border in Ireland when I voted, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps looking at the idea for there being special routes or lanes etc. for goods vehicles so that they can be checked, while leaving domestic vehicles free from checks could be a reasonable compromise.

The special routes will be targets for the Irish republicans. And leaving domestic vehicles free from checks doesn't solve the problem of smuggling or health hazards.

[judy84]

Of course there is already a real border in Ireland, reflecting different excise duties, VAT rates an d veterinary regimes. Across this border duties are levied, taxes collected and animals transported after veterinary clearance. There are, I understand, even cameras (infrastructure!).

Numerous current regulatory divergences between NI and the Republic (in the currency, employment law and labour relations, excise duties, VAT, corporation tax, some phyto-sanitary rules, armed forces, and so forth) do not appear to have threatened North-South co-operation over the past two decades.
Of all trade outside, and between the EU and the outside only 2% is physically checked which means that 98% is via online, MaxFac. We will be outside. So, we can do the same.
The system could be controlled by ensuring matching of declarations for import and export; routine checks behind the border either at designated trade facilitation posts (as envisaged by the Irish Revenue Commissioners) or at importer and exporter premises; spot checks by mobile compliance units; and trading standards, food standards and other relevant agency enforcement.

[seany65]

Jacques22, Where does

"...Further European integration..." end?

Why don't they set a clear limit on where it ends, what it's final goal is?

Before our Government joined the "European Economic Community" (without our say-so), I think 100% of our laws were made in Britain by our often annoying, idiotic, politicians.

Now, after we've been a member of the "European Union" for some years and have seen some of this "European integration", 87% of our laws are made in Britain by our often annoying, idiotic, politicians. 13% of our laws are made by mostly foreign often annoying, idiotic, politicians.

Is that the case with all other EU member states? I presume so.

How many more years will it be until "further European integration" results in 10% or 20% of a member-state's laws being made in that member-state by that member-state's often annoying, idiotic, politicians and 80% or 90% if it's laws being made by mostly foreign annoying, idiotic, politicians?

I understand that you think:

"...In fact, the only goals mentioned in the Lisbon treaty are quite pedestrian:
economic growth, job creation, structural reforms, social cohesion, price stability."

are the prerequisites to "...further European integration..."

but don't you think that they are among the prerequisites to creating a single European state?

Edit: After many attempts I've finally managed to post this some days after originally trying to.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by jacques22

Norway, Iceland and Turkey are not EU members. Yet, Norway and Iceland have access to the single market because they are EEA members, and Turkey is part of the EU customs union.

On a point of order, Turkey is not a member of the EU customs union. There is a separate arrangement between the EEA and Turkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe..._Customs_Union
This is not a million miles different from Britain seeking to negotiate a trade arrangement with the EU, and serves at least as a working example of a trade agreement between the EU and a neighbouring non-EEA and non customs union state. Moves are afoot to grant the right to visa-free travel to the Schengen area to Turkish citizens, though the recent political developments and trends inside Turkey are making even EU commissioners wonder whether Turkey is sufficiently democratic.

Part of being in either the EEA or the Customs Union is to accept the free movement of labour. When I for one voted to Leave, I did not do so in order to preserve the free movement of labour. Logically, if I had wanted that, I would have voted to Remain; failure to control immigration either within the EU or from outside the EU was a key reason why I felt obliged to vote Leave. Apart from the undermining of the British labour market caused by the "freedom of movement of labour", there are serious risks for British national security if millions of unvetted "refugees" from Africa and the Middle East can come and go as they please. These are legitimate concerns and the EU has militantly refused to acknowledge them or offer any solutions. To advocate any arrangement which will not repatriate Britain's control of immigration policy is inconsistent with any genuine acceptance of the Leave vote and ignores, yet again, the legitimate concerns which British people have expressed about this issue.

Originally Posted by jacques22

We don't know because it wasn't on the referendum ballot. And don't forget that some Leave campaigners claimed that it was possible to leave the EU and still be part of the single market and/or the customs union.

Don't forget that leaving the EU is something no nation has ever done before. There is no blueprint. Until the EU made known its own red lines on single market participation there was no automatic mutually exclusive state of being.

Also of course, it is perfectly possible to belong to the single market as a non-EU member.

Originally Posted by jacques22

The special routes will be targets for the Irish republicans. And leaving domestic vehicles free from checks doesn't solve the problem of smuggling or health hazards.

The problem of smuggling and health hazards is not new and not created by Brexit. Neither is it one way, as I found when I watched a chap in the port of Dublin as he sprayed disinfectant spray containing heaven knows what chemicals onto my boots and the tyres of my motorcycle as part of Ireland's precautions to prevent foot and mouth disease. The Brexit issue will mainly affect tariffs and trade and it should be possible to deal with that one. We have had a common travel area with Ireland since 1922. For those who are not Irish or British, the same rules should apply as apply on mainland Britain, unless the Good Friday Agreement prohibits all forms of immigration control?

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by judy84

Of course there is already a real border in Ireland, reflecting different excise duties, VAT rates an d veterinary regimes. Across this border duties are levied, taxes collected and animals transported after veterinary clearance. There are, I understand, even cameras (infrastructure!).

You miss the point. It's about the issue of a physical border and checkpoints (which disappeared with the Good Friday Agreement). If the Brits leave the single market and the customs union, the UK and the EU will have to find out a way to check goods and respect WTO rules without jeopardizing the Good Friday Agreement and the frictionless trade and travel between the north and the south of Ireland.

Originally Posted by judy84

Numerous current regulatory divergences between NI and the Republic (in the currency, employment law and labour relations, excise duties, VAT, corporation tax, some phyto-sanitary rules, armed forces, and so forth) do not appear to have threatened North-South co-operation over the past two decades.

Regulatory divergences also exist between EU members. That's not the problem. The real issue here is how to limit the damage caused by Brexit to both Irish communities. I will let the Irish people explain to you what's wrong with Brexit:
- Irish farmers who need to cross the border every day and don't want to be slowed down in their work. Before the 1998 peace deal: " I hated going through the border because you got enormous hassle, you could be there for 10 minutes or you could be there for two hours. If they didn’t like you, it’d be two hours." After 1998: "At the minute there is no real problem, you can cross the border as free as you want. We could cross it six or eight times a day" (https://www.independent.ie/business/...-36743587.html)
- The economic integration of the north and south has helped some businesses flourish across the Irish border. Those same businesses could go bankrupt with border checks: "According to the Ulster Farmers’ Union, 40 percent of all Northern Irish lambs are processed in the republic. A quarter of milk output also moves south, the Dairy UK trade body says, and around 60 percent of Northern Ireland’s processing capacity is owned by dairy co-operatives from the republic. If common standards cease in areas such as labelling and product traceability, business north and south will grind to a halt” (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1DV56B)

Originally Posted by judy84

Of all trade outside, and between the EU and the outside only 2% is physically checked which means that 98% is via online, MaxFac. We will be outside. So, we can do the same.
The system could be controlled by ensuring matching of declarations for import and export; routine checks behind the border either at designated trade facilitation posts (as envisaged by the Irish Revenue Commissioners) or at importer and exporter premises; spot checks by mobile compliance units; and trading standards, food standards and other relevant agency enforcement.

Again, you are ignoring the risk of violence and the disruption caused by customs controls at the border or near the border (remember The Troubles?). The young Irish generation has only known freedom of movement across the Irish border. How will they react when they see the Brits enforcing a physical border? Also, the MaxFac fantasy can't replace serious inspections to prevent the smuggling of weapons/drugs and the spread of health hazards (mad cow disease, foot and mouth disease, etc...). The only serious option is the one suggested by the EU: moving the Irish border to ports and airports, because there are already controls in those places, so the workforce is already there for those controls but the procedure will be a bit longer. On the other hand, it will protect the seamless trade and travel across the land border.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by seany65

Jacques22, Where does "...Further European integration..." end?
Why don't they set a clear limit on where it ends, what it's final goal is?

In the 40's and 50's, Europe was scared of the Nazis and of the Soviet Union. That's why some politicians thought that the only way to resist against totalitarianism was to build a United States of Europe (i.e. a single European state).
Fast forward, that idealism is now gone because the Soviet bloc has collapsed and because European integration has led to a backlash with a resurgence of regionalism (you can see it with Catalonia in Spain or the Northern League in Italy).
Today, Macron is the only European leader still believing in further integration. Even his most ambitious proposals (a Eurozone budget and minister, a common European defense budget, a European tax on financial transactions) are quite lame compared to the ideal of a United States of Europe. Most European leaders won't follow Macron's ideas because they want to keep what's left of their nations' sovereignty and because wealthy nations don't want to pay for the poor ones. So the idea of a single European state is just a dream.

Originally Posted by seany65

How many more years will it be until "further European integration" results in 10% or 20% of a member-state's laws being made in that member-state by that member-state's often annoying, idiotic, politicians and 80% or 90% if it's laws being made by mostly foreign annoying, idiotic, politicians?

I don't think the percentage of EU law as part of UK law will increase. On the other hand, I think the percentage of UK law influenced by EU law is more likely to increase, for the simple reason that EU laws require a strong consensus to be passed and are therefore good for most citizens. British MPs will probably adapt EU laws according to the UK's priorities and local specificities.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

On a point of order, Turkey is not a member of the EU customs union. There is a separate arrangement between the EEA and Turkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe..._Customs_Union
This is not a million miles different from Britain seeking to negotiate a trade arrangement with the EU, and serves at least as a working example of a trade agreement between the EU and a neighbouring non-EEA and non customs union state.

Thanks for the nuance. That still makes May's proposals all the more nonsensical. Why have a special customs partnership or a MaxFac fantasy when there is already the Turkish model? Unless May wants a Turkey plus plus agreement, of course.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Part of being in either the EEA or the Customs Union is to accept the free movement of labour.

The four freedoms (including the free movement of labour) only apply is you are part of the single market. Despite the customs union, Turkey does not have free movement with the EU.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Apart from the undermining of the British labour market caused by the "freedom of movement of labour", there are serious risks for British national security if millions of unvetted "refugees" from Africa and the Middle East can come and go as they please. These are legitimate concerns and the EU has militantly refused to acknowledge them or offer any solutions. To advocate any arrangement which will not repatriate Britain's control of immigration policy is inconsistent with any genuine acceptance of the Leave vote and ignores, yet again, the legitimate concerns which British people have expressed about this issue.

I understand your concerns about unvetted immigrants from Africa and the Middle East (i.e. terrorism), but freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens, not African, Arab, and Asian citizens. When the British government welcomes Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Nigerians, it's the Home Office's decision, it has nothing to do with the EU, i.e. the EU does not oblige the Home Office to welcome them.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Don't forget that leaving the EU is something no nation has ever done before. There is no blueprint. Until the EU made known its own red lines on single market participation there was no automatic mutually exclusive state of being.
Also of course, it is perfectly possible to belong to the single market as a non-EU member.

There are no EU red lines. The rules of the single market club have been known for a long time. If the UK wants access to the single market without being an EU member, then it just has to pay a fee like Norway and Iceland. Since day one, the problem with May, Davis, Johnson and Co. is that they want to have their cake and eat it. There can't be any exception for the UK, otherwise other countries like Canada, the U.S. and China will want similar exceptions and that will be the end of the single market.

[ConstantOgler]

Originally Posted by jacques22

Since day one, the problem with May, Davis, Johnson and Co. is that they want to have their cake and eat it. There can't be any exception for the UK, otherwise other countries like Canada, the U.S. and China will want similar exceptions and that will be the end of the single market.