Saint Toppy

Our new position in the EU

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Yes, I do. I would be amazed if you could find an example of an international treaty or Act of Parliament dated according to when it came into effect, and that is why any student of EU law would refer to the SEA as being a the SEA of 1986.

It was Mrs Thatcher's document and she cheerfully used it to pave the way to greater European integration, as you rightly identify.

To be precise, said as a law graduate, the Single European Act was the name given to the EU-wide Treaty that was signed in 1986, using 1986 is the correct year for it when you’re discussing it. The UK, as with all other nations had to then put it into domestic law, the UK did in the Single European Act 1987 and came into effect on 1 July 1987.  The actual agreement came in 1985 but it took 18 months to get it through domestic legislatures and constitutional processes. 

This is hugely important as an example of how long a structural change takes to get ratified across the EU. And that was with only 12 nations involved. We’re hoping that any trade deal we agree can get done in 28, including ours, in 1/3 of that time with no issues. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Yes, I do. I would be amazed if you could find an example of an international treaty or Act of Parliament dated according to when it came into effect, and that is why any student of EU law would refer to the SEA as being a the SEA of 1986.

I'm not a student of any kind of law and have never claimed to be so I've no idea why you felt the need to make an issue of that.

Quote

It was Mrs Thatcher's document and she cheerfully used it to pave the way to greater European integration, as you rightly identify.

However, that is not what you claimed it was about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farage had both Campbell and Adonis on his LBC programme this morning, worth a listen if you can track down podcasts etc, weaknesses on all sides of the arguments exposed imo rather than any side landing a killer blow to clinch the argument.

Lord Adonis teasing Farage that he is now the establishment was amusing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shrek said:

Lord Adonis teasing Farage that he is now the establishment was amusing!

Now? How could a privately educated, former city trader turned career politician millionaire be anything but the establishment? :unsure:

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2018 at 9:03 AM, bowes said:

Close regulatory alignment but the end result of the deal will give them the best access to the single market of any country without freedom of movement

So essentially we align with EU regulations to ensure access to the marketplace but don't have any say in how those regulations are framed or agreed?

This taking back control thing is good isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, M j M said:

So essentially we align with EU regulations to ensure access to the marketplace but don't have any say in how those regulations are framed or agreed?

This taking back control thing is good isn't it.

We'd have plenty more freedom than now but I'd rather not see things like employment rights and environmental protections torn up. We only have a very small day in the regulations now so it won't be a massive difference 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bowes said:

We'd have plenty more freedom than now but I'd rather not see things like employment rights and environmental protections torn up. We only have a very small day in the regulations now so it won't be a massive difference 

As you're a rational debater on these subjects, I'll ask you as others can't/won't answer this: what freedoms and how will they benefit our country in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Saintslass said:

I'm not a student of any kind of law and have never claimed to be so 

 

Well that's a bloody first.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bowes said:

We'd have plenty more freedom than now but I'd rather not see things like employment rights and environmental protections torn up. We only have a very small day in the regulations now so it won't be a massive difference 

 

24 minutes ago, ckn said:

As you're a rational debater on these subjects, I'll ask you as others can't/won't answer this: what freedoms and how will they benefit our country in your opinion?

I'll ask Bowes and all the others the same question as CKN asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ckn said:

As you're a rational debater on these subjects, I'll ask you as others can't/won't answer this: what freedoms and how will they benefit our country in your opinion?

The main one is being able to have freer trade with the world outside the EU, especially the growing economies of the Pacific Rim region, but also we'd gain greater control of agriculture and fishing.

The CAP isn't a great deal for us due to being a relatively urban society, though a fair case came be made for our rebate being conpensation for this. Also we have a lot of water so having control of our fishing stock would be better.

For me I see the Euro as a liability and outside the EU we're much less likely to have to bail out countries like Italy. 

These are the improvements of a Norway model which personally I'd be happy with. They'd come with no economic costs other than some customs checks on agricultural products.

If we wished to adopt a different immigration policy (some would prefer a stricter regime; personally I'd just prefer a more balanced system that prioritises skills over how European someone is, even if it meant numbers increasing) then we could sign an Association Agreement with the EU and keep regulatory alignment. However, we'd probably lose financial services passporting to get that (I expect we'd have free trade in other services).

The third option, which isn't what I'd want, would be a free trade deal in goods only but as well as the above would let us set our own regulations entirely. I could support this if it meant us working closer with Canada, Australia and New Zealand and keeping similar standards to now, but wouldn't support tearing up environmental protections, employment rights, health and safety etc. I don't particularly agree with these regulations being set in Brussels but it's preferable than them being set in Washington or Beijing. Theresa May would never slash standards but someone like Jacob Rees Mogg probably would 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bowes said:

The third option, which isn't what I'd want, would be a free trade deal in goods only but as well as the above would let us set our own regulations entirely. I could support this if it meant us working closer with Canada, Australia and New Zealand and keeping similar standards to now, but wouldn't support tearing up environmental protections, employment rights, health and safety etc. I don't particularly agree with these regulations being set in Brussels but it's preferable than them being set in Washington or Beijing. Theresa May would never slash standards but someone like Jacob Rees Mogg probably would 

Aus <--> UK trade is only $20 billion in total so I don't think it'll plug too many gaps. According to the 2016-2017 figures AUS only takes 1.3% of UK exports and AUS only supplies 1.1% of UK imports. 

http://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/Documents/uk.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bowes said:

The main one is being able to have freer trade with the world outside the EU, especially the growing economies of the Pacific Rim region, but also we'd gain greater control of agriculture and fishing.

The CAP isn't a great deal for us due to being a relatively urban society, though a fair case came be made for our rebate being conpensation for this. Also we have a lot of water so having control of our fishing stock would be better.

For me I see the Euro as a liability and outside the EU we're much less likely to have to bail out countries like Italy. 

These are the improvements of a Norway model which personally I'd be happy with. They'd come with no economic costs other than some customs checks on agricultural products.

If we wished to adopt a different immigration policy (some would prefer a stricter regime; personally I'd just prefer a more balanced system that prioritises skills over how European someone is, even if it meant numbers increasing) then we could sign an Association Agreement with the EU and keep regulatory alignment. However, we'd probably lose financial services passporting to get that (I expect we'd have free trade in other services).

The third option, which isn't what I'd want, would be a free trade deal in goods only but as well as the above would let us set our own regulations entirely. I could support this if it meant us working closer with Canada, Australia and New Zealand and keeping similar standards to now, but wouldn't support tearing up environmental protections, employment rights, health and safety etc. I don't particularly agree with these regulations being set in Brussels but it's preferable than them being set in Washington or Beijing. Theresa May would never slash standards but someone like Jacob Rees Mogg probably would 

But the total population of Australia, New Zealand and Canada put together is only 65m, hardly larger than the UK.  Canada presumably focuses its trade effort on its big neighbour, and since the UK joined the EU I'd guess that the ANZAC economies are largely dominated by Asia, I've never been there, but I believe they are more attuned to the US these days than to the old country. We have a huge market on our doorstep, we are currently a part of that market.  Why, instead of threatening to leave aren't we making more of an effort to capitalise on that market?  We have privileged access to 508 million people.  Plus the advantage of all the trade deals done with the rest of the world on behalf of this organisation.  What the hell are we playing at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Trojan said:

But the total population of Australia, New Zealand and Canada put together is only 65m, hardly larger than the UK.  Canada presumably focuses its trade effort on its big neighbour, and since the UK joined the EU I'd guess that the ANZAC economies are largely dominated by Asia, I've never been there, but I believe they are more attuned to the US these days than to the old country. We have a huge market on our doorstep, we are currently a part of that market.  Why, instead of threatening to leave aren't we making more of an effort to capitalise on that market?  We have privileged access to 508 million people.  Plus the advantage of all the trade deals done with the rest of the world on behalf of this organisation.  What the hell are we playing at?

I think greater political ties with Australia, New Zealand and Canada would be beneficial and they would be the best countries to have freedom of movement with as there's no language barriers or major differences in per capita income. Their economies offer lots of opportunities for working class British people whilst people from those countries would have the opportunity of moving to London where there are financial jobs. Four way free movement has support of 70-80% of people in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I think we need to work together more as otherwise Australia and New Zealand will be dominated by China, Canada are too reliant on the USA (though they are vulnerable now thank to Trump; they're expected to form closer economic ties to China in response). Together we'd be able to approach Beijing, Brussels and Washington perhaps not as equals, but on a much stronger footing.

We could probably do all this as EFTA members, but couldn't as EU members.

On the other hand when it comes to trade you are right distance is a barrier to trade in goods (but not necessarily in services where the shared language and legal system would be more important) so it is very important for us to have some kind of trade deal with the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bowes said:

I think greater political ties with Australia, New Zealand and Canada would be beneficial and they would be the best countries to have freedom of movement with as there's no language barriers or major differences in per capita income. Their economies offer lots of opportunities for working class British people whilst people from those countries would have the opportunity of moving to London where there are financial jobs. Four way free movement has support of 70-80% of people in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Ah you want skills based immigration, unless its from Australia, New Zealand and Canada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bowes said:

I think greater political ties with Australia, New Zealand and Canada would be beneficial and they would be the best countries to have freedom of movement with as there's no language barriers or major differences in per capita income. Their economies offer lots of opportunities for working class British people whilst people from those countries would have the opportunity of moving to London where there are financial jobs. Four way free movement has support of 70-80% of people in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I think we need to work together more as otherwise Australia and New Zealand will be dominated by China, Canada are too reliant on the USA (though they are vulnerable now thank to Trump; they're expected to form closer economic ties to China in response). Together we'd be able to approach Beijing, Brussels and Washington perhaps not as equals, but on a much stronger footing.

We could probably do all this as EFTA members, but couldn't as EU members.

On the other hand when it comes to trade you are right distance is a barrier to trade in goods (but not necessarily in services where the shared language and legal system would be more important) so it is very important for us to have some kind of trade deal with the EU.

The days of the £10 pom are gone.  Australiaand NZ are already dominated by the big Asian economies.

A little story.  A friend of mine was offered a job as a plant fitter for Liebherr in Western Australia.  £80K PA.  Big money.  He and his wife thought it too good to be true.  They went for a short holiday to Perth.  £12 for a pint and a half of lager!  Temperatures in the quarries and iron mines where he'd be working 40 degrees,  Two weeks on one week off, only allowed down the hole for one hour because of the heat. Needless to say he turned it down.

Edited by Trojan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bedford Roughyed said:

Ah you want skills based immigration, unless its from Australia, New Zealand and Canada?

Yes but only if we had a reciprocal free movement deal as the benefits of emigration for British people would be very strong. Add Ireland to the list and potentially Singapore as other highly developed English speaking countries.

I'm happy with European people moving to this country, I just recognise there has to be a limit somewhere and would like to see more skilled immigration from Asia. I can accept free movement with Europe though if it's the only way to get trade benefits for the UK and/or the easiest way to protect the rights of EU migrants already in the UK, but only if it's combined with a higher minimum wage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 posts deleted.  One original and the rest quotes and reactions.

Please play nicely and try to read positive intent in posts rather than assume negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, bowes said:

Yes but only if we had a reciprocal free movement deal as the benefits of emigration for British people would be very strong. Add Ireland to the list and potentially Singapore as other highly developed English speaking countries.

I'm happy with European people moving to this country, I just recognise there has to be a limit somewhere and would like to see more skilled immigration from Asia. I can accept free movement with Europe though if it's the only way to get trade benefits for the UK and/or the easiest way to protect the rights of EU migrants already in the UK, but only if it's combined with a higher minimum wage

Quite an interesting point on the higher minimum wage. Do you not think that actually risks further incentivising low-skilled  EU immigration by increasing the wage differential between the two countries? I've always thought we should have free movement as a means of increasing GDP as much as possible (and combating our ever-increasing median age and dependency ratio), but with increased government efforts to combat any potential losers in this. I'm just not sure if a higher minimum wage would have unintended consequences in this - perhaps things such as greater provision of re-training, compulsory union membership and so on are alternative options.

I actually wrote my economics dissertation in 2015 on the macroeconomics effects of an increased NMW (to Living Wage levels) and ended up coming out against it because of potential substitution effects away from low-skilled workers to higher-skilled workers. Looking at immigration, the risk with increasing it is it becomes even more rational for higher-skilled workers from other countries to come here and apply for low-skill jobs. 

On the discussion about other potential trade deals, the main problem here is that one of the best models we have of trade is the Gravity Model, where trade is determined by economic size and distance. So comparing Switzerland and China for example, even though China's GDP is 17 times larger, exports to Switzerland are 25% larger. Looking at imports, we import 3 times as much from China as we do Switzerland, but control that for GDP size and you can see the impact gravity has. No matter how much potential is in far away economies, generally we will still choose to trade with those closest to us - perhaps except in the long-run due to technological advancements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saint 1 said:

 

Quite an interesting point on the higher minimum wage. Do you not think that actually risks further incentivising low-skilled  EU immigration by increasing the wage differential between the two countries? I've always thought we should have free movement as a means of increasing GDP as much as possible (and combating our ever-increasing median age and dependency ratio), but with increased government efforts to combat any potential losers in this. I'm just not sure if a higher minimum wage would have unintended consequences in this - perhaps things such as greater provision of re-training, compulsory union membership and so on are alternative options.

I actually wrote my economics dissertation in 2015 on the macroeconomics effects of an increased NMW (to Living Wage levels) and ended up coming out against it because of potential substitution effects away from low-skilled workers to higher-skilled workers. Looking at immigration, the risk with increasing it is it becomes even more rational for higher-skilled workers from other countries to come here and apply for low-skill jobs. 

On the discussion about other potential trade deals, the main problem here is that one of the best models we have of trade is the Gravity Model, where trade is determined by economic size and distance. So comparing Switzerland and China for example, even though China's GDP is 17 times larger, exports to Switzerland are 25% larger. Looking at imports, we import 3 times as much from China as we do Switzerland, but control that for GDP size and you can see the impact gravity has. No matter how much potential is in far away economies, generally we will still choose to trade with those closest to us - perhaps except in the long-run due to technological advancements. 

This is an interesting one. I think you probably are right about it increasing immigration. Personally as long as it didn't lead to a spike in unemployment then this wouldn't bother me due to the higher minimum wage, but not everyone would feel the same way.

I think if they were incompatible options I'd go with a higher minimum wage and ending EU free movement even if it meant taking a hit on financial services (obviously I wouldn't give up free trade in things like manufactured goods that employs people in places like Sunderland). But can understand why better off people would have a different opinion 

Edited by bowes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, the SNP released their official Scottish Government analysis of the Brexit impacts against likely outcomes (PDF).  I've spent a bit of time this morning scanning through it and it's quite compelling in its facts and figures with no scenario that will mean Scotland doesn't lose out significantly.  This comes on the tail of London's Mayor doing the same last week.

Scotland's GDP is predicted to fall as follows in these scenarios by 2030:

- WTO/No Deal:  8.5%
- Free trade/EFTA: 6.1%
- Single market: 2.7%

What I found interesting were the consequences around the free trade and EFTA type deals as they're more severe here than predicted elsewhere, mainly because it factors in that we can't reuse the EU's trade deals.

The Tories responded with "this is scaremongering but we're not going to tell you why or give you our figures to refute these, you'll just have to trust us.  People are sick of the SNP challenging our lack of clothing, they should stop scaremongering and do as we tell them as good little Brexiteers".  Paraphrased but that's the effective gist of it.

I understand WHY the government won't release its own estimates of financial consequences, it'd be out on its ear the same day, but we're 14 and a bit months away from leaving the EU and we STILL have no official government figures on what it means beyond Trumpist "it'll be bigly great, it'll be the best thing ever, you just wait!"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ckn said:

Today, the SNP released their official Scottish Government analysis of the Brexit impacts against likely outcomes (PDF).  I've spent a bit of time this morning scanning through it and it's quite compelling in its facts and figures with no scenario that will mean Scotland doesn't lose out significantly.  This comes on the tail of London's Mayor doing the same last week.

Scotland's GDP is predicted to fall as follows in these scenarios by 2030:

- WTO/No Deal:  8.5%
- Free trade/EFTA: 6.1%
- Single market: 2.7%

What I found interesting were the consequences around the free trade and EFTA type deals as they're more severe here than predicted elsewhere, mainly because it factors in that we can't reuse the EU's trade deals.

The Tories responded with "this is scaremongering but we're not going to tell you why or give you our figures to refute these, you'll just have to trust us.  People are sick of the SNP challenging our lack of clothing, they should stop scaremongering and do as we tell them as good little Brexiteers".  Paraphrased but that's the effective gist of it.

I understand WHY the government won't release its own estimates of financial consequences, it'd be out on its ear the same day, but we're 14 and a bit months away from leaving the EU and we STILL have no official government figures on what it means beyond Trumpist "it'll be bigly great, it'll be the best thing ever, you just wait!"

Most independent estimates are closer to:

WTO 5-6% loss

FTA with USA 2.5% loss

FTA with EU 1.5-2% loss

Single market 1% loss (though possible gain if we sign some good third party FTAs)

Customs Union+FTA 1% loss (based on the unlikely scenario that Customs Union membership would give us access to the EU's FTA)

FTA with both the EU and USA 2% gain

Without seeing the SNP's report I can't judge whether Scotland will be disproportionately hit than the UK as a whole or if there's bias in their report.

Also any EFTA option gives us access to 90% of third country FTAs that the EU have signed plus FTAs with eight different countries. Most models don't take this into account 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bowes said:

PS I'll dig the report out later

The SNP's report is linked in my post, if that's what you're after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ckn said:

The SNP's report is linked in my post, if that's what you're after.

Ah okay I'll read it later. I'll have a look for an independent American report I've read later that's a bit more optimistic than the SNP's report but realistic (I think its assumptions on third party FTAs aren't right but it's other pretty good, it has us as keeping them in the Customs Union and losing them in EFTA when the opposite is probably true)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bowes said:

Most independent estimates are closer to:

WTO 5-6% loss

FTA with USA 2.5% loss

FTA with EU 1.5-2% loss

So it's lose, lose or lose. remind me again of the benefits of leaving the EU? :dry: 

Our net payments to the EU equate to 0.04% I believe, so where's the £350m a year for the NHS (and/or all the other things the money hs been promised to) going to come from?

Edited by Griff9of13
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Online 28 Jun - July 2018

Rugby League World - July 2018 - Out Fri 29 Jun

Rugby League Books On Sale Here