The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.4K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 31 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 365 Fun & Games
- 86 BA Predictor Threads
- 28 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 280 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 110 Current West Ham
- 198 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 25 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 379 Match Threads
- 53 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 35 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 86 Completed Transfers
- 53 Internationals
- 46 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 107 Football Chatter
- 42 Football Chatter
- 260 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Aslef - I didn't get chance to continue our discussion yesterday as I had to go out. I just wanted to ask why you thought Unite included Ed Milliband literature in every ballot paper to unite members in 2010?
I know you have said it didn't make much difference as half voted for someone else but another way of spinning that is that he got as many votes as all the other candidates put together from Unite members, and this made the difference as his victory was 50.65% to 49.35%. Do you think the Unite vote made the difference?
Without actually asking people "did you vote for Ed because your union sent you a leaflet/envelope backing him" there is no way of knowing, personally I suspect most people who voted had made their mind up before they received their ballot paper but then I think the power of advertising is grossly overestimated
I feel that brexit and the Trump victory was pulled off by a unique occurrence which was getting white working class voting alongside the harder right, just as with brexit many areas that would never have voted Tory voted alongside typical Tory areas to tip the balance, likewise trump won by converting democratic areas to trump voting areas, white working class that would never usually vote repuclican.
This now shows a framework for winning an election which is appeal to working class voters from an anti immigration and anti elite position, this could effect us as France will vote next year and Le Pen and the national front will know that this is their ticket to win, the other parties know that should they allow us to even look like benefitting from Brexit in the meantime they are finished. I feel we should not trigger until those elections are over. There are of course German elections but they wouldn't would they? but I said that about Brexit and Trump so I have given up think anything impossible.
Had thought to, but wanted to see if it would just be a couple of comments, or be of wider interest.
Thread will be split imminently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-donald-trump-racism-row-barack-obama-twitter-president_uk_582469e7e4b020461a1f58ae?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=1804704756_uk
C&B - That maybe their stance and official position at this time but there are Customs Unions in place with other Non-EU Countries and even other European states (Turkey, San Marino, Andorra for example) where free trade is agreed but some or all of the others do not apply, so there is a precedent established.
WTO regulations (GATT) apply to Customs Unions, can't say I have read them fully or fully understand some of the conditions, but it does mention in some of the clauses about restrictions that could cause issues with or restrict other trading agreements not being allowed. So if the UK could prove that by the EU insisting on the other three freedoms being included is damaging to or placing restrictions on our other trade agreements or ability to trade, particularly as they already have agreements where they have not insisted, I would think they would not have a leg to stand on if the UK launched a legal challenge - only my opinion based on limited knowledge, not a hard fact, just conjecture.
I think Mr Verhofstadt is referring to this, which is part three not article three:
Part Three. Community Policies
TITLE III. FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL
CHAPTER 1. WORKERS
Article 48.
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community by the end of the transitional period at the latest.
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
4. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.
So the first point is the Treaty of Rome is specifically a document that applies to the EU. The second one is that throughout Article 48 it clearly identifies this applies to Member States.
Once Article 50 is triggered to begin our separation from the EU then unless we agree otherwise (which means a lot of negotiation and amendment of EU Treaties and other governance documents) then the Treaty of Rome will not apply any longer as we will ultimately no longer be a Member State of the EU. I am sure @Borisjohnson (or one of the other members of the negotiation team) will point this out to Mr Verhofstadt and any other EU ministers/Bureaucrats who believe this puts them in a strong negotiation position.
Is it just me or does it seem like they have completely missed the point/implications (or blindly ignoring them) of the leave vote and exit of Britain from the EU. If we are no longer a Member State of the EU how can the Treaty of Rome and others like it apply to the UK? I can't see how it can, hence the need for negotiated agreements. The EU may want and try to force us to keep the free movement of people but it is ultimately up to us what that will entail - there is no reason there cannot be conditions attached including tighter immigration controls (which is all that was wanted pre the leave vote, if they had agreed there would have been a remain victory). And before you say it, yes it would have applied both ways.
Also I notice that the Bureaucrats and Civil Servant of the EU put in a nice little bit of protection ( 4. Above - which is in itself discriminatory) for their own jobs, can't have people from other EU countries taking their jobs now can they.........
What is hoped by the UK is that the talks will also involve the new agreement and making a bespoke seamless deal so that there is no point in which we find ourselves with trade tariffs and the all important ability to trade services within the financial industry.
What whatshisname is pointing out is that the idea that you can have the free trade without the free movement is non negotiable, which it surely is as it would involve all 27 members to agree treaty change.
Boris will do what worked in the referendum and just promise outcomes so to shape the narrative he offers to people to believe , he will tell us we will get a deal right up to the point we don't, just as the NHS will be safe right up until it isn't.
If an area in the Amazon rain forest was being systematically stripped, if a huge multinational was opening up mines, building towns to house its workers and driving out the indigenous population we would be up in arms. Why? Surely this is progress, there are huge mineral and oil reserves, an unproductive area is now producing riches, it has brought jobs (for outsiders) and a retail park containing all the usual suspects. Whats not to like? Is it because the jobs are not going to the local people, an area is now free of indigenous people, and their needs and wishes were not considered? I`m sure Lily Allen, Geldof, Lineker and Michael Moore would have plenty to say. Well whats the difference between an area of the Amazon and an area stripped of its traditional industry in The Rhondda, Birmingham, or Sunderland. Are the people here not indigenous, do their hopes and desires not count? Obviously not, because for 40 years people in all countries of the Western World have been ignored and the agendas of the rich, the powerful and the governments that represent them (of whatever political persuasion) have been pursued, regardless. People have swallowed this for so long and now bitten back.
Now I may sound like a typical Trump or Farage voter "Jobs, immigrants, nationalism, country great again etc etc etc" but I`m not. Trump and Farage would have been quite happy for traditional industries to move abroad, quite happy in the pursuit of profit for production to move to China, India, Taiwan, in fact anywhere if a quick buck could be made. From my point of view this should never, ever been allowed to happen, we should have fought tooth and nail to protect our jobs, our industries, our infrastructure, our manufacturing base. But we didn`t, we allowed the ruling, liberal, free market ideology to override any sensible decisions or courses of action we, or any other country, would have in the normal course of events chosen to take. It is not a free market and never can be if someone, somewhere, is prepared (coerced through necessity) to work a sixteen hour day for a bowl of rice.
Trying to force people, from above, to conform to an overriding set of ideas or ideologies does not work, and the more centralised that power base becomes, the greater the number of people it has under its control, the more likely it is to fail, it is inevitable. "You can`t please all the people all the time".
Decisions need to be taken at as local a level as is practicably possible. Areas, countries, states, whatever terminology you use, need to look, as far as is practicably possible, at making things again. Becoming self sufficient, relying as little as possible on imports. This means starting small again, and will not be easy, but the drive for "bigger", "better" has been a disaster for all but the very richest, the people that tell us we need bigger and better. Start listening to local people, with local concerns and issues (however unhip these concerns and issues may appear to Mr Geldof) and we may halt the slide towards the far right. People want to work, or have the choice to work, and not in Mcdonalds, or Tescos, or a call centre on zero hours contracts, people want security and to feel valued. Good local jobs and services for local people is not right wing, or nationalistic, or racist, it`s common sense, look after what is in front of you and spread what is right and good by mutual agreement, across town lines, county lines, national borders, but by what is agreeable to all parties, not just the few, and not via dictats from Brussels.
Neither Trump or Farage are the answer, but what they have identified, is the huge disconnect between politicians and their ideals and "normal people" and their ideals. Politicians need to stop speaking (most of it is drivel anyway) and start listening.
to conclude:
never speak to the right people, get shunted around in an endless cycle of form filling, departments, sub divisions and `helplines" and feel like you achieve very little in the end. We must slash the huge levels of bureaucracy and stop living our lives according to pie charts, graphs and autocratic experts. Start living real lives with real people and make decisions based on need and common good rather than for vested interests and the pursuit of profit. I think we should be brave and take the lead, we will never, ever achieve any of this tied to the economic and political dogma of Brussels. Decisions need to be made for our good, our well being, and that goes for all colours, creeds, religious or sexual orientations. Start doing, and stop the men in grey and their non stop insidious waffle.
http://will-self.com/2016/11/17/4882/
Will the working class that have been used to tip the balance in favour of pretty hard right politicians agendas such as Farage and Trump pull back from them and find a natural political ground, or will they become just as irrelevant to politicians as before now they have been used to provide the power craved?
Are there actually enough jobs to go around? or will the new model be that the economy must be large enough and distributed evenly enough to support those left behind? Will radical proposals such as were put forward by Iceland(?) recently in which each citizen is paid a living allowance find favour.
What will need to happen is a Customs Union agreement on trade that all will have to agree too but this is governed by WTO Rules not EU Rules, so anything the WTO Rules would deem unfair (anything which would restrict our other trade agreements and negotiations) are out and as the EU already have a free trade agreement with Turkey (and others) without free movement it is unfair to insist it is a condition for our trade agreements - why should they be able to pick and choose in a way they say we can't?
At the end of the day all the current political posturing is to set starting points for the negotiation positions - pretty sure when it all gets going sensible heads will prevail and although the end result will not be as harsh or punishing as some want it to be (from both sides) it will be workable and of benefit to both the EU and UK.
Part 2, re Jobs to follow.
https://fullfact.org/europe/free-trade-outside-eu-customs-union/
Reading that though it does throw up the question of why do we have to make things so complicated. The rules and regulations and the various bodies that oversee international trade seem to be deliberately abstruse. We don`t seem to make it easy for ourselves.
Its Friday
;champagne
I don't know how accurate it is to the present situation (since it's from around 2004 at the earliest) but some statements stood out to me:
In the summary at the beginning of the document.
"However, barriers to trade still remain, in particular in services sectors,
and the EU’s protection of agriculture is also damaging. This implies
that there are still greater trade benefits to be reaped from EU
membership if the UK remains a force for reform in the Union."
------------------------
"Growth in trade is considered to be beneficial for a country‟s welfare."
"Although barriers to trade between Member States have been removed,
agriculture is probably the most protected sector in the European Union in
terms of external barriers, through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
The costs of protectionism in this sector are possibly the most damaging to
economic welfare and provide a good illustration of why the UK should remain
a force for more outward-looking reforms in the EU."
"Membership of the EU has had a significant and positive effect on trade flows
between Member States and between the UK and the EU, and welfare
benefits from this growth in trade do not appear to have been offset by
significant trade diversion. Trade makes an important contribution to
efficiency, growth and welfare in the economy. There is potential for further
trade benefits to be realised from continued integration and reform."
I suppose though that the analysts at the ONS were all pro-EU and those still alive on 23rd June 2016 voted to remain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-fresh-blow-for-theresa-may-as-supreme-court-rules-scotland-and-wales-can-intervene-in-article-a7424796.html
Although: Looking at the length of my answers, and the propensity to go off tangent, I`m not sure I actually answered the questions you originally posed. Although it did seem to make a lot of sense in my head. I think you may be onto something NE.
The UK have been trying for years now to get the CAP reformed and it is always blocked, amended (watered down) or slowed down by interests in the Countries (France, Germany, Spain & Italy get more then the rest put together) who benefit the most from it - they have been trying to get an agreement since 2013 on major reforms with no avail.
If you look at some of the criticism of it in the past, one that always stuck out for me as a good reason to scrap it and start again was the people who audit the books asking how claims for payments from farms in certain countries (which were paid) exceeded the total actual land mass of farmlands in those countries eligible to claim - and the Commissioners of the EU never investigating to provide a satisfactory answer.
Also it is now the large agri-businesses and big landowners who receive more from the CAP than Europe's small farmers who rely on traditional methods and local markets. About 80% of farm aid goes to about a quarter of EU farmers - those with the largest holdings. So they have formed powerful lobby groups to campaign to prevent any changes to the CAP.
My point being that although the UK has fought for years for trade reforms, with the changes to qualified majority voting and the EU's preference for protectionism the UK is no longer a 'Force' for reform in the EU, particularly as we are not part of the EU project (e.g. not taking the Euro and resistant to further political & financial integration).
;whistle
https://thenorwichradical.com/2016/06/22/vote-leave-brexit-and-the-crisis-of-the-establishment/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-richard-branson-virgin-group-eu-referendum-a7430396.html
From the tone of the second article, I really don`t think that these people understand. "A close friend of both Mr Blair and David Cameron...................."
We really are only ever offered two sides of the same coin. If Brexit is derailed then everyone for generations to come has nothing to look forward to but the same old, same old. And from my perspective, for the majority of people Worldwide, that has been far from a roaring success. What do these people want, Hilary in The Whitehouse and The UK stuck in Europe? To achieve what exactly? What is the plan from there? To bumble along lurching from one crisis to another and repeat ad nauseum. Marvellous, it makes being a West Ham supporter almost bearable in comparison.
And Blair wants to return to British politics. As someone, somewhere once said:
"I can be imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread by a system that is represented by someone who has the blood of thousands on their hands."
Or something like that.
Shakes head and exits slowly stage left...................