Getting brexit done!

[bovril]

2 hours ago, Gordon the Great said:

Or even "Back your Country"

Into a corner? 

[twoleftfeet]

On 28/05/2020 at 15:11, Spudulike said:

Nissan shifting production from Barcelona to Sunderland.

 

Is that despite Brexit ?? Can just imagine the media frenzy if it was the other way around. 

Nissan no longer need cars produced in Europe they could just as Honda have retreat and base production back in Japan as they now have a free trade agreement with Europe. 

Very few if ant of the Dooms day prediction have yet happened, yes I know we haven't left yet but you do wonder if those who voted to remain knew what they voted for, they seem to have voted based it all on lies from companies such as Nissan. 

[Finnaldo]

13 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Nissan no longer need cars produced in Europe they could just as Honda have retreat and base production back in Japan as they now have a free trade agreement with Europe. 

Very few if ant of the Dooms day prediction have yet happened, yes I know we haven't left yet but you do wonder if those who voted to remain knew what they voted for, they seem to have voted based it all on lies from companies such as Nissan. 

They seem to be indicating that if we don’t get a close trade deal with the EU they’ll pull out, like they agreed? Where’s the lie?

[Innovindil]

9 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

They seem to be indicating that if we don’t get a close trade deal with the EU they’ll pull out, like they agreed? Where’s the lie?

Tbf even with one they could pull out. Utterly pointless basing manufacturing in the expensive UK if you can send it back to Japan and not face any tariffs. As quite a few companies across Europe are currently seeing. Only thing stopping them now is the billions already invested in Sunderland. 

[Alf Bentley]

Tariffs or lack of tariffs isn't the only factor affecting location of production.

 

I'm sure Japan would have the expertise to do all of Nissan's production.

But, just for starters, it would add a major cost to ship thousands of cars half way around the world, wouldn't it? 

[l444ry]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/if-you-think-chlorinated-chicken-sounds-disgusting/05/06/

[Guest Markyblue]

18 minutes ago, l444ry said:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/if-you-think-chlorinated-chicken-sounds-disgusting/05/06/

There really are no limits to the crap being rolled out is there, maybe just accept there was a vote , 3 in fact counting general elections and remain lost. Get over it .

[l444ry]

3 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

There really are no limits to the crap being rolled out is there, maybe just accept there was a vote , 3 in fact counting general elections and remain lost. Get over it .

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/government-ready-to-open-british-markets-to-chlorinated-chicken-for-us-trade-deal/ar-BB151AuP

Don't believe this *crap* but presumably believed what was written on the side of a bus. You won, get over it.

[Guest Markyblue]

2 minutes ago, l444ry said:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/government-ready-to-open-british-markets-to-chlorinated-chicken-for-us-trade-deal/ar-BB151AuP

Don't believe this *crap* but presumably believed what was written on the side of a bus. You won, get over it.

I have got over it, it was a democratic vote , i voted leave wasn't fanatical by any means thought remain would win and was surprised by the result,  if the vote had have gone the other way i would have accepted it and got on with my life not spent 3 years looking for every tiny reason to whinge about a democratic decision. 

[Spudulike]

Just listening to the Barnier statement on the current state of the negotiations. 

 

He seems to be very good at stating the EU's position and pointing the blame for failure to progress squarely at the UK's door. However, he's not so good under questioning and immediately adopts a defensive tone under scrutiny reaffirming that he doesn't need to be reminded of his mandate. In particular the the EU's interpretation of state aid rules as agreed in the Political Declaration. 

[Finnaldo]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Tbf even with one they could pull out. Utterly pointless basing manufacturing in the expensive UK if you can send it back to Japan and not face any tariffs. As quite a few companies across Europe are currently seeing. Only thing stopping them now is the billions already invested in Sunderland. 

Talks of moving some Renault manufacturing there right? But yeah, you’re not wrong. 

[Beechey]

Why does Barnier keep saying  that we signed up to the same level playing field they are proposing, and thus we are backtracking? We signed up to not reducing standards below the level they will be at the end of the transition period, not dynamic regulatory alignment.

Funnily enough, having read all of the relevant documents, the EU position is further away from the political declaration than the UK position is.

 

It's incredible.

[Innovindil]

38 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Talks of moving some Renault manufacturing there right? But yeah, you’re not wrong. 

Honestly I can't keep up with renault. Last i heard they were planning on moving some to Sunderland so they could close barcelona plant, which I think they did? Can't remember. Then there were plans to ship some to south africa and others to france, then there was plans to move back to japan.

 

All over the place. 

 

Manufacturing in general world wide has took a massive slap in the face. Car makers were already struggling big time. Too many variables to predict where it will end up. With the "rise" in electric cars and the uncertainty surrounding diesel vehicles people have just been put off I think. Can't see it picking up anytime soon, looking at millions of job losses worldwide and even the people that keep their jobs will be focusing on things other than new cars.

[oxford blue]

4 hours ago, Beechey said:

Why does Barnier keep saying  that we signed up to the same level playing field they are proposing, and thus we are backtracking? We signed up to not reducing standards below the level they will be at the end of the transition period, not dynamic regulatory alignment.

Funnily enough, having read all of the relevant documents, the EU position is further away from the political declaration than the UK position is.

 

It's incredible.

Looking at this article

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/05/brexit-barnier-hints-in-talks-of-eu-concessions-on-state-aid-rules

 

it would suggest to me that a deal is definitely possible within (I understand) the absolute deadline of 31 October.  I would be surprised if there is not a broad enough agreement to be in place by then, sufficient for both sides to ratify it

[Beechey]

12 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

Looking at this article

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/05/brexit-barnier-hints-in-talks-of-eu-concessions-on-state-aid-rules

 

it would suggest to me that a deal is definitely possible within (I understand) the absolute deadline of 31 October.  I would be surprised if there is not a broad enough agreement to be in place by then, sufficient for both sides to ratify it

Oh that's very interesting, and not something I was expecting. UK has given indications it is willing to move a bit on the fishing issue as well.

Let's hope they can find a compromise.

 

Both sides have full draft treaties and for the most part they're not far off. The issues really boil down to the level playing field and fisheries.

Edited 5 June 2020 by Beechey

[davieG]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52960677

 

UK to start post-Brexit trade talks with Japan
6 hours ago

The UK and Japan are set to begin talks on Tuesday aimed at reaching agreement on a post-Brexit trade deal.

The negotiations come as London and Tokyo work towards replacing the agreement Britain currently has with Japan through the European Union.

Without a new deal by 1 January 2021 the two countries will default to World Trade Organization trading terms.

That would mean tariffs and obstacles to commerce between the UK and its fourth-largest non-EU trading partner.

After decades of sharing its trade policy with the European Union, Britain is now embarking on free trade negotiations with countries around the world.

Last month the UK launched formal talks with the United States and is also hoping to reach a trade agreement with the EU by the end of this year.

Discussions with Brussels have proved to be particularly difficult, with no agreement so far on even the basic structure of what will be negotiated.

Discussions with Japan will initially be held via video link and be between the UK's International Trade Secretary Liz Truss and Japan's Minister for Foreign Affairs  Toshimitsu Motegi.

Ms Truss said that she hopes to build on the existing pact between Tokyo and Brussels: "We aim to strike a comprehensive free trade agreement that goes further than the deal previously agreed with the EU, setting ambitious standards in areas such as digital trade and services."

"This deal will provide more opportunities for businesses and individuals across every region and nation of the UK and help boost our economies following the unprecedented economic challenges posed by coronavirus," Ms Truss added.

According to British government figures, trade between the two countries totalled £31.4bn last year, with 9,500 UK-based businesses exporting goods to Japan.

The UK hopes that a free trade agreement with Japan will help it to eventually join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Membership of the 11-member CPTPP, a trade agreement that stretches from Australia to Chile, would significantly improve access for UK businesses to markets across the Asia-Pacific region.

[Jon the Hat]

On 05/06/2020 at 18:14, Beechey said:

Oh that's very interesting, and not something I was expecting. UK has given indications it is willing to move a bit on the fishing issue as well.

Let's hope they can find a compromise.

 

Both sides have full draft treaties and for the most part they're not far off. The issues really boil down to the level playing field and fisheries.

i think we will get there.  The EU never agree anything until the death.  They love an all nighter with a signing over breakfast the day after a final final deadline.

[inckley fox]

On 05/06/2020 at 13:32, Markyblue said:

I have got over it, it was a democratic vote , i voted leave wasn't fanatical by any means thought remain would win and was surprised by the result,  if the vote had have gone the other way i would have accepted it and got on with my life not spent 3 years looking for every tiny reason to whinge about a democratic decision. 

The word 'democratic' is key here. Just like in 1975, the losing side has the right - as time progresses - to argue its corner. If that hadn't been the case back then, the issue wouldn't have resurfaced over the decades that followed. If you wanted those people then, or these people now, to stop moaning (which would be incredibly undemocratic) you can hardly use democracy to bolster your argument.

 

Four years ago, before the vote, I read a pro-Leaver saying that, if there isn't a clear margin, then the winning side will have to make concessions to the losing side. In other words, depending on the winner, we would have to either seek a new type of relationship within the EU, and in doing so deal with a lot of people's concerns about migration etc. through our EU membership (many of their specific concerns could have been addressed without leaving); or seek a deal which respects the large number of people who didn't want a divorce in the first place. 

 

You mention the two elections - both of which were 'general', and therefore also a response to other issues (the sheer incompetence of Corbyn, for instance) - but surely the first of those, if it was indeed just a 'Brexit' election, indicated that people favoured exactly those sorts of concessions. The second election was, for me, the electorate's response to two sides of parliament digging in and failing to find the middle ground they'd voted for. It wasn't a glowing endorsement of Brexit, it was a case of wanting a resolution - and not wanting Corbyn at the helm of it.

 

For me, personally, I was Remain on two grounds: 1. That I saw the EU as the natural progression from the Treaty of Rome, and I didn't want us to start back-tracking on that too much. 2. The EU needed to change drastically in order to avoid a return to those bad old days, and the chances of that happening were a lot better without depleting our influence. But I totally appreciated many of the arguments on the flip-side - agreed with some of them too - and didn't for a second expect, or want, them to shut the hell up if Remain won.

 

For Brexit to last, it needs more of that spirit of looking for a solution which respects the division of opinions, rather than resenting it.

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, inckley fox said:

The word 'democratic' is key here. Just like in 1975, the losing side has the right - as time progresses - to argue its corner. If that hadn't been the case back then, the issue wouldn't have resurfaced over the decades that followed. If you wanted those people then, or these people now, to stop moaning (which would be incredibly undemocratic) you can hardly use democracy to bolster your argument.

 

Four years ago, before the vote, I read a pro-Leaver saying that, if there isn't a clear margin, then the winning side will have to make concessions to the losing side. In other words, depending on the winner, we would have to either seek a new type of relationship within the EU, and in doing so deal with a lot of people's concerns about migration etc. through our EU membership (many of their specific concerns could have been addressed without leaving); or seek a deal which respects the large number of people who didn't want a divorce in the first place. 

 

You mention the two elections - both of which were 'general', and therefore also a response to other issues (the sheer incompetence of Corbyn, for instance) - but surely the first of those, if it was indeed just a 'Brexit' election, indicated that people favoured exactly those sorts of concessions. The second election was, for me, the electorate's response to two sides of parliament digging in and failing to find the middle ground they'd voted for. It wasn't a glowing endorsement of Brexit, it was a case of wanting a resolution - and not wanting Corbyn at the helm of it.

 

For me, personally, I was Remain on two grounds: 1. That I saw the EU as the natural progression from the Treaty of Rome, and I didn't want us to start back-tracking on that too much. 2. The EU needed to change drastically in order to avoid a return to those bad old days, and the chances of that happening were a lot better without depleting our influence. But I totally appreciated many of the arguments on the flip-side - agreed with some of them too - and didn't for a second expect, or want, them to shut the hell up if Remain won.

 

For Brexit to last, it needs more of that spirit of looking for a solution which respects the division of opinions, rather than resenting it.

The referendum was in or out. No halfway house.

 

We are out. What other solution would placate the remain side now? 

 

The sight of protestors marching around Whitehall waving EU flags coupled with the remain 'People's vote' campaign delivered the biggest majority for any political party since the 1930's. They only have themselves to blame. 

 

Perhaps if we'd seen 'losers consent' then we might not be heading for the 'Australian' deal as appears that we now are. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

25 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

The referendum was in or out. No halfway house.

 

We are out. What other solution would placate the remain side now? 

 

The sight of protestors marching around Whitehall waving EU flags coupled with the remain 'People's vote' campaign delivered the biggest majority for any political party since the 1930's. They only have themselves to blame. 

 

Perhaps if we'd seen 'losers consent' then we might not be heading for the 'Australian' deal as appears that we now are. 

Honestly I think if people had just accepted the original result and 'deal' that May wanted we'd have had it signed a long time ago. Trying to reverse the whole decision has led us to where we are today.

[bovril]

9 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Honestly I think if people had just accepted the original result and 'deal' that May wanted we'd have had it signed a long time ago. Trying to reverse the whole decision has led us to where we are today.

The deal that Brexit voters thought was really shit and voted down? Also if May's deal had passed we would essentially be in the halfway house, to quote Spudulike above, thanks to the UK wide backstop. 

Edited 9 June 2020 by bovril

[bovril]

I think 'loser's consent' may be the most abused term of recent years after 'democratic' and 'neoliberal'. 

[Facecloth]

[inckley fox]

11 hours ago, Spudulike said:

The referendum was in or out. No halfway house.

 

We are out. What other solution would placate the remain side now? 

 

The sight of protestors marching around Whitehall waving EU flags coupled with the remain 'People's vote' campaign delivered the biggest majority for any political party since the 1930's. They only have themselves to blame. 

 

Perhaps if we'd seen 'losers consent' then we might not be heading for the 'Australian' deal as appears that we now are. 

In the run-up to the referendum people discussed a range of possibilities for what Brexit might look like, from single market membership to no deal. It's a fallacy that softer options weren't discussed. The vote was to leave the - which could at one end of the spectrum mean a symbolic gesture which doesn't, in practice, make much difference; and at the other end mean an abrupt divorce. It wasn't about how to leave.

 

The mandate consists of a small majority in a referendum (which contradicted a referendum 40 years ago); a General Election paradoxically dubbed a single issue election which seemed to favour a 'soft' Brexit, then another 'single issue' General Election which seemed to favour a 'harder' Brexit. So there's a mandate for Brexit, but no clear mandate for a harder Brexit.

 

My point wasn't about whether Brexit should happen. Clearly it should, and clearly remainers who don't accept the referendum are on shaky ground. But if we want the solution to last, then given that it's not a sweeping mandate, they'll have to make it palatable for some of those 'losers' you talk about. Otherwise they'll fight their corner. We can't expect people in a democracy to stop voicing their opinion because the majority have rejected it.

 

History tells us that three things happen with the 'losers' when a country is divided. 1. A conclusion is reached, and its outcome is satisfactory enough for the 'losers' not to revisit the argument. 2. An unsatisfactory conclusion is reached, but the 'losers' see little chance of overturning it and stop trying. 3. An unsatisfactory conclusion is reached, the losers don't give up the fight, and the argument is revisited down the line.

 

Presumably leavers (and sensible remainers) don't want this issue to resurface with a vengeance in 15, 10, 5 years. Nor do they want a Brexit which softens and hardens with the tide. They want it to work, and part of it working will be that it lasts. For this they need to strike a balance, because the 'we won, you lost, now go back to your hole' strategy hasn't got a great track record.

Edited 10 June 2020 by inckley fox
errors...

[twoleftfeet]

15 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Because when negotiating from a position of weakness what is acceptable is different from when you are a position of power. Before the last election parliament had all but taken no deal off the table and put up obstacle after obstacle to hinder a deal. Boris goaded Corbyn in to allowing an election for all the marbles and came out victorious at a point when his governments ability to get Brexit done was zero.

The is a bigger problem in how do we get politicians to better represent the electorate you know it is pretty much impossible for a politician to understand the struggles faced by the unemployed and long term sick surviving on below minimum wage. We definitely need to reform the house of Lords perhaps abolish it all together and have a second chamber with similar powers based more on PR as a check and balance as we have seen in recent elections number of votes and number of seats aren't related and whether you agree the performance of ukip should have lead to seats in parliament just like the results the greens get should be getting a say the two horse race that is the British system tends to give stable government but leaves those with different views side-lined and with no voice.

And whilst not on the subject of Brexit, Polarisation in the nation is a problem I didn't like see BLM (or rather more likely as I suspect ANTIFA) vandalising national monuments but I what I hated more where the Football Lads Alliance protecting them. Fascists taking the moral high ground against Anarchists   

Sorry for the rant