The Observer view on the urgent need for a fresh vote on Europe
The way the hard Tory Brexiters told it, Europe’s leaders should have been begging for mercy by now. Instead, Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron popped out for a convivial beer or two in a Brussels brasserie after last week’s supposedly make-or-break EU summit. If they were worried about the latest failure to complete a Brexit deal, they were hiding it well. The contrast with Theresa May, who dined alone after her nervy plea for help was met with embarrassment and pity by the other 27 leaders, was stark. Humiliating does not begin to describe the situation the government has got itself into.
EU won’t accept May’s plan to break Brexit deadlock, says Verhofstadt
European Parliament Brexit chief Guy Verhofstadt has rejected Theresa May’s proposals to get a Brexit deal over the line, saying they breach her commitments over the Irish border.
Bernard Jenkin, a mad Brexiteer said on Monday that the majority of World Trade is done outside of any trade deals. They usually argue that we have to leave The Customs Union in order to do trade deals elsewhere. Why is Liam Fox sitting on his ar5e with the excuse that he cant do any trade deals until we leave the EU. This may not happen for another 3 years. Why isn't he finding more trade throughout the world, without relying on trade deals.
Dyson is setting up his electric cars in Singapore. This is the Singapore that has just done a trade deal with the EU. Nothing to do with Brexit though.
The EU has many trade deals throughout the world, which we currently benefit from. They are also negotiating others. Many countries will see a trade deal with the EU as hugely beneficial, as they are the largest trading bloc in the world, with over 500 million potential customers.
When we leave we will lose the benefit of all these deals.
Will the EU see us as competitors?
Will they be threatening to rip up these trade deals if similar deals are offered to other countries, including the UK. This could make us far worse off than we are now.
Article 50 gave the EU 2 years notice that we meant to leave. During these 2 years we were meant to conclude negotiations on our future trading relationship.
The transition period was a further 2 year period where everything would stay the same, so businesses would be given time to adapt to the new conditions. This was to avoid the so called cliff edge, where businesses would be operating under different rules tomorrow, than they were today, with no notice.
It now appears that not only will the transition period will be extended, but that it will be used to continue the negotiations on the future trading relationship.
So does this mean we will leave with a Blind Brexit, and have to have a further transition period, at the end of the extended first transition period, in order to give business the required notice.
If this carries on, how many people that voted in the referendum, will be still alive by the time we leave?
Nobody wants a border on the island of Ireland. Theresa May has said that she wont wear it. She and the DUP wont accept a border in the Irish Sea either, because it splits up the UK. The answer to the projected congestion at our Ports after leaving, is to not check anything, and therefore minimise delays.
When did taking back control of our borders mean not having any?
Taking back control of our laws? This can only refer to the less than 7% of our Primary Legislation that comes from Brussels, and not the 93% that doesn't. Big deal.
Common Fisheries. In many cases, supply and demand, has a great effect on selling prices. A glut usually means lower prices, whereas scarcity tends to increase prices. At present our fisherman only catch 40% of the fish caught in our waters. Our exit from the common fisheries policy may encourage more fishermen, and they boast that they will be able to catch 100% of the fish currently being caught in our waters. This will obviously lead to a huge increase in the number of fish on the market. Will this therefore mean a decrease in the prices, and result in more fisherman, working longer, and earning less money. In addition to this we currently export 60% of all fish caught by UK fishermen to the EU. If the EU introduced tariffs, or the individual countries introduced measures to support their own fishermen, who will be worse off as a result of not being able to fish in our waters, these exports would be at risk, and may exacerbate this problem. We wont wear eating very cheap fish 3 times per day for ever.
Brexit — When taking back control means giving up control
PARIS — The British are learning the hard way what sovereignty means in the 21st century, and the painful lesson has just begun. Leaving the European Union was meant to be about “taking back control.” That was the catchy slogan that united nostalgic patriots and xenophobic bigots, just-about-managing Britons and globe-trotting billionaires, losers of globalization and non-domiciled tabloid barons with media empires on which the sun never sets.
“We want to control our own borders.” “We want to make our own laws.” “We want only British judges to enforce them.” “We want to set our own trade rules.” “We want to be masters of our own budget.” Independence from a foreign bureaucracy sounded plausible to a proud nation that was the only big European country not to have endured totalitarianism or occupation in the 20th century.
And yet, the lesson of the Brexit negotiations so far is that the United Kingdom is likely to end up with less — rather than more — control once it leaves the EU. The government is acknowledging little-by-little that it will have to go on applying EU product regulations, EU rules of origin for goods and components, and EU food, environment, health and safety standards in order to keep trading with the single market. The only change is that London will no longer have any say in setting those rules and standards.
Unless you are Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, there is no such thing as absolute sovereignty. Britain will have regained the power, in theory, to tear up EU regulations — but only if it chooses not to sell its goods and services into the EU market, which buys some 40 percent of its exports. In other words, it will have “taken back control” of the right to commit economic suicide. That’s why much of the British negotiating effort appears focused on how to create a facade of sovereignty to appease the flag-wavers, while seeking pragmatic arrangements to stick as close as possible to the EU’s single market and customs union.
Here comes the cliff The official line is that sticking with EU rules will just be a temporary inconvenience in a transitional period of a few years to avoid a “cliff edge” rupture in economic relations that would devastate British business. But who seriously believes that a permanent trade deal will give the U.K. substantially more scope to depart from European norms if it wants to preserve “frictionless trade” with the Continent? Furthermore, the Department for Exiting the EU no longer denies that Britain will have to go on accepting the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice over its implementation of EU law, at least during the interim period. To save face, London would prefer this to happen indirectly, through some intermediary such as a panel of British and EU judges or the court of justice of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). When it comes to trade with third countries, Theresa May’s ministers are now admitting what has been obvious from the outset. Britain’s agreements with key partners such as Japan or South Korea will at best copy and paste their existing EU terms — if the Asian nations consent to treating the 65-million-person U.K. market on an equal footing with the 450-million-strong EU.
This is partly because Britain has neither the time nor the administrative capacity to start from scratch. But it is above all because those deals reflect the bargaining power of the biggest market in the world. Size matters. On immigration, notwithstanding a leaked draft Home Office plan proposing to severely restrict work permits for EU citizens after Brexit, Britain will have to go on allowing freedom of movement for workers from the Continent at least for a multi-year “implementation phase” if it wants to keep access to the single market. This may be the hardest broken red line for Brexiteers to stomach, given the strength of public feeling about migrants. But it reflects both the needs of business and the balance of power between the U.K. and the Continent
And finally, the British government is slowly acknowledging that it will have to go on making payments into the EU budget to retain market access, fund multi-year programs and benefit from European scientific research grants. Brexit Secretary David Davis might be disputing the legal basis of EU demands for Britain to make a sizable exit payment, but he has also acknowledged there are “moral” obligations for making some contribution. Unless you are Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, there is no such thing as absolute sovereignty. Other European countries such as Norway and Switzerland that chose not to join the EU because they had other sources of wealth in oil or banking still have to implement vast swaths of its rules and pay into its budget in order to trade with the giant market on their doorstep.
Britain is slowly coming to realize that it’s a small nation, and because of that it will have to live by others’ rules. No country can unilaterally control the climate, the air it breathes or the water that washes its shores. The internet, global supply chains and financial flows are diminishing the relevance of national borders. If licit or ill-gotten fortunes can be moved around the world with a couple of clicks, if messages of hate and incitement to murder can be beamed from some Middle Eastern shack or Sahel encampment into teenagers’ bedrooms in Brussels or Birmingham, what “control” is there to take back? Tackling these cross-border challenges requires cooperation, first and foremost with neighbors. And if those partners have a bigger market, they will tend to determine the terms. The European Union was built to manage such inter-dependence to the benefit of all, instead of leaving it to the law of the jungle. The days when the British Empire spanned the world and British imperial weights and measures were the leading global standard are long gone. By the end of the 20th century, even most of its former colonies had adopted the metric system, itself the child of the French Revolution.
Nowadays, the EU has similar norm-setting power. In the 1990s, it used its giant market to gain first-mover advantage and set the standard for digital mobile phones worldwide, now used by 90 percent of the global market in 219 countries and territories. Even the United States under Donald Trump, which has turned its back on the Paris agreement on climate change, is finding that its companies have to comply with the pact’s goals in order to sell their products into the EU and other developed country markets. Britain may noisily declare independence, but in practice it’s slowly coming to realize that it’s a small nation, and because of that it will have to live by others’ rules.
I hope, if it comes to it, that he does a better job than he has done with the trains.
Bombshell' Brexit announcement of plans to rent ferries to supply medicine stuns senior ministers
Britain may need to bring in vital goods on ferries after Brexit (Getty) The Government is considering a plan to buy its own fleet of ferries to bring vital food and medicines to Britain to stop the country running out in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Theresa May revealed the ‘bombshell’ plans to stunned ministers in a cabinet meeting to update senior MPs on the progress of Brexit negotiations and no-deal contingency planning, ITV’s political editor Robert Peston revealed. During the meeting Transport Secretary Chris Grayling warned that deliveries coming into the UK via Dover and the Channel Tunnel could drop by 95% if France reintroduces customs checks after Britain leaves the EU. This would then force the UK to bring in supplies via other ports, such as London and Liverpool.
A shocked Cabinet was today told of Department of Transport contingency plans to own or lease roll-on roll-off lorry ferries to make sure vital supplies of goods, food and medicines continue to reach these shores if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. According to work commissioned by Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, a possible French decision to reintroduce customs checks could reduce freight coming into the UK via Dover and the Channel Tunnel by around 85%.
Brits fear Theresa May's Brexit will make them worse off, damning poll reveals
Britain has lost faith in Theresa May’s ability to salvage a good Brexit deal with people increasingly fearful that they will be personally worse off
A devastating poll by Ipsos MORI for the Evening Standard reveals a slump in confidence in the country’s prospects for Brexit and its economic aftermath.
The damning findings came as watchdogs rang alarm bells over the poor state of preparedness for the risk of Mrs May failing to get a Brexit deal at all- with warnings of potential chaos at ports, fresh vulnerabilities to criminal gangs and smugglers, a collapse of crime-fighting and biosecurity standards and possible shortages of essential goods and medicines.
Confidence in the Prime Minister to get a good deal in the Brexit negotiations has fallen to its lowest level yet. Just 19 per cent - fewer than a fifth - of Britons think she can pull it off, a figure that has plunged from 28 per cent last month. Some 78 per cent think she will fail, up eight points in a month.
In his speech, Lord Sugar also suggested that if company law rules applied to politicians, Mr Johnson and fellow Leave campaigner Michael Gove should be prosecuted for what they said and "putting this country into five to 10 years of post-Brexit turmoil".
Comments
The way the hard Tory Brexiters told it, Europe’s leaders should have been begging for mercy by now. Instead, Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron popped out for a convivial beer or two in a Brussels brasserie after last week’s supposedly make-or-break EU summit. If they were worried about the latest failure to complete a Brexit deal, they were hiding it well. The contrast with Theresa May, who dined alone after her nervy plea for help was met with embarrassment and pity by the other 27 leaders, was stark. Humiliating does not begin to describe the situation the government has got itself into.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/observer-view-urgent-fresh-vote-115005298.html
European Parliament Brexit chief Guy Verhofstadt has rejected Theresa May’s proposals to get a Brexit deal over the line, saying they breach her commitments over the Irish border.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-wont-accept-mays-plan-break-brexit-deadlock-says-verhofstadt-190114330.html
As it is effectively an insurance policy, it cant be.
They usually argue that we have to leave The Customs Union in order to do trade deals elsewhere.
Why is Liam Fox sitting on his ar5e with the excuse that he cant do any trade deals until we leave the EU. This may not happen for another 3 years.
Why isn't he finding more trade throughout the world, without relying on trade deals.
This is the Singapore that has just done a trade deal with the EU.
Nothing to do with Brexit though.
Many countries will see a trade deal with the EU as hugely beneficial, as they are the largest trading bloc in the world, with over 500 million potential customers.
When we leave we will lose the benefit of all these deals.
Will the EU see us as competitors?
Will they be threatening to rip up these trade deals if similar deals are offered to other countries, including the UK.
This could make us far worse off than we are now.
During these 2 years we were meant to conclude negotiations on our future trading relationship.
The transition period was a further 2 year period where everything would stay the same, so businesses would be given time to adapt to the new conditions. This was to avoid the so called cliff edge, where businesses would be operating under different rules tomorrow, than they were today, with no notice.
It now appears that not only will the transition period will be extended, but that it will be used to continue the negotiations on the future trading relationship.
So does this mean we will leave with a Blind Brexit, and have to have a further transition period, at the end of the extended first transition period, in order to give business the required notice.
If this carries on, how many people that voted in the referendum, will be still alive by the time we leave?
Theresa May has said that she wont wear it.
She and the DUP wont accept a border in the Irish Sea either, because it splits up the UK.
The answer to the projected congestion at our Ports after leaving, is to not check anything, and therefore minimise delays.
When did taking back control of our borders mean not having any?
This can only refer to the less than 7% of our Primary Legislation that comes from Brussels, and not the 93% that doesn't.
Big deal.
In many cases, supply and demand, has a great effect on selling prices. A glut usually means lower prices, whereas scarcity tends to increase prices.
At present our fisherman only catch 40% of the fish caught in our waters.
Our exit from the common fisheries policy may encourage more fishermen, and they boast that they will be able to catch 100% of the fish currently being caught in our waters.
This will obviously lead to a huge increase in the number of fish on the market. Will this therefore mean a decrease in the prices, and result in more fisherman, working longer, and earning less money.
In addition to this we currently export 60% of all fish caught by UK fishermen to the EU. If the EU introduced tariffs, or the individual countries introduced measures to support their own fishermen, who will be worse off as a result of not being able to fish in our waters, these exports would be at risk, and may exacerbate this problem.
We wont wear eating very cheap fish 3 times per day for ever.
A clever politician said in reply to this that The Titanic voyage was 95% successful.
PARIS — The British are learning the hard way what sovereignty means in the 21st century, and the painful lesson has just begun.
Leaving the European Union was meant to be about “taking back control.” That was the catchy slogan that united nostalgic patriots and xenophobic bigots, just-about-managing Britons and globe-trotting billionaires, losers of globalization and non-domiciled tabloid barons with media empires on which the sun never sets.
“We want to control our own borders.” “We want to make our own laws.” “We want only British judges to enforce them.” “We want to set our own trade rules.” “We want to be masters of our own budget.” Independence from a foreign bureaucracy sounded plausible to a proud nation that was the only big European country not to have endured totalitarianism or occupation in the 20th century.
And yet, the lesson of the Brexit negotiations so far is that the United Kingdom is likely to end up with less — rather than more — control once it leaves the EU.
The government is acknowledging little-by-little that it will have to go on applying EU product regulations, EU rules of origin for goods and components, and EU food, environment, health and safety standards in order to keep trading with the single market. The only change is that London will no longer have any say in setting those rules and standards.
Unless you are Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, there is no such thing as absolute sovereignty.
Britain will have regained the power, in theory, to tear up EU regulations — but only if it chooses not to sell its goods and services into the EU market, which buys some 40 percent of its exports. In other words, it will have “taken back control” of the right to commit economic suicide.
That’s why much of the British negotiating effort appears focused on how to create a facade of sovereignty to appease the flag-wavers, while seeking pragmatic arrangements to stick as close as possible to the EU’s single market and customs union.
Here comes the cliff
The official line is that sticking with EU rules will just be a temporary inconvenience in a transitional period of a few years to avoid a “cliff edge” rupture in economic relations that would devastate British business. But who seriously believes that a permanent trade deal will give the U.K. substantially more scope to depart from European norms if it wants to preserve “frictionless trade” with the Continent?
Furthermore, the Department for Exiting the EU no longer denies that Britain will have to go on accepting the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice over its implementation of EU law, at least during the interim period. To save face, London would prefer this to happen indirectly, through some intermediary such as a panel of British and EU judges or the court of justice of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
When it comes to trade with third countries, Theresa May’s ministers are now admitting what has been obvious from the outset. Britain’s agreements with key partners such as Japan or South Korea will at best copy and paste their existing EU terms — if the Asian nations consent to treating the 65-million-person U.K. market on an equal footing with the 450-million-strong EU.
This is partly because Britain has neither the time nor the administrative capacity to start from scratch. But it is above all because those deals reflect the bargaining power of the biggest market in the world. Size matters.
On immigration, notwithstanding a leaked draft Home Office plan proposing to severely restrict work permits for EU citizens after Brexit, Britain will have to go on allowing freedom of movement for workers from the Continent at least for a multi-year “implementation phase” if it wants to keep access to the single market. This may be the hardest broken red line for Brexiteers to stomach, given the strength of public feeling about migrants. But it reflects both the needs of business and the balance of power between the U.K. and the Continent
And finally, the British government is slowly acknowledging that it will have to go on making payments into the EU budget to retain market access, fund multi-year programs and benefit from European scientific research grants. Brexit Secretary David Davis might be disputing the legal basis of EU demands for Britain to make a sizable exit payment, but he has also acknowledged there are “moral” obligations for making some contribution.
Unless you are Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, there is no such thing as absolute sovereignty. Other European countries such as Norway and Switzerland that chose not to join the EU because they had other sources of wealth in oil or banking still have to implement vast swaths of its rules and pay into its budget in order to trade with the giant market on their doorstep.
Britain is slowly coming to realize that it’s a small nation, and because of that it will have to live by others’ rules.
No country can unilaterally control the climate, the air it breathes or the water that washes its shores. The internet, global supply chains and financial flows are diminishing the relevance of national borders. If licit or ill-gotten fortunes can be moved around the world with a couple of clicks, if messages of hate and incitement to murder can be beamed from some Middle Eastern shack or Sahel encampment into teenagers’ bedrooms in Brussels or Birmingham, what “control” is there to take back?
Tackling these cross-border challenges requires cooperation, first and foremost with neighbors. And if those partners have a bigger market, they will tend to determine the terms. The European Union was built to manage such inter-dependence to the benefit of all, instead of leaving it to the law of the jungle.
The days when the British Empire spanned the world and British imperial weights and measures were the leading global standard are long gone. By the end of the 20th century, even most of its former colonies had adopted the metric system, itself the child of the French Revolution.
Nowadays, the EU has similar norm-setting power. In the 1990s, it used its giant market to gain first-mover advantage and set the standard for digital mobile phones worldwide, now used by 90 percent of the global market in 219 countries and territories.
Even the United States under Donald Trump, which has turned its back on the Paris agreement on climate change, is finding that its companies have to comply with the pact’s goals in order to sell their products into the EU and other developed country markets.
Britain may noisily declare independence, but in practice it’s slowly coming to realize that it’s a small nation, and because of that it will have to live by others’ rules.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-taking-back-control-united-kingdom-giving-up-control/
Bombshell' Brexit announcement of plans to rent ferries to supply medicine stuns senior ministers
Britain may need to bring in vital goods on ferries after Brexit (Getty)
The Government is considering a plan to buy its own fleet of ferries to bring vital food and medicines to Britain to stop the country running out in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Theresa May revealed the ‘bombshell’ plans to stunned ministers in a cabinet meeting to update senior MPs on the progress of Brexit negotiations and no-deal contingency planning, ITV’s political editor Robert Peston revealed.
During the meeting Transport Secretary Chris Grayling warned that deliveries coming into the UK via Dover and the Channel Tunnel could drop by 95% if France reintroduces customs checks after Britain leaves the EU.
This would then force the UK to bring in supplies via other ports, such as London and Liverpool.
A shocked Cabinet was today told of Department of Transport contingency plans to own or lease roll-on roll-off lorry ferries to make sure vital supplies of goods, food and medicines continue to reach these shores if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
According to work commissioned by Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, a possible French decision to reintroduce customs checks could reduce freight coming into the UK via Dover and the Channel Tunnel by around 85%.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bombshell-brexit-announcement-plans-rent-ferries-supply-medicine-stuns-senior-ministers-114536020.html
Britain has lost faith in Theresa May’s ability to salvage a good Brexit deal with people increasingly fearful that they will be personally worse off
A devastating poll by Ipsos MORI for the Evening Standard reveals a slump in confidence in the country’s prospects for Brexit and its economic aftermath.
The damning findings came as watchdogs rang alarm bells over the poor state of preparedness for the risk of Mrs May failing to get a Brexit deal at all- with warnings of potential chaos at ports, fresh vulnerabilities to criminal gangs and smugglers, a collapse of crime-fighting and biosecurity standards and possible shortages of essential goods and medicines.
Confidence in the Prime Minister to get a good deal in the Brexit negotiations has fallen to its lowest level yet. Just 19 per cent - fewer than a fifth - of Britons think she can pull it off, a figure that has plunged from 28 per cent last month. Some 78 per cent think she will fail, up eight points in a month.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/theresa-may-apos-brexit-people-101025679.html
In his speech, Lord Sugar also suggested that if company law rules applied to politicians, Mr Johnson and fellow Leave campaigner Michael Gove should be prosecuted for what they said and "putting this country into five to 10 years of post-Brexit turmoil".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45971643