It's not just about Brexit

[martin_p]

That question has been done to death over the past 5 years. I’m not going to rehash it now, but the GDP per capita in East Lancashire (about $31,000 using the NUTS-3 boundaries) is little different to Slovenia, Italy, Spain and other nations not generally perceived as being wealthy.

That means people in those areas, and people who care about people in those areas, have every right to vote for a different approach, which they have done.To answer your question, I think we need to revisit this in 2030 and look back to say whether the 2020s outside the EU have served those areas better than 2000-2019 inside it. I have my doubts - a socialist mindset in some of these Labour councils could be argued to have held the towns back even more. But it is worth a try.

What has the UK government done to alleviate the situation you identify?

[CrosspoolClarets]

A few comments replying to me saying free ports are allowed in the EU.

Yes, they are. But under strict internal market rules with a list of exemptions. Even after we leave there are WTO rules to comply with. But it seems fair for government to make a judgement that more flexibility in this will make a big difference. I’m not qualified to judge one way or the other.

My point remains the same - something has to be done for these areas, status quo was not an option.

[CrosspoolClarets]

What has the UK government done to alleviate the situation you identify?

In truth Martin the current government only came in last winter with a big majority and had to deal with the Withdrawal Agreement then a major pandemic. There is no doubt there direction of travel which I view as excellent - whether they can pull it off is another matter. I suspect strategic vision is greater than operational competence but it is no good having the wrong vision (Blair, Brown, Cameron, May) even if you are great at delivery.

[martin_p]

In truth Martin the current government only came in last winter with a big majority and had to deal with the Withdrawal Agreement then a major pandemic. There is no doubt there direction of travel which I view as excellent - whether they can pull it off is another matter. I suspect strategic vision is greater than operational competence but it is no good having the wrong vision (Blair, Brown, Cameron, May) even if you are great at delivery.

I’m talking about governments in the period you mention. Surely it’s the uk government’s responsibility to address problems in East Lancs not the EUs is I’m not sure why leaving the EU would make a difference. East Lancs has certainly had EU investments though, the signs are all over the place, that’ll be gone from 1st Jan.

[JohnMcGreal]

Next stop: Pariah State.

It will be a good laugh watching Global Britain trying to build new relationships around the world, when every man and his dog knows that we’re an untrustworthy partner that doesn’t even honour its legally-binding International treaties.

If this is supposed to be a negotiating tactic to persuade the EU to make big concessions to accommodate an ex-member, I can’t see how this helps in the slightest. For example, even if the EU gave the UK everything it wants (which it won’t do), and they then sign and ratify a legally-binding trade agreement, what is that then worth? When the UK shows itself ready to just discard or undermine treaties only months after signing them, any potential trade agreement won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. So where is the incentive to even bother negotiating such an agreement?

I can only assume that the UK government is now actively trying to collapse the talks. But as I’ve said before on here, that won’t be the end of it. We’ll be back at the table in early 2021 in an even weaker position, and these issues around the level playing field, state aid and fisheries won’t just magically disappear on January 1st.

[clarethomer]

Are you on Twitter?

I think i have an old account somewhere but no - its not something I actively use.

Do the member states have their own twitter accounts which have denied Barnier rumour then?

[CombatClaret]

EhTHVNSXkAIksZz.jpg (676.3 KiB) Viewed 987 times

[clarethomer]

Yeah, next they’ll be forming some sort of trade block as a way of looking after their interests!

That's my point - they have done so well at protecting their interests that given where we are now, there is no incentive at our side.

I applaud Barnier for that piece of magic he did on May's government. He probably got plenty of pats on the backs for doing ensuring the divorce settlement was agreed before the trade deal.

However, the point now is that the WA clearly is not workable and if the EU are not prepared to push the Fisheries / Level playing field matters to one side to focus on finding what areas of agreements are going to work (which then may unlock some of these sticking points) then its wasted energy and effort.

By the EU taking the same protectionist approach with this stage - even you, as an ardent believer in the EU ideology, know that this government cannot give what is being asked for. If we cant get a deal that works for BOTH sides, then no deal is the right deal and we should want the government to takes an equally protectionist view to the UK.

[martin_p]

EhTHVNSXkAIksZz.jpg

The first box in the political impacts column has always driven the way the Johnson government operates, so he’ll only see positives.

[martin_p]

That's my point - they have done so well at protecting their interests that given where we are now, there is no incentive at our side.

But this has been the case since day 1 (in fact before day 1) and has been pointed out time and time again. The fact that the uk wasn’t going to get a good deal was painted as part of ‘Project Fear’ though as Leave politicians talked about the easiest deal in history and ‘there’s no way they’ll set up trade barriers’.

It’s is shame you’ve finally reached this conclusion the hard way but it’s been blatantly obvious since forever!

[nil_desperandum]

This is going really well isn't it?

Hey, welcome back Lancs.
It's a mad, mad world on here, and I had a period of not posting at all, but once back you get a bit sucked in.
The problem is that if everyone with sensible (moderate) views and the ability to make a constructive argument leaves, then the "Lunatics will take over the asylum". That's NOT a dig at Brexiteers or those with whom I disagree, by the way, most of whom engage intelligently - even though we may disagree on substance. Sadly a small minority, (and one or two in particular), really don't engage properly, and if they appear to be losing an argument seem to do all they can to get the thread closed.

[clarethomer]

But this has been the case since day 1 (in fact before day 1) and has been pointed out time and time again. The fact that the uk wasn’t going to get a good deal was painted as part of ‘Project Fear’ though as Leave politicians talked about the easiest deal in history and ‘there’s no way they’ll set up trade barriers’.

It’s is shame you’ve finally reached this conclusion the hard way but it’s been blatantly obvious since forever!

What conclusion have I reached?

I shouldn't be surprised a remainer telling me what I am thinking..

[martin_p]

What conclusion have I reached?

I shouldn't be surprised a remainer telling me what I am thinking..

I didn’t have to, you wrote it down, I read it and quoted it in my own post.

[Devils_Advocate]

I think i have an old account somewhere but no - its not something I actively use.

Do the member states have their own twitter accounts which have denied Barnier rumour then?

Nope but this is where it was discussed with good sources. The story you saw was fabricated by the UK press to try and cause friction in the EU camp. As the story had no basis apart from unverified conjecture then no good news source is going to waste they time writing an article to rebut it but it was discussed and laughed at on Twitter for the rubbish it was.

Its like if someone came out and said the moon is made of cheese. It would get dismissed on Social Media but you wouldnt be able to find me a news story denying it because its not worth giving it the time of day.

Anyhow if you had Twitter I could try and find some of the good sources that discussed it but as you dont there's not much I can do to help you

[tiger76]

Another senior civil servant standing down https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54072347

This is a becoming a pattern under this government.

[martin_p]

Another senior civil servant standing down https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54072347

This is a becoming a pattern under this government.

It’s no real surprise when the government has admitted it intends to break the law.

[CombatClaret]

If I ever do break the law I will claim it was reasonable because I broke it "in a very specific and limited way".

Just like the government did when it admitted to breaking international law in parliament earlier today.

[tiger76]

It’s no real surprise when the government has admitted it intends to break the law.

Breaking the law again is bad enough, but reneging on a signed international treaty is far worse, and this government seem to have forgotten whether we leave the EU, with or without an agreement, we'll still have to agree trading arrangements with many other nations, who'll all have their own competing interests to safeguard.

So much for the easiest trade deal in history and an oven ready brexit, both have been proven to be fallacies, and now the PM is attempting to claim a no deal outcome would be good for the UK, I wish he'd have admitted that either during the referendum, or during last year's GE campaign, because I may well have changed my ballot accordingly.

Just to take one stark example, in the event of no deal, our export tariffs will be 40% to sell into the EU market, there is absolutely no way that the farming community can survive such a hit to their products, and sadly many will cease to trade, is that a good outcome for those farmers, I don't think so.

Now it could be that our government are playing a blinder here, and these threats to walk away will bring the concessions that they're seeking, but I somehow doubt this, and it's the rest of the country that will pay the price for their gross incompetence.

[aggi]

When even Theresa May starts giving you stick you've got to wonder about what you're doing:

The United Kingdom government signed the withdrawal agreement with the Northern Ireland protocol. This parliament voted that withdrawal agreement into UK legislation. The government is now changing the operation of that agreement. Given that, how can the government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations of the agreements it signs?

[aggi]

Breaking the law again is bad enough, but reneging on a signed international treaty is far worse, and this government seem to have forgotten whether we leave the EU, with or without an agreement, we'll still have to agree trading arrangements with many other nations, who'll all have their own competing interests to safeguard.

So much for the easiest trade deal in history and an oven ready brexit, both have been proven to be fallacies, and now the PM is attempting to claim a no deal outcome would be good for the UK, I wish he'd have admitted that either during the referendum, or during last year's GE campaign, because I may well have changed my ballot accordingly.

Just to take one stark example, in the event of no deal, our export tariffs will be 40% to sell into the EU market, there is absolutely no way that the farming community can survive such a hit to their products, and sadly many will cease to trade, is that a good outcome for those farmers, I don't think so.

Now it could be that our government are playing a blinder here, and these threats to walk away will bring the concessions that they're seeking, but I somehow doubt this, and it's the rest of the country that will pay the price for their gross incompetence.

That's not strictly the case. In the event of No Deal we technically wouldn't be able to sell meat to the EU at all. You have to be on an approved list of countries to import meat into the EU. Obviously it's the kind of thing you'd hoped would get sorted very quickly given that we currently meet the criteria but there would have to be inspections, etc carried out by the EU so it would require their agreement and we would have to follow the rules (which is obviously anathema to some). The US isn't allowed to export fresh chicken or lamb to the EU for example.

Obviously on top of the tariffs there are also many more costs in terms of veterinary inspections, etc that previously didn't apply.

[tiger76]

That's not strictly the case. In the event of No Deal we technically wouldn't be able to sell meat to the EU at all. You have to be on an approved list of countries to import meat into the EU. Obviously it's the kind of thing you'd hoped would get sorted very quickly given that we currently meet the criteria but there would have to be inspections, etc carried out by the EU so it would require their agreement and we would have to follow the rules (which is obviously anathema to some). The US isn't allowed to export fresh chicken or lamb to the EU for example.

Obviously on top of the tariffs there are also many more costs in terms of veterinary inspections, etc that previously didn't apply.

Ah! apologies I didn't realise that, this makes getting a deal even more urgent, the reality is if we wish to sell into the EU, which I've no doubt everyone agrees we do, then we'll have to meet the minimum standards, and follow the rules, equally that logic will apply to other export markets we wish to access, there's no such thing as a free lunch, if you want the benefits, you have to accept the criteria these countries demand, of course you could simply choose not to trade with these countries, but that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, and surely even this stupid government wouldn't countenance that, or would they, I genuinely don't know anymore, they seem to pay lip service to treaties and legally binding agreements, so who the heck knows what they'll do next. I certainly wouldn't like to predict their next move.

[Spijed]

No US trade deal if we break the law:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 21226.html