The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Gina Miller Anti-Brexit
why is this woman so hell bent on derailing brexit, what's in it for her...does she not believe in the democratic vote, the general election will again show the people want out, the conservatives will win again.. and i would bet on it.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Of course there are grades of leaving.”
I don’t believe there are. What are being discussed are “grades of remaining” and there is an important difference. A number of countries (though nowhere near as many as there might be due to the EU’s sclerotic decision making process) have trading agreements with the EU. These involve, usually, the abolition or considerable reduction of tariffs below WTO levels and common standards for the goods or services traded. The conditions being bandied around as part of the “leaving deal” go far beyond that. I know they are only “Aunt Sallies” at the moment seized on by the press. Nonetheless, as an example, last week it was suggested that the ECJ should retain jurisdiction over matters effecting the rights of EU citizens who remain in the UK after Brexit. This is not what a normal country would even consider if they were entering into a trade agreement. Could you imagine the USA agreeing to the EU having jurisdiction in disputes involving EU citizens living in the USA? Will the ex-pats on the Costas be subject to UK law and not Spanish whilst they remain in their bolt-holes? Of course not. The idea is preposterous. But it’s floated as a perfectly reasonable and rational requirement.
Leaving the EU means no longer being subject to any of its rules, legislation or requirements save those that are bilaterally agreed for the purpose of trade and even those conditions should relate solely to the trade involved. No normal country would accede to free movement of people as a price for doing trade and they certainly would not even consider subjugation to a foreign court for anybody living within its boundaries. When we leave the EU I expect the UK to revert to “normal” status. I consider that a nation that is an EU member cannot be considered to be a normal sovereign state. I’m willing to bet that I’ll be disappointed and there’s the tragedy. The UK is in a position to shake itself completely free of its EU shackles but if it insists on pursuing a so-called “soft” Brexit it will be a wasted opportunity of immense magnitude.
I don’t believe there are. What are being discussed are “grades of remaining” and there is an important difference. A number of countries (though nowhere near as many as there might be due to the EU’s sclerotic decision making process) have trading agreements with the EU. These involve, usually, the abolition or considerable reduction of tariffs below WTO levels and common standards for the goods or services traded. The conditions being bandied around as part of the “leaving deal” go far beyond that. I know they are only “Aunt Sallies” at the moment seized on by the press. Nonetheless, as an example, last week it was suggested that the ECJ should retain jurisdiction over matters effecting the rights of EU citizens who remain in the UK after Brexit. This is not what a normal country would even consider if they were entering into a trade agreement. Could you imagine the USA agreeing to the EU having jurisdiction in disputes involving EU citizens living in the USA? Will the ex-pats on the Costas be subject to UK law and not Spanish whilst they remain in their bolt-holes? Of course not. The idea is preposterous. But it’s floated as a perfectly reasonable and rational requirement.
Leaving the EU means no longer being subject to any of its rules, legislation or requirements save those that are bilaterally agreed for the purpose of trade and even those conditions should relate solely to the trade involved. No normal country would accede to free movement of people as a price for doing trade and they certainly would not even consider subjugation to a foreign court for anybody living within its boundaries. When we leave the EU I expect the UK to revert to “normal” status. I consider that a nation that is an EU member cannot be considered to be a normal sovereign state. I’m willing to bet that I’ll be disappointed and there’s the tragedy. The UK is in a position to shake itself completely free of its EU shackles but if it insists on pursuing a so-called “soft” Brexit it will be a wasted opportunity of immense magnitude.
Personally I don't want the UK to have its cake and eat it and nowhere have I suggested that. What I'd like to see is that after March 2019 the UK should revert to being a normal nation - the same as the 160-odd non-EU nations across the world. Those nations are free to negotiate trade agreements with the EU. Some have, many have not and the reasons for them not doing so are many and various. None that have such agreements have any conditions placed upon them that EU membership entails. If the UK and the EU want such an arrangement and it can be mutually agreed, all well and good. If not, so be it. What the UK should not do is to agree to any conditions which no normal country would even consider and which are proper only to EU membership. There's nothing "having your cake and eating it" about that.
I accept that there are a few aspects of our membership that cannot be simply abandoned. In particular the status of the 3m citizens of other EU nations living here and the 1m UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU needs to be settled. It would be unfair - not to say impractical - to expect 4m people who took advantage in good faith of the prevailing rules to be forcibly repatriated. But apart from that I see very little of our EU membership conditions that need to be maintained and even less of our obligations towards the EU that need to be continued. I don't want even a crumb of the EU's cake, let alone eat it as well.
I accept that there are a few aspects of our membership that cannot be simply abandoned. In particular the status of the 3m citizens of other EU nations living here and the 1m UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU needs to be settled. It would be unfair - not to say impractical - to expect 4m people who took advantage in good faith of the prevailing rules to be forcibly repatriated. But apart from that I see very little of our EU membership conditions that need to be maintained and even less of our obligations towards the EU that need to be continued. I don't want even a crumb of the EU's cake, let alone eat it as well.
“What if the EU say we can no longer have those bi-lateral agreements, surely that's a hard Brexit as opposed to a softer one?”
I don't tie up trading agreements (if any are forged) with leaving the EU. In my mind they are separate. I don't think I'm explaining myself very well so I'll try just one more time.
A number of nations have trading agreements with the EU. They have never been EU members nor are they ever likely to be. But nonetheless the EU saw fit to sign an agreement with them. None of those agreements, as far as I know, involve any conditions that go with EU membership and membership of the single market, such as free movement of people, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ or making substantial payments to fund the EU budget. I imagine there are common standards agreed for the goods and services traded (which is surely the essence of a trading agreement), but, unlike EU membership, those standards only relate to traders wishing to trade with EU members and not those which don’t.
Other nations have no trading agreement with the EU. Trade carries on between the EU and these nations quite successfully. An example is the USA. Both parties have been trying to sign an agreement for fifteen years but nothing has come of their efforts. But trade still carries on between the USA and EU members.
After Brexit the UK could be in either of those two situations. It may have a trading agreement with the EU, it may not. If no agreement can be reached then that’s that. The UK will simply become a trading partner of the EU but with no trade agreement. The UK should not succumb to any impositions to reach that agreement which any normal nation (such as the USA) would decline. That’s not a “Hard Brexit”. What that is is the UK leaving the EU with no trading agreement existing between us. Dozens of countries are in that position; it’s perfectly normal and they manage perfectly well. Leaving the EU means relinquishing all the advantages and being free of all the obligations.
I don't tie up trading agreements (if any are forged) with leaving the EU. In my mind they are separate. I don't think I'm explaining myself very well so I'll try just one more time.
A number of nations have trading agreements with the EU. They have never been EU members nor are they ever likely to be. But nonetheless the EU saw fit to sign an agreement with them. None of those agreements, as far as I know, involve any conditions that go with EU membership and membership of the single market, such as free movement of people, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ or making substantial payments to fund the EU budget. I imagine there are common standards agreed for the goods and services traded (which is surely the essence of a trading agreement), but, unlike EU membership, those standards only relate to traders wishing to trade with EU members and not those which don’t.
Other nations have no trading agreement with the EU. Trade carries on between the EU and these nations quite successfully. An example is the USA. Both parties have been trying to sign an agreement for fifteen years but nothing has come of their efforts. But trade still carries on between the USA and EU members.
After Brexit the UK could be in either of those two situations. It may have a trading agreement with the EU, it may not. If no agreement can be reached then that’s that. The UK will simply become a trading partner of the EU but with no trade agreement. The UK should not succumb to any impositions to reach that agreement which any normal nation (such as the USA) would decline. That’s not a “Hard Brexit”. What that is is the UK leaving the EU with no trading agreement existing between us. Dozens of countries are in that position; it’s perfectly normal and they manage perfectly well. Leaving the EU means relinquishing all the advantages and being free of all the obligations.
Alas, on that we agree, Zacs. The UK seems petrified of not having some sort of preferential agreement and that will almost certainly entail concessions way beyond any value they may provide. Those with such fears need to look around the world and note that most of the rest of the world seems to manage perfectly well.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank11 mins ago
News18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
Strands #260 “Coming Up For...
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
