EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[PHILIPE]

I just learned yesterday that ASLEF and RMT supported Brexit. Somehow I missed that during the campaign. Surely that means they should be boycotted in the same way that we boycott Wetherspoons and Dyson?

Are you prepared to eat your words in 2 years time if Brexit is more successful ? It's not all about trade or immigration, it's all about meddling and interfering in things such as justice and the shape of bananas.
I'm just waiting the final outcome before finally judging.

 

[anme]

Are you prepared to eat your words in 2 years time if Brexit is more successful ? It's not all about trade or immigration, it's all about meddling and interfering in things such as justice and the shape of bananas.
I'm just waiting the final outcome before finally judging.

Check the shape of bananas in your local supermarket and please report back.

I insist that you report back.

 

[radamfi]

Are you prepared to eat your words in 2 years time if Brexit is more successful ? It's not all about trade or immigration, it's all about meddling and interfering in things such as justice and the shape of bananas.
I'm just waiting the final outcome before finally judging.

But what about the ability of UK citizens to live and work in Europe? That is of paramount importance. I can't see how Brexit will help in that regard.

 

[PHILIPE]

Check the shape of bananas in your local supermarket and please report back.

I insist that you report back.

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html

 

[gareth950]

I just learned yesterday that ASLEF and RMT supported Brexit. Somehow I missed that during the campaign. Surely that means they should be boycotted in the same way that we boycott Wetherspoons and Dyson?

I guess ASLEF and RMT supported Brexit for the same reasons that deep down, Jeremy Corbyn did - because it's seen by the hard left as a giant neo-liberal capitalist club.

The unions will have to report back to us in 2019 about how that protection of workers rights went........

 

[radamfi]

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html

Bananas are classified by quality and size so they can be traded internationally. Quality standards are also needed so that people know what they are buying and that the produce meets their expectations.

Straight & bendy are not banned by the EU. Commission Regulation 2257/94 identifies certain restrictions for fruits that producers have to conform to in order to sell their produce within the EU. The regulation states that bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature."

That all seems fairly sensible to me. And even if you have an objection to that, how much harm does that cause compared to stopping the right of UK citizens to live and work in Europe?

 

[anme]

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html

Yes it's normal to have international standards. They are a good thing. If the UK wants trade deals with other countries it will have to abide by them, even though it will now have little influence in setting them.

Common standards and regulations ENABLE free trade. Theresa May wants the UK to be a beacon of free trade, so there will be more, not less, of them in the future. You do understand that, right?

And the banana regulation doesn't prevent the sale of different shapes of banana. READ IT. It classifies bananas so that they can more easily be traded.

Life is not as simple as you think it is.

 

[Howardh]

Are you prepared to eat your words in 2 years time if Brexit is more successful ? It's not all about trade or immigration, it's all about meddling and interfering in things such as justice and the shape of bananas.
I'm just waiting the final outcome before finally judging.

I am, two years after Brexit.

On the same token, are Brexiters prepared to admit THEY were wrong if it all goes fail??

I see you fell for the Bendy Bananas saga!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I guess ASLEF and RMT supported Brexit for the same reasons that deep down, Jeremy Corbyn did - because it's seen by the hard left as a giant neo-liberal capitalist club.

The unions will have to report back to us in 2019 about how that protection of workers rights went........

What were the views expressed by other large trades unions during the period of that last referendum?

 

[radamfi]

I would be actually be surprised if a hard Brexit leads to reduced immigration. The combination of an ageing population and below replacement level birthrate means that labour shortages will become more and more acute, meaning that immigration of working age people will be required to fill in the gap. Putting it bluntly and in non-PC terms, this immigration is more likely to come in colours and religions unacceptable to racists and xenophobes whereas EU immigrants are more likely to be white Christians which white British people are more likely to be friends with, have sex with and have families with.

 

[backontrack]

On the same token, are Brexiters prepared to admit THEY were wrong if it all goes fail??

I will also ask this same question. Would they believe that what they inflicted on the country was right, even if that failed completely?

 

[northwichcat]

That all seems fairly sensible to me. And even if you have an objection to that, how much harm does that cause compared to stopping the right of UK citizens to live and work in Europe?

While Boris made a big fuss about EU regulations for bananas I don't think coming up with an alternative is going to be high on the list of priorities after leaving the EU.

One thing I find interesting is for digital marketing messages there has to be unsubscribe/opt out option. The EU requires one on all digital messages, so does the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. While there's variations in what's permitted e.g. Canada's approach is more customer friendly, while the EU's is more business friendly it seems it's been internationally agreed that it's essential that there should be a relatively quick and easy way of opting out of receiving further content.

 

[EM2]

Are you prepared to eat your words in 2 years time if Brexit is more successful ?

Define 'more successful'.

 

[furnessvale]

Yes it's normal to have international standards. They are a good thing. If the UK wants trade deals with other countries it will have to abide by them, even though it will now have little influence in setting them.

On the contrary, the UK without the EU can arrange a trade deal with another non EU country which matches exactly the requirements of the two countries concerned, without reference as to how it may affect German car manufacturers or Greek peasant farmers.

 

[HSTEd]

Except regulatory harmonisation means that most countries close to the EU, and thus close to the UK, have regulations that are aligning with EU ones.

 

[furnessvale]

Except regulatory harmonisation means that most countries close to the EU, and thus close to the UK, have regulations that are aligning with EU ones.

Yes, and in order to trade with the EU we will have to abide with their regulations, just like, even now, we have to abide with the regulations of non EU countries with which we trade.

What we won't have to do, IF WE SO CHOOSE, is abide by EU regulation of our domestic GDP, ie the majority of our GDP, or indeed EU regulation of our exports to non EU countries, ie the majority of our exports, on which we then have to overlay the requirements of the receiving country.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, and in order to trade with the EU we will have to abide with their regulations, just like, even now, we have to abide with the regulations of non EU countries with which we trade.

What we won't have to do, IF WE SO CHOOSE, is abide by EU regulation of our domestic GDP, ie the majority of our GDP, or indeed EU regulation of our exports to non EU countries, ie the majority of our exports, on which we then have to overlay the requirements of the receiving country.

So you are going to create two entirely parallel economies, complying to entirely different sets of regulations?
This does not sound like a recipe for economic growth and vitality.

 

[furnessvale]

So you are going to create two entirely parallel economies, complying to entirely different sets of regulations?
This does not sound like a recipe for economic growth and vitality.

The majority of our exports already go out with the EU. We already have "parallel economies", as you put it, to comply with the requirements of the receiving countries.

Seeing as you mention it, I do believe that a UK free of the dead hand of the EU, IS a recipe for economic growth and vitality.

 

[anme]

On the contrary, the UK without the EU can arrange a trade deal with another non EU country which matches exactly the requirements of the two countries concerned, without reference as to how it may affect German car manufacturers or Greek peasant farmers.

You *completely* miss the point. To agree a trade deal that is worthwhile, you don't just discuss tariffs and quotas. You also discuss standards and regulation (amongst other things). For example, if you want to trade food and agricultural products with the US, you will have to accept genetically modified food, hormone injections, etc as these are allowed and widely used in the US. You will have to consider whether you start allowing British farmers to use such techniques as well - they may need to in order to be competitive with US products. But, if we do, British produce will be excluded from European markets as the EU has much stricter standards. The UK will now have no influence on the EU standards, and has never had influence on US standards. But our farmers need to export. What do we do? How much control have we "taken back"?

Multiply the above by many many times, covering all industrial sectors. Add the effects of subsidies. Add many other things. And remember that trade deals must be beneficial for BOTH SIDES. That means we will have to accept a broadly similar quantity of imports as we make exports.

Any who tells you this is simple is LYING. Anyone who tells you the UK is in a good situation is LYING.

 

[furnessvale]

You *completely* miss the point. To agree a trade deal that is worthwhile, you don't just discuss tariffs and quotas. You also discuss standards and regulation (amongst other things). For example, if you want to trade food and agricultural products with the US, you will have to accept genetically modified food, hormone injections, etc as these are allowed and widely used in the US. You will have to consider whether you start allowing British farmers to use such techniques as well - they may need to in order to be competitive with US products. But, if we do, British produce will be excluded from European markets as the EU has much stricter standards. The UK will now have no influence on the EU standards, and has never had influence on US standards. But our farmers need to export. What do we do? How much control have we "taken back"?

Multiply the above by many many times, covering all industrial sectors. Add the effects of subsidies. Add many other things. And remember that trade deals must be beneficial for BOTH SIDES. That means we will have to accept broadly a broadly similar quantity of imports as we make exports.

Any who tells you this is simple is LYING. Anyone who tells you the UK is in a good situation is LYING.

Thanks for your opinion. I have filed it with all your other opinion posts.

 

[anme]

Thanks for your opinion. I have filed it with all your other opinion posts.

Which part of the above do you consider to be opinion rather than fact? As far as I can see, everything written except the last paragraph is obvious, verifiable facts - please say which you consider to be incorrect.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On the contrary, the UK without the EU can arrange a trade deal with another non EU country which matches exactly the requirements of the two countries concerned, without reference as to how it may affect German car manufacturers or Greek peasant farmers.

That is extremely unlikely: Firstly, no two country's needs match exactly, so even a trade deal arranged between only two countries will inevitably involve some compromises. Secondly, trade deals don't exist in isolation and will inevitably be affected by other countries. As one example, suppose we arrange a free trade deal with country B, but B already has a free trade deal with C. Clearly the B-C deal will not have been designed with the UK in mind because the UK is not a party to it, but the two deals may well give C a free trade deal with the UK whether we want it or not - they just have to send their goods via B. I'm afraid this idea of getting lots of free trade deals that exactly match our interests is just fantasy.

But the other thing that I've pointed out before, but which I don't recall any Brexit supporter addressing, is that if you want a free trade deal to work properly and not to lead to a race to the bottom on safety and environmental standards, then it's no good just having free trade on its own. You have to have some degree of common environmental and safety etc. standards that go with the deal. Funnily enough, that's exactly what the EU gives us (albeit somewhat imperfectly), and which many Brexit supporters seem to find so objectionable about the EU.

So perhaps I should ask you a direct question: Since from what you've written you appear to dislike trans-national regulation, but want trade deals: How do you propose avoiding the kind of race to the bottom on safety and standards etc. that would inevitably make the UK a much less pleasant place to live and work in?

 

[anme]

... the two deals may well give C a free trade deal with the UK whether we want it or not - they just have to send their goods via B. ...

This is incorrect. "Country of origin" certification is sometimes possible to show that a product originates in country B, and was not imported from country C. This is a lot of bureaucracy, of course, which the UK will have to get used to even for exporting to Europe if we leave the customs union, but it is possible.

It's not simple, though. How do you define and prove that a product originates in country B and not country C? What about a product assembled in country B but made from components manufactured in countries C and D? Or repackaged in country B?

As I said, this stuff is very complicated. There's a reason why trade deals take many years to negotiate.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is incorrect. "Country of origin" certification is sometimes possible to show that a product originates in country B, and was not imported from country C.

That's why I used the phrase 'may well', implying strong possibility, rather than something with the meaning of 'necessarily' - since clearly it depends on the details of the agreement! So I don't agree that what I wrote - with the wording I used - wasn't correct. I do agree with you though that if you want to exclude goods that are passing through or only partially manufactured in B, then things get very complicated very quickly.

 

[me123]

From BBC news

Australia eyes relaxed UK immigration under trade deal

Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK, said the country would want better access for business people working in the UK before reaching a post-Brexit deal.

An interesting development. For many people, immigration was the biggest reason for their decision to vote to leave the EU, and here we are with one country looking to actually make immigration to our country easier for them as part of the trade negotiations. I would be interested to hear from the leave supporters as to their thoughts on this, and whether they expect this to be a feature that we will see from many other countries as we renegotiate trade deals?

 

[radamfi]

An interesting development. For many people, immigration was the biggest reason for their decision to vote to leave the EU, and here we are with one country looking to actually make immigration to our country easier for them as part of the trade negotiations. I would be interested to hear from the leave supporters as to their thoughts on this, and whether they expect this to be a feature that we will see from many other countries as we renegotiate trade deals?

Brexiters may actually be happy with freedom of movement between the UK and Australia, and probably also New Zealand as well. I personally have little interest in that and would rather retain free movement within Europe.

 

[northwichcat]

Brexiters may actually be happy with freedom of movement between the UK and Australia, and probably also New Zealand as well. I personally have little interest in that and would rather retain free movement within Europe.

Australia seems to allow anyone under 30 from Britain (and some other countries including Netherlands) to do seasonal work there provided they've got something like £3000 of available funds on arrival. They can even finish up spending a few years there provided they don't spend more than 6 months with the same employer.

 

[Howardh]

It's worth looking up youtube for the videos on "emigrating to Canada" where basically you have to be Bamber Gascoigne to get in. Although on saying that, if you have zero qualifications you can go today and be a carer, as there must be a shortage. You can be trained on the job there.

So regarding the UK, we will have to continue to allow, what, thousands in simply to fill the jobs we need doing that we don't do (or want to??) ourselves. Caring, nursing, teaching for starters.

There's no way the immigration figures will fall, the best Brexit can hope for is they rise less quickly. That could have been done by simply not allowing benefits, housing or welfare to anyone entering until they've paid in first.

Yet the simple exercise of slowing down immigration a bit is slowly destroying the country. The days of "one nation" are now a faded mucky-brown photograph gathering dust. If May and her cronies want me to get behind and back Britain, she can bend over as I have a place for it.

 

[furnessvale]

There's no way the immigration figures will fall, the best Brexit can hope for is they rise less quickly. That could have been done by simply not allowing benefits, housing or welfare to anyone entering until they've paid in first.

No, not allowed under EU rules.

 

[Howardh]

No, not allowed under EU rules.

Yes it was, Cameron negotiated that. Virtually the last thing he did in the EU.