[hrothgar]

fromageGB, on 2019-August-24, 13:31, said:

I wouldn't call that a danger, I call it success.

Seldom do you see a person so eager to shoot themselves in the head

[Cyberyeti]

fromageGB, on 2019-August-24, 13:31, said:

I wouldn't call that a danger, I call it success.

No deal now is going to be a mess. A no deal declared at the start with at least 2 years to negotiate some of the easy things would have been the best solution as the best qualified man to say this (Varoufakis) did indeed say at the time.

[fromageGB]

I do agree that it would be messy, and not the way we should have done things, but given where we are now, and the poor alternatives ahead of us, I think this would be the best choice. I prefer it to a Jeremy Corbyn government probably remaining in the EU; I prefer it to another endless decision to postpone the decision.

If we leave with no agreement on future EU trading arrangements I think we (most people) will survive not uncomfortably, and trade agreement with the EU will surely follow at some time. If we happen to be between governments at the time I believe the public may well be so relieved it is finally over, that Boris Johnson will gain a surge as well as the Brexit party supporters, sufficient to win the election and carry on the good work.

But that is not my prognosis. My opinion is that Boris will agree a fudge to the May plan, and leave in name but not in practice, still being subject to EU law, still bankrolling the EU, with continuing EU-imposed tariffs on outside trade, for a possibly 2-year extension. My worry is that during that 2 years there will be sufficient lack of support from brexit thinkers and non-conservatives to bring him down, and we end up with May and Hammond again, or a LibLab coalition. Either way remaining in the EU permanently. I do not want this either. The no agreement scenario seems preferable to me.

[cherdano]

fromageGB, on 2019-August-25, 03:02, said:

still being subject to EU law

Can you name one EU law that has ever inconvenienced you?
Meanwhile, do you ever travel to EU countries outside the UK?

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2019-August-25, 06:24, said:

Can you name one EU law that has ever inconvenienced you?
Meanwhile, do you ever travel to EU countries outside the UK?

And, of course, how much are you willing to see the standard of living collapse in the Britain to avoid these odious laws?

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2019-August-25, 06:34, said:

And, of course, how much are you willing to see the standard of living collapse in the Britain to avoid these odious laws?

Collapse is not a price worth paying, but not sure that will happen, there are some factors that will improve (the EU has some nasty tariffs to protect southern European agriculture which we'll lose), but prepared for a small drop. The question is how bad it will be, and it's somewhere between project fear's apocalypse and the Brexiteers' "no issue", the question is where.

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-25, 07:19, said:

Collapse is not a price worth paying, but not sure that will happen, there are some factors that will improve (the EU has some nasty tariffs to protect southern European agriculture which we'll lose), but prepared for a small drop. The question is how bad it will be, and it's somewhere between project fear's apocalypse and the Brexiteers' "no issue", the question is where.

Perhaps...

Me, I think it's stupid to place bets with a very real chance of a big down side and very little in the way of perceptible gains.

I hope for the sake of the sane folks on your benighted island that you are correct.
And if you are wrong, I hope that the figure out a way to make you bear the costs for your decision.

[Lovera]

The scenario that currently lies ahead is so rough that it is appropriate to wait to make things settle and have a clearer vision of the future. Of course everyone (from political figures to interested citizens) does not want or think they want to pay that much and behave accordingly. Suffice it to say that the only volume of business that gravitates around London is so high that the negative impact will be considerable.

[cherdano]

cherdano, on 2019-August-25, 06:24, said:

Can you name one EU law that has ever inconvenienced you?
Meanwhile, do you ever travel to EU countries outside the UK?

Still wondering about this. After all, it would be nice to know that fromageGB's opposition to the EU is based on concrete specific objections, not on a general distaste for having people like me in his country, who can come here with no restrictions if they take on a job...

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-August-26, 05:31, said:

Still wondering about this. After all, it would be nice to know that fromageGB's opposition to the EU is based on concrete specific objections, not on a general distaste for having people like me in his country, who can come here with no restrictions if they take on a job...

Not a law as such but a trade treaty makes me pay more for my orange juice than I need to. There's a 15%? tariff on North African orange juice to protect Spanish farmers.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-26, 06:01, said:

Not a law as such but a trade treaty makes me pay more for my orange juice than I need to. There's a 15%? tariff on North African orange juice to protect Spanish farmers.

Funny you should mention that CY. Prior to Trump coming to power there was great interest shown from all sides for a tariff reduction on OJ according to the Swiss Formula. That would have brought the EU OJ tariff down to below 10%. Sadly such a move is unthinkable in the current climate but I would not put the major blame for that at the hands of the EU.

[fromageGB]

cherdano, on 2019-August-25, 06:24, said:

Can you name one EU law that has ever inconvenienced you?
Meanwhile, do you ever travel to EU countries outside the UK?

Yes of course, apart from import tariffs, there is the working time directive, VAT, GDPR, and no doubt many others. Very inconveniencing. It is difficult to know who to blame in many cases, as the laws are brought in by the UK government and called "data protection act" for example, and you may not be aware that it is a cuckoo. These could have been imposed by a sovereign power and the citizens may grumble, but it's their government. It gets more annoying when these are imposed from the outside. I also object to people being able to refer to a European court if they disagree with the decisions of the highest court in this country.

On a national level, I believe the restrictions on level of financial support given to key industries is damaging to us as a nation. Maybe the trouble is partly that the UK is too compliant, and other countries such as currently Poland and Hungary - on different issues - just ignore the ECJ.

Naturally there are also cases where I am grateful for the imposition. Years ago I went swimming and canoeing in the north sea but was repelled by the faeces one encountered then, and that situation has improved, but even now I read the UK is being fined in this regard. No doubt we could make such improvements ourselves, but the EU has given us a push.

I can't see where you are leading with the second question, but most years I holiday in inland rural France, not so often other mainland countries, Eire just recently, and have no trouble following laws. Though the Czech Republic did get me for speeding. No doubt I shall continue to do so after Brexit, and I don't mind paying a little for the additional insurance that I would need. I hardly think they will ban holidaying UK citizens.

On your final point I have no problem with anyone coming here to live, in accordance with our laws, even if they are essentially EU laws at the moment. I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis. Welcome! In the local clubs I have partnered a couple of Poles, and a Bulgarian is one of our better players. Playing bridge should definitely be gaining good immigration points when we adopt such a scheme.

[Winstonm]

fromageGB, on 2019-August-26, 08:06, said:

Yes of course, apart from import tariffs, there is the working time directive, VAT, GDPR, and no doubt many others. Very inconveniencing. It is difficult to know who to blame in many cases, as the laws are brought in by the UK government and called "data protection act" for example, and you may not be aware that it is a cuckoo. These could have been imposed by a sovereign power and the citizens may grumble, but it's their government. It gets more annoying when these are imposed from the outside. I also object to people being able to refer to a European court if they disagree with the decisions of the highest court in this country.

On a national level, I believe the restrictions on level of financial support given to key industries is damaging to us as a nation. Maybe the trouble is partly that the UK is too compliant, and other countries such as currently Poland and Hungary - on different issues - just ignore the ECJ.

Naturally there are also cases where I am grateful for the imposition. Years ago I went swimming and canoeing in the north sea but was repelled by the faeces one encountered then, and that situation has improved, but even now I read the UK is being fined in this regard. No doubt we could make such improvements ourselves, but the EU has given us a push.

I can't see where you are leading with the second question, but most years I holiday in inland rural France, not so often other mainland countries, Eire just recently, and have no trouble following laws. Though the Czech Republic did get me for speeding. No doubt I shall continue to do so after Brexit, and I don't mind paying a little for the additional insurance that I would need. I hardly think they will ban holidaying UK citizens.

On your final point I have no problem with anyone coming here to live, in accordance with our laws, even if they are essentially EU laws at the moment. I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis. Welcome! In the local clubs I have partnered a couple of Poles, and a Bulgarian is one of our better players. Playing bridge should definitely be gaining good immigration points when we adopt such a scheme.

Quote

I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis.

I have two questions: 1) What are the skills needed to be welcomed and who makes that determination? 2) Why are other immigrants unwelcome?

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2019-August-26, 06:35, said:

Funny you should mention that CY. Prior to Trump coming to power there was great interest shown from all sides for a tariff reduction on OJ according to the Swiss Formula. That would have brought the EU OJ tariff down to below 10%. Sadly such a move is unthinkable in the current climate but I would not put the major blame for that at the hands of the EU.

They only put it up in the last 3years https://brexitcentra...-customs-union/

[cherdano]

fromageGB, on 2019-August-26, 08:06, said:

I am sure the UK will always welcome skilled immigrants on a restricted basis. Welcome!

Thank you! That makes me feel so welcome!! Especially the restricted basis! And only for "skilled" immigrants! I guess I should feel honoured because you are implying I might pass the skill test?

But still you didn't answer my first question: which EU law has ever inconvenienced *you personally*? No, VAT doesn't count, because if the EU encouraged the UK to switch part of their taxbase from one method of taxation to a more economically efficient method of taxation that doesn't inconvenience anyone. I guess you have been taken to European court? You wanted to work more than 48 hours a week but you didn't realise you could opt of the working time directive? You wanted to make someone work 7 hours straight without a break? You personally wanted to arrange financial support for a key industry?

In concrete points, Brexiters in this thread have complained about having to pay more for orange juice, and scoffed at the idea of having health insurance while abroad in the EU. (No, a cheap travel insurance doesn't give you the same cover as proper health insurance.) And I assume cheaper orange juice is also more important than being able to use your phone while travelling (without having to buy a local SIM card or getting charged obscene amounts from your home carrier).

I guess what I am saying is that I strongly disagree with, but have some sympathy for wanting to leave the EU. (My sympathy would increase somewhat if that desire came with a consensus plan for what to do about Northern Ireland - at least here fromageGB is open about being happy for them to leave the union.) But wanting to go through a no deal, with its concrete yet unpredictable potential damage, strikes me as the pose of a teenager who goes on a drunk drive to defy his parents.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-August-26, 16:55, said:

In concrete points, Brexiters in this thread have complained about having to pay more for orange juice, and scoffed at the idea of having health insurance while abroad in the EU. (No, a cheap travel insurance doesn't give you the same cover as proper health insurance.) And I assume cheaper orange juice is also more important than being able to use your phone while travelling (without having to buy a local SIM card or getting charged obscene amounts from your home carrier).

Of course it is, I have no mobile phone and I have decent travel insurance

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-26, 08:41, said:

They only put it up in the last 3years https://brexitcentra...-customs-union/

Sorry, I did not realise you were referring to South African imports. Those were governed by the TDCA from until recently being replaced by the SADC-EU EPA. Under the new treaty South African sweet oranges, lemons and frozen orange juice enjoy improved market access.

In particular, sweet oranges are duty free between 1st June and 15th October and the tariff between 16th October and 30th November is being gradually reduced to zero in 2027. In the rest of the year the tariffs remain unchanged.

For frozen orange juice, the volume that can enter the EU under the tariff-rate quota was increased from 1036 tonnes to 3602 tonnes in the first year of the EPA and subsequently by 21 tonnes per year thereafter without any change to the tariff rate itself.

In other words, it looks rather like the Brexit website you linked to lied. Shock! Yes, there is a new tariff in the database but only to replace the old one. That sounds like standard Brexit accounting practice. Always check with neutral sites before taking something from such a source at face value!

What is true is that there has been some discussion lately (Apr 2019) about activating a safeguard clause built into the treaty that would allow the EU to raise tariffs. Spain are pushing for this but the EU response was that they seek to solve European problems, not national ones.

Instead of oranges, perhaps you should be more worried about cherries as the EU has very recently halted the import of several Canadian fruits due to health concerns, with cherries being the type with the highest potential impact. But that is only relevant if the UK is in the EU of course. Should there be a No Deal Brexit, who knows if there will be any fruit at all for a while and what additional costs might apply to those that do get through?

Tesco and other retailers are certainly predicting shortages and price rises. If at some point in the future the UK is able to negotiate a trade treaty but OJ prices in the shops are higher, is that really a win?

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2019-August-26, 20:07, said:

In other words, it looks rather like the Brexit website you linked to lied. Shock! Yes, there is a new tariff in the database but only to replace the old one. That sounds like standard Brexit accounting practice. Always check with neutral sites before taking something from such a source at face value!

In that case so did all the mainstream press (which is where I originally read it, from a pro remain newspaper in fact), that was just the site I picked it up from on a web search.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-August-27, 03:38, said:

In that case so did all the mainstream press (which is where I originally read it, from a pro remain newspaper in fact), that was just the site I picked it up from on a web search.

Do you have a link to the article perhaps? Presumably that means that a pro-Brexit reporter pulled the wool over his editor's eyes and reporting that back to the paper might result in them doing more fact-checking the next time or even in letting the reporter go, which is, quite frankly, what should happen when reporters wilfully publish false stories (as Boris famously did back in the day before he entered mainstream politics).

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2019-August-27, 05:21, said:

Do you have a link to the article perhaps? Presumably that means that a pro-Brexit reporter pulled the wool over his editor's eyes and reporting that back to the paper might result in them doing more fact-checking the next time or even in letting the reporter go, which is, quite frankly, what should happen when reporters wilfully publish false stories (as Boris famously did back in the day before he entered mainstream politics).

No, I'm an occasional Times reader (people don't expect a Murdoch paper to be pro remain, but it was) and I suspect it would have been there, but it will be behind a paywall now.

Boris wasn't a reporter anytime recently, he was a columnist, different job, more of a shock jock, not paid to find facts, paid to provoke comment and raise the profile of the paper.