51–60 of 399 posts
I'm glad the UK is a member of the EU so we can benefit from this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/26/an-seeks-early...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
let's be accurate here: the reason the brexiteers (i.e. the ERG) don't like the withdrawal agreement is that it gives the EU effective control of the UK economy without any mechanism for the UK to leave that arrangement without the EU's permission which is the sort of term a victor of war forces on a defeated party the ERG agreed earlier this week that if this part of the agreement is dropped they will vote for it, o…
Actually: no. Not even close. 1) The backstop is just that: a backstop. It applies only if and as long as the "frictionless" arrangements for the NI border, which everyone wants and everyone has very publicly said they want, doesn't happen. So as soon as that happens, no more backstop. 2) UKGov claimed that this frictionless trade technology/mechanism exists and can be made to work, but in the months (or years) could…
obviously there's no problem if you are of the belief that the EU would act fairly in the situation where a new workable friction-less trade technology/mechanism is created
the ERG do not share this belief: their view is that if the withdrawal agreement is signed then the EU has no incentive to ever permit the UK to leave the temporary arrangement, as it would lose control over the UK economy and trade policy without gaining anything in return
they believe it's all about incentives, and in this case: they're probably right
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually: no. Not even close. 1) The backstop is just that: a backstop. It applies only if and as long as the "frictionless" arrangements for the NI border, which everyone wants and everyone has very publicly said they want, doesn't happen. So as soon as that happens, no more backstop. 2) UKGov claimed that this frictionless trade technology/mechanism exists and can be made to work, but in the months (or years) could…
"UKGov claimed that this frictionless trade technology/mechanism exists and can be made to work, but in the months (or years) couldn't actually come up with a single bit of evidence that this is actually so." The Norway-Sweden border would be one example. Just like Ireland-Northern Ireland, they are not in a customs union but allow free movement of people.
Sweden and Norway are both Schengen members, so they have explicitly agreed on freedom of movement for people. That does not say anything about goods.
But I don't know why such an arrangement could not work with the UK (both the UK and Norway are members of the European Economic Area) – presumably because the UK wants to leave that as well, because they want to go it alone and not align their trade policies with the European partners?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. As a matter of fact, UK was never part of the Schengen Area.
It still benefitted from freedom of movement (which is defined as the ability to live, work and study abroad, and lack of discrimination between EU citizens and locals).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually: no. Not even close. 1) The backstop is just that: a backstop. It applies only if and as long as the "frictionless" arrangements for the NI border, which everyone wants and everyone has very publicly said they want, doesn't happen. So as soon as that happens, no more backstop. 2) UKGov claimed that this frictionless trade technology/mechanism exists and can be made to work, but in the months (or years) could…
"UKGov claimed that this frictionless trade technology/mechanism exists and can be made to work, but in the months (or years) couldn't actually come up with a single bit of evidence that this is actually so." The Norway-Sweden border would be one example. Just like Ireland-Northern Ireland, they are not in a customs union but allow free movement of people.
Norway basically applies all EU laws without being able to vote on them.
Fine by me, if the UK wants that. Oh, and by the way, Norway declared it doesn't want the UK in the EEA: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/norweg...
Will consumers benefit from it? Can Japanese order from amazon.de without customs charges and vice versa?
Currently I can order cheap products (less than 20€) from China without customs fees or VAT. The shipping cost is around 1€. It means that it is cheaper to buy from China than from my local store. Unfortunately, that is about to change soon (customs fees for all products from China). Having something like that between EU and Japan would definitely boost the trade. Edit: I just checked and the same no customs fees rul…
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2169144/ch...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it is. The EU isn’t that, though. The withdrawal agreement negotiated by May does fulfill those criteria, but Brexiters still don’t like it — fancy that.
let's be accurate here: the reason the brexiteers (i.e. the ERG) don't like the withdrawal agreement is that it gives the EU effective control of the UK economy without any mechanism for the UK to leave that arrangement without the EU's permission which is the sort of term a victor of war forces on a defeated party the ERG agreed earlier this week that if this part of the agreement is dropped they will vote for it, o…
The backstop is publicly popular in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland voted by a substantial majority to Remain. The DUP is the only party that voted against the peace agreement.
It was the UK who wanted the backstop to be extended to Great Britain, not the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands were all fairly evenly developed when they formed the original EEC in 1957.
Is that really true? Are we still fairly evenly developed and having the same economy now?
Even assuming this was the sole purpose of it today (an extremely ignorant opinion if you ask me, and one that I don't see being backed by OP with evidence) it still doesn't prove that that's what "freedom of movement" is for. At best it would show that that's what it became.
It's more or less like saying that cars are for polluting the environment. They may or may not pollute but certainly that's not their defining trait, rather just a side-effect.
Unfortunately much of the population commenting here was born in a "freedom of movement" environment as such they have very little personal experience with its benefits for anyone. They did however read an article in the Sun once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The downside of free trade agreements is well studied: while overall it's a net positive for the economies involved, there are some individual losers.
I think the parent means things like, draconian copyright rules, ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement), subversion of customer protection rules (e.g. selling GMO meat in EU), etc. In addition, Japan and EU are obviously similarly (very highly) developed countries, so "free trade" between them is very close to "fair trade" as well, as opposed to e.g. free trade between EU and China would be (EU companies would skir…