EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[EM2]

this schematic of the overlapping European and EU institutions may help...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg

And where on that graphic does our Government want us to be? The answer is in the Council of Europe, and outside of everything else, a position that no other country is in. Why might that be?

 

[Ken H]

But it isn't that simple, is it? As has already been mentioned, Norway are not EU members, nor are Switzerland, and neither are party to the CU because they are in EFTA (European Free Trade Association).
Nor do they, along with the other EFTA members, participate in the Common Fisheries and Agriculture Policies.

we will have to agree to differ just now 'in the EU' Norway is

but have you looked into the import tariffs the EU imposes on imports into the CU. many as high as 10%. Stuff like fresh food too. Instead of chucking aid money at Africa, we could cut those tariffs, and let African agriculture flourish. And import tariffs are every regressive form of taxation - they impact the poorest people most.
The EU is very very protectionist. It is not a bastion of free trade.

 

[Ken H]

If it's that easy then why is it all such a mess.. Could it be there is more to it than you think.

yes. Parliament are full of MP's, and the civil service full of civil servants who dont respect the result of the referendum and have been trying to wreck it.

 

[Ken H]

And where on that graphic does our Government want us to be? The answer is in the Council of Europe, and outside of everything else, a position that no other country is in. Why might that be?

well many of them are not appropriate to the UK because they are local ones.
The EU, Shengen and customs union we voted to leave
Not a lot left is there?

 

[nidave]

yes. Parliament are full of MP's, and the civil service full of civil servants who dont respect the result of the referendum and have been trying to wreck it.

Of course its all a big conspiracy by the government as that's easier to say than facts and admit it's a not easy and its going to cause lots of problems.

 

[EM2]

well many of them are not appropriate to the UK because they are local ones.
The EU, Shengen and customs union we voted to leave
Not a lot left is there?

But we didn't vote to leave all of those. We voted to leave the first, were never in the second, and weren't asked about the third.

 

[HH]

It doesn't matter what people thought they were voting for, at this point we only have a deal that the EU is prepared to accept, but it appears that parliament isn't. But that's only the start of the problem - it appears that no option, whatever it is, will be able to gain a majority. We have three main groups, the remainers, the soft brexiteers and the hard brexiteers, and they appear to be roughly equal. What's more we have two party leaders whose personal views don't represent either their MPs or their parties. You couldn't make it up.

We are the laughing stock of the world.

 

[Basher]

Population of UK = 65m, Population of Eire = 5m. If you do the maths, that's in proportion to the population.

Yes, but the proportions are not the same in getting money back.

 

[Basher]

It doesn't matter what people thought they were voting for, at this point we only have a deal that the EU is prepared to accept, but it appears that parliament isn't. But that's only the start of the problem - it appears that no option, whatever it is, will be able to gain a majority. We have three main groups, the remainers, the soft brexiteers and the hard brexiteers, and they appear to be roughly equal. What's more we have two party leaders whose personal views don't represent either their MPs or their parties. You couldn't make it up.

We are the laughing stock of the world.

Did I hear today that the church want the public to be more understanding and caring for our politicians?

 

[Ken H]

But we didn't vote to leave all of those. We voted to leave the first, were never in the second, and weren't asked about the third.

yes we were because we were asked if we wanted to leave the EU
The CU is part of the EU, so leaving the EU means leaving the CU

 

[nidave]

yes we were because we were asked if we wanted to leave the EU
The CU is part of the EU, so leaving the EU means leaving the CU

But how do you square this with the fact that the GFA states that NI/ROI various "institutional and constitutional arrangements" set out in the Agreement are to be "interlocking and interdependent".

How is the GFA going to remain if :

The North/South Ministerial Council is made up of ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of Ireland. It was established "to develop consultation, co-operation and action" in twelve areas of mutual interest. These include six areas where the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of Ireland form common policies but implement these separately in each jurisdiction, and six areas where they develop common policies that are implemented through shared all-Ireland institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

Everyone keeps saying its easy but no one can give any detail on how this is supposed to be achieved Especially (My bold):

The agreement affirmed a commitment to "the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community". The multi-party agreement recognised "the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity", especially in relation to the Irish language, Ulster Scots, and the languages of Northern Ireland's other ethnic minorities, "all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland".

The British government committed to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into the law of Northern Ireland and to the establishment of a Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Setting statutory obligations for public authorities in Northern Ireland to carry out their work "with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity was set as a particular priority." The Irish government committed to "[taking] steps to further the protection of human rights in its jurisdiction" and to the establishment of an Irish Human Rights Commission.

 

[HH]

Let's face it, if the government wasn't propped up by the DUP (thanks to May's massive balls up in calling a GE), then DUP would be told that they can have a frictionless border with Eire OR the RUK, but both is impossible post-Brexit. Despite what Bojo would have had people think, there was never a "have cake and eat it"option. I feel sorry for NI, as they didn't vote to leave, but if you want to remain part of UK, you have to suffer along with the rest of us.

 

[nidave]

Let's face it, if the government wasn't propped up by the DUP (thanks to May's massive balls up in calling a GE), then DUP would be told that they can have a frictionless border with Eire OR the RUK, but both is impossible post-Brexit. Despite what Bojo would have had people think, there was never a "have cake and eat it"option. I feel sorry for NI, as they didn't vote to leave, but if you want to remain part of UK, you have to suffer along with the rest of us.

The answer to the problem (according to some on here) is to fu*k NI and its people just cut them loose.

 

[mmh]

But how do you square this with the fact that the GFA states that NI/ROI various "institutional and constitutional arrangements" set out in the Agreement are to be "interlocking and interdependent".

How is the GFA going to remain if :

The North/South Ministerial Council is made up of ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of Ireland. It was established "to develop consultation, co-operation and action" in twelve areas of mutual interest. These include six areas where the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of Ireland form common policies but implement these separately in each jurisdiction, and six areas where they develop common policies that are implemented through shared all-Ireland institutions.

Ministers from the NI Executive? Are there ever going to be any of those again?

 

[EM2]

...leaving the EU means leaving the CU

It clearly doesn't because, as the graphic that you posted shows, there are countries that are members of the Customs Union, or have bilateral customs unions, that are not members of the EU.

 

[AM9]

yes we were because we were asked if we wanted to leave the EU
The CU is part of the EU, so leaving the EU means leaving the CU

Which is a falsehood. The very interesting venn diagram of european organisations linked by you in post #13588 which according to you "may help": the Customs Union also includes Monaco, Andorra, Jersey, Gurensey, IoM & Turkey, none of which are in the EU. With the exception of Turkey, they are mostly small countires, either tied to the UK or individual small entities. Significantly though, other than their arrangements as part of the Customs Union, they are not subject to EU rules and laws like full members. So, there is no absolute need to leave the CU when leaving the EU, and I doubt that any more than a very few had even considered such a thing when placing a vote on the referendum ballot paper against the 'leave' option. So yet another leaver falsehood.

Just beaten to the post by EM2 but I have listed them.

 

[eotw]

we will have to agree to differ just now 'in the EU' Norway is

but have you looked into the import tariffs the EU imposes on imports into the CU. many as high as 10%. Stuff like fresh food too. Instead of chucking aid money at Africa, we could cut those tariffs, and let African agriculture flourish. And import tariffs are every regressive form of taxation - they impact the poorest people most.
The EU is very very protectionist. It is not a bastion of free trade.

Have you heard of "Everything but Arms"?

Everything but Arms (EBA) is an initiative of the European Union under which all imports to the EU from the Least Developed Countries are duty-free and quota-free, with the exception of armaments. EBA entered into force on 5 March 2001. There were transitional arrangements for bananas, sugar and rice until January 2006, July 2009 and September 2009 respectively. The EBA is part of the EU Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_but_Arms

Apologies if it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[nidave]

Ministers from the NI Executive? Are there ever going to be any of those again?

The Northern Ireland Executive is made up of the First Minister, deputy First Minister, two Junior Ministers and eight departmental ministers.
https://www.northernireland.gov.uk/topics/your-executive
They are still in existence however Getting them to sort themselves out and actually form a government in NI is a different matter. Things have just moved down a rung until they can get off their backsides.

 

[bramling]

Which is a falsehood. The very interesting venn diagram of european organisations linked by you in post #13588 which according to you "may help": the Customs Union also includes Monaco, Andorra, Jersey, Gurensey, IoM & Turkey, none of which are in the EU. With the exception of Turkey, they are mostly small countires, either tied to the UK or individual small entities. Significantly though, other than their arrangements as part of the Customs Union, they are not subject to EU rules and laws like full members. So, there is no absolute need to leave the CU when leaving the EU, and I doubt that any more than a very few had even considered such a thing when placing a vote on the referendum ballot paper against the 'leave' option. So yet another leaver falsehood.

David Cameron did, however, clearly state both the customs union and single market in his "out of the..." speech. Quite reasonable for people to take notice of the person who called the referendum!

 

[EM2]

we will have to agree to differ just now 'in the EU' Norway is

Norway is not in the EU at all. It has various agreements with the EU, it abides by numerous EU policies, it even makes payments to the EU. You may feel that it is a bad model, or a good model, or there are bits that are good and bits that are bad. Whichever way you want to interpret that is entirely your lookout, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is not in the EU.

 

[bramling]

Let's face it, if the government wasn't propped up by the DUP (thanks to May's massive balls up in calling a GE), then DUP would be told that they can have a frictionless border with Eire OR the RUK, but both is impossible post-Brexit.

Which to me is a perfectly reasonable choice to have to make. The rest of the UK shouldn't be messed about because NI either wants its cake and eat it too, or can't make its mind up. (or a minority of its population can't have one or the other without kneecapping each other).

 

[nidave]

David Cameron did, however, clearly state both the customs union and single market in his "out of the..." speech. Quite reasonable for people to take notice of the person who called the referendum!

Well considering pretty much everyone said we would stay in the single market during the vote

I thought David Cameron campaigned to stay in the EU

 

[nidave]

Which to me is a perfectly reasonable choice to have to make. The rest of the UK shouldn't be messed about because NI either wants its cake and eat it too, or can't make its mind up. (or a minority of its population can't have one or the other without kneecapping each other).

So you are making decisions on behalf of the people of N. Ireland now are you?
The GFA states that there can only be a united Ireland if there is a referendum on the subject.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Well considering pretty much everyone said we would stay in the single market during the vote

I thought David Cameron campaigned to stay in the EU

Here's a discussion of the selective editing in that video:

 

[bramling]

So you are making decisions on behalf of the people of N. Ireland now are you?
The GFA states that there can only be a united Ireland if there is a referendum on the subject.

It's a pity we can't have a UK-wide referendum on the future of NI! Like whether England, Wales and Scotland wish it to remain part of the union. It'd be a gift of a campaign for the leave side, especially at the moment.

 

[Esker-pades]

we will have to agree to differ just now 'in the EU' Norway is

but have you looked into the import tariffs the EU imposes on imports into the CU. many as high as 10%. Stuff like fresh food too. Instead of chucking aid money at Africa, we could cut those tariffs, and let African agriculture flourish. And import tariffs are every regressive form of taxation - they impact the poorest people most.
The EU is very very protectionist. It is not a bastion of free trade.

Again, it isn't as simple as that.

Firstly, see the post by @eotw above (#13607).

The second part refers to your mention of agriculture.
The production costs in the Global North (developed countries) v the Global South (developing countries) is very different. It costs more to farm in a Global North country than it does in the Global South. That isn't down to inefficiency persay, but is instead down to more expensive labour and living costs. A farmer in the UK has to earn a lot more in the year to afford stuff than another farmer in Tanzania or Bangladesh. It also costs them more to employ the people required to farm. Therefore, the governments in Global North countries subsidise their farming in order to keep them competetive, but also keep costs down for consumers.

WTO (World Trade Organisation) and previously GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) rules and negotiations have focused a lot on agricultural subsidies because Global South countries see it as unfair and a barrier to their development. Of the 8 major GATT Negotiations, 7 have focused on general tariff reduction, and 2 specifically on agriculture. The 2011 Doha Development Round stalled, and one of the reasons for this was the impass reached around agricultural subsidies. What is important to note is that the member states of the EU are not the only states that have agricultural tariffs; it is a practise used by virtually every Global North state. Ending tariffs is politically untenable for most governments because it would loose them a lot of votes.

The third part refers to the trade v aid discussion:
Cutting tariffs does not necessarily mean that a state will flourish. The market is not this all-seeing, all-benevolent thing. There are always winners and loosers. This is the same for the current system of trade. If one opens up developing states markets to the world so that they can trade free from tariffs, then will it actually benefit them?

Trade Deals:
In order to have tariff-free access to existing markets (we'll look at the US and not EU to demonstrate that this is not an EU problem), some form of trade deal has to be struck. As a state with a very large and lucrative domestic market, the US can negotiate hard. It often inserts some very nasty clauses into trade agreements with other developed states, so you can bet a significant amount of money that they also do this with developing states and probably worse. (They do. I've checked.) One of these clauses is one that basically says that the state cannot introduce any policy or laws which harm the profit making of any US company. This has been used most notably by US tobacco companies when states introduce policies that attempt to make smoking less attractive. For example, it happened in New Zealand. In this case, the case was thrown out, but the costs for mounting such a legal defence are very high. New Zealand could afford to do this because New Zealand is a wealthy state. Other states cannot afford to do this because they are not as wealthy, often they are less wealthy than the company who is suing them.
Further, what does the US gain from a free trade deal with a developing state? It can sell them other things, such as computers or phones. The things that the US and the Global North sells back to the Global South are at much higher margins than the agricultural produce that they would apparently get rich from. As much as they can make beans or tea or beef at a low cost (through their much lower labour costs which perpetuates a cycle of exploitation in the name of economic growth), they develop a bit and buy some technology so they can increase their production further and live better. So, Angola (for example) buys some tractors and smartphones from the Global North. These cost far more than they can make from agriculture. Has Angola actually made money? No. And thus, the cycle repeats itself. The Global South is kept undeveloped so that the Global North can continue their hugely favourable trade deals and cheap raw materials.

Market Liberalisation?:
Looking beyond trade deals, one then comes to the question "can developing states compete with developed states?" The assumption that pure market liberalisation is the way to do this is pants.
Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank, International Monetory Fund etc.) mandate this is the way forward. In their loans to Global South countries, they mandate market liberalisation as one of the terms of the loans. The first thing to note is that most states being given those loans fundamentally dislike the number of terms and conditions put on these loans, but that isn't the main point.
The main point is that it doesn't actually work for the majority of states and people. In order to do this, I will look at South Korea's development, which (against popular belief) was not down to market liberalisation. The government's implementation of liberalisation policies was sporadic and half-hearted and with abilities to reverse them. Specifically, tariffs remained high and broad. 93% of imported goods were subject to at least one tariff after liberalisation in 1965. The government had the power to impose emergency tariffs on anything. Non-market reasons for economic growth were (for example) the state's ability to target intervention investment with the ability to pull out if things failed.
Still, the Bretton Woods institutions point to South Korea as a liberal success story. So, why haven't other states followed? Because they are very different to South Korea. Policies which work with one developing country do not work with others. Instead, it can simply make them more ripe for exploitation.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035227

So, trade participation for developing comes at a cost: social, economic or both. Look at the price difference between "Fairtrade" stuff and normal stuff.

Aid:
Aid is there to help states come to a point where they can meet that cost. IE: They can afford to participate in the global economy without signing up to seriously exploitative deals with larger trading powers.
Aid can come in many forms. There is the obvious cash thing, but this is only one method. The Chinese way of aid is to help with large infrastructure projects that should promote economic growth. If done well, this can be a huge boost. Especially when Aid is tailored to the specifics of the local economy, as non-Bretton Woods institutions attempt (Chinese infrastructure aid, UN programmes).

Finally, a possible explanation for this view of the EU:
The EU has very strict standards when it comes to goods. That can exclude some states from participating within the EU market. This is why a lot of people fear a US trade deal because their lower agricultural standards mean they can undercut our farmers. Poland got rather annoyed in 2016 when the EU proposed limits on the levels of a heavy metal in mineral fertilisers. The EU wanted to cut it due to health risks and environmental standards. Poland objected, as did Senagal (and quite a few other North and West African states) who previously imported fertilisers to Poland. Even though the EU proposed a phase-in of the new rule (gradually reducing the limit over a number of years), it was still objected to. This was picked up as an example of "fortress Europe", but it is more to do with raising standards for EU citizens. Standards are a good thing, and if states cannot meet those standards, then it's unfortunate but better than allowing sub-standard goods in.
https://www.politico.eu/article/poles-on-the-brink-over-fertilizers/

I only wish that you'd posted this a few days ago so I could have pretended that this was revision for my exam on the World Trade Organisation (amongst other things) on the 13th. However, the trade v aid stuff was very useful for another exam next week, so thanks for that!

 

[nidave]

It's a pity we can't have a UK-wide referendum on the future of NI! Like whether England, Wales and Scotland wish it to remain part of the union. It'd be a gift of a campaign for the leave side, especially at the moment.

SIGH - do you know what irony means as your posts are so full of irony its tragic. Are you also suggesting a UK-wide referendum on Scottish independence voted upon by England, Wales & N. Ireland.

Any means necessary (including but not limited to the breakup of the United Kingdom ) to make sure less (or no) people live in your area who are foreign I suppose.

I get it, you hate people who are not exactly like you and think you are better than me.

 

[bramling]

SIGH - do you know what irony means as your posts are so full of irony its tragic. Are you also suggesting a UK-wide referendum on Scottish independence voted upon by England, Wales & N. Ireland.

Ironic that England's tax bill would benefit given than spending per head in NI is, IIRC, 20% higher than the UK average, or ironic that NI has brought violence to the UK mainland over the years (and, as many on this thread are quick to remind us, a threat which could apparently return)?

 

[nidave]

Ironic that England's tax bill would benefit given than spending per head in NI is, IIRC, 20% higher than the UK average, or ironic that Ireland has brought violence to the UK mainland over the years (and, as many on this thread are quick to remind us, a threat which could easily return)?

There was a solution to the violence which was voted on by the people on the Island of Ireland. Its called the Good Friday Agreement - When was the last IRA attack in England?
Your solution to non existent (current) Irish / N . Irish terrorism attacks in England is to destroy the thing that's created the non existent (current) Irish / N . Irish terrorism attacks in England or break up the United Kingdom just because of your racism (as demonstrated in your previous posts). The lengths you are willing to go do destroy everything just to stop foreigners living in your area is staggering.

 

[bramling]

There was a solution to the violence which was voted on by the people on the Island of Ireland. Its called the Good Friday Agreement - When was the last IRA attack in England?
Your solution to non existent (current) Irish / N . Irish terrorism attacks in England is to destroy the thing that's created the non existent (current) Irish / N . Irish terrorism attacks in England or break up the United Kingdom just because of your racism (as demonstrated in your previous posts). The lengths you are willing to go do destroy everything just to stop foreigners living in your area is staggering.

If all else fails then let's go down the racism route?!