For me it shows me how much people can be hoodwinked by rhetoric, promises and soundbites...... very sad
Well this is one effect of Brexit. I dont see all the unemployed in Lincs rushing to fill the jobs.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44230865 European fruit pickers shun Britain By Claire Marshall BBC Environment and Rural Affairs Correspondent Recruitment agencies are warning that they cannot secure the number of workers needed by British farmers to pick their fruit and vegetables. Over half of recruitment companies could not find the labour even in the "quiet" first months of this year, the Association of Labour Providers says The National Farmers Union reports that last year there was a 17% drop in seasonal workers coming to the UK. This led to some valuable produce being left to rot in the fields.
Is this the soft brexit a lot of people were wanting? I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it: Brexit: May and Davis 'agree customs backstop wording' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44391539 Sent from my G3121 using Tapatalk
I don't think it is yorkie. If you read the text it says one thing in one line, and the opposite in another. It is another fudge to try and stop the whole thing falling apart. This is only the backstop proposal that the UK wants having already agreed to the EU proposal last December, then changing its mind. I doubt that something so ambiguous will be acceptable to the EU.
I think it is an attempt to fudge it so we "brexit" until the next parliament when different rules apply... And Government can be more pragmatic having done the deed.. Sent from my G3121 using Tapatalk
I'm not so sure the EU won't accept it. I think privately they're keen for the softest Brexit possible.
I also think that the EU would like a hardly noticeable Brexit, but there are huge problems for them that the UK government do not seem to understand. The EU has developed a set of rules that govern how it is to act. Many of the rules were designed to ensure that any country should be able to understand what they had signed up for. One of the leading lights in producing this rule book was the UK, so it seems very odd that they now go back with suggestions that they know are unacceptable. Taking a position and seeing what reaction you get is quite normal in negotiating, but with people trying to all pull in different directions it becomes laugh a minute time when yet another half baked paper is produced, altered, rewritten, then has an insertion of words that with luck no one will notice. My belief is that the EU can see what a hopeless position May is in with her warring factions, and would help her out if possible, but that will require her to get rid of a few more of her red lines and face up to the time restraints that she imposed.
I agree entirely. And I also think if she asks for more time she will get it. We need it - the backlog for Bills through Parliament is absolutely crazy so if we do crash out in March there's a lot of things we won't be able to legislate for. Ah well - the will of the people...
Apart from the obvious difficulties caused by having to meet mutually exclusive objectives(aka NI border), the biggest issue is one of cultural difference. Because the UK does not have a written constitution we make it up as we go along, deals, arrangenents procedures and so on, and assume everybody else can do the same. The EU is completely tied by its treaties, rules and procedures. As such they don’t have a negotiating position. They can simply say ‘yes’ if a UK idea meets the criteria, or No’ otherwise-the normal response given the criteria. We seem to have wasted 2 years discovering this unpalatable fact.
That is very much what I was driving at JT. Certain people in government seemed to have little idea of what they were dealing with. An example was David Davis. “Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else.” He didn't understand that you do trade deals with the whole block, not individual countries. If the UK had not been inside there might have been a reason to say they didn't understand, but that is not the case.
I am not sure if the EU. regulations are as standardized as we often presume Frenchie. There is not one of us who knows the full range of European laws, and even the politicians in Brussels do not have access to all of them. In the sphere of civil rights, freedom of movement, right of naturalization etc. there are minimum standards which apply throughout the EU. but there is nothing to stop individual countires going further than this if it is not detremental to the EU. as a whole. Taking naturalization as an example - the process is different in all EU. countries. A Brazilian arriving in Portugal can get a passport after 6 months residence - other countries (eg. Germany) do what they are required to do by EU. law and nothing else. Is there are concrete law in the EU. to prevent an individual member forming a separate trade deal with a non EU. member, if it is not detremental to the EU ? They do this in many other areas - Commonwealth migration to Britain is not regulated by the EU. neither is Turkish (or Russian) migration to Germany. If a certain amount of freedom exists in this sphere, then why not also in the movement of goods ?
I think that many of these freedoms that we have started because of the advantages for trade. The whole idea of a common market is that it should be as easy for countries to carry out trade with each other as it is for trade within a single one. At the lowest level this means that people have the right to move products across borders, and the drivers will have a common travel document, an EU passport. It then follows on that further considerations such as health care should have some common agreements in cases where an individual needs emergency treatment if he is not in his home country. Then you have people who are living away from home for work reasons for lengthy periods, often long enough to become resident. You can go on and on, but these issues have come about to make trade as simple as possible. Of course there will be different ways that countries will deal with aspects of the rules and regulations, the EU frequently makes them with minimum requirements. Commonwealth migration is way outside the remit of the EU as it only applies to the UK. Nothing to do with them, so they do not try to regulate for it. Trade deals are being done between trading blocks these days rather than single countries. Australia is quite happy to do one with the UK, but that can wait until the one with the EU is concluded. There is nothing to stop two companies buying and selling to each other, but they will not have the benefit of reduced paperwork, speed of passage through customs, etc. all of which incur costs. In the same way the UK was badly exposed as having few trade negotiators because they had saved money by pooling their needs with the EU. There are other considerations such as quotas, tariffs, quality of imports, but this is still designed to make a market as cost efficient as possible. Start to have lots of side deals and the systems will break down.
Angry people in the Sun and Mail letter pages (only read them in the work canteen mainly for the sport!) Not happy about Mrs May not giving them the full out Brexit they wanted.. Was that naive of them to think that would happen?
A win for the Government but not by much : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-44440809
Ten minutes before the voting started the Government agreed to accept some of the amendments put forward by Dominic Grieve. It would seem that the PM had to get involved to assure MPs. Government whips were openly going round before that to see if they could win a vote, and clearly the fact that they agreed to change the bill shows that they knew they would lose.
Could someone explain what the politics is behind the vote against being part of the EEA? I would have thought that 'remainers' would have supported the closest links with the EU possible rather than what appears to be a move for a hard Brexit. It is quite possible that I have misunderstood all this, of course. As an aside some Canadian colleagues of mine are telling me that Trump is pushing Canada to a much closer arrangement with the EU - even to the extent of an arrangement similar to EEA.
Norway is in the EEA. It is a kind of 90% EU house - you get many of the benefits like customs union and single market - but you have to pay for the privilege and be subject to the ECJ, immigration rules etc. Plus you have no vote on any future direction or action of the EU. You cannot as a member of the customs union sign independent trade deals with other countries. So why would you leave the EU to be subject to all the things brexiters did not want and lose your vote. It is not a sensible choice. However most remainers would accept that option as they have no problem with the EU's 4 pillars and so prefer 90% of the EU to none of it. Staunch brexiters say of course that it is as bad as remaining.
You have explained very well the logic behind the decision, but not the politics from my viewpoint. The politics are about power. The right wing in one party and the left wing in the other are vying to take control of the country. The EU debate is a useful vehicle to fight out this battle.
