Brexit Venn

Ashtree

Member
EEA interim option is like having the stabilisers on the bike through this learning stage for our government, we have lost our trading instinct - which is a consequence of EU membership. To our eternal shame. Now we correct that.

Britains vaunted trading instinct is a fallacy!
Britain was never ever in it's history a trading nation in the proper trading sense.
It was a military and imperial power. It took stuff from the places it took over by force. It didn't trade.
Now it's a new ball game. The fella on the other side of the table gets to have a say on what's good for him and so on. This trading lark you know us full of compromises. Just like Brexit really. The Brexit which will eventually emerge will be a pale shadow of the promised version.
 

RobFZS

Member
Britains vaunted trading instinct is a fallacy!
Britain was never ever in it's history a trading nation in the proper trading sense.
It was a military and imperial power. It took stuff from the places it took over by force. It didn't trade.
Now it's a new ball game. The fella on the other side of the table gets to have a say on what's good for him and so on. This trading lark you know us full of compromises. Just like Brexit really. The Brexit which will eventually emerge will be a pale shadow of the promised version.
Which Promised version was this? the one in my head, or the shite vote leave came up with? the brexit that will emerge will be, Brexit, the one in my head so far seems to be going to plan, if not better infact.

Meanwhile, the brexit that the remainers painted, such as yourself, is turning in to the very pale shadow you speak of, but hey, lets just wait for that recession and ww3!
 

Ashtree

Member
Which Promised version was this? the one in my head, or the shite vote leave came up with? the brexit that will emerge will be, Brexit, the one in my head so far seems to be going to plan, if not better infact.

Meanwhile, the brexit that the remainers painted, such as yourself, is turning in to the very pale shadow you speak of, but hey, lets just wait for that recession and ww3!

And which version (there does seem to be a growing number) do you have in your head?
 
As somebody sat painfully on the fence. I do find the bullsxxt coming from both sides both tiresome and on occasion laughable.
the truth is all we know is that there will be negotiations and they will at times be difficult. That's is all we know. The smugness from the brexiteers and the remainers predictions are predicated ON NOTHING no FACTS only OPINIONS yet they are thrown about as if 100% reliable.
We have at least another 30 months of this :(
May your god help us!
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
As somebody sat painfully on the fence. I do find the bullsxxt coming from both sides both tiresome and on occasion laughable.
the truth is all we know is that there will be negotiations and they will at times be difficult. That's is all we know. The smugness from the brexiteers and the remainers predictions are predicated ON NOTHING no FACTS only OPINIONS yet they are thrown about as if 100% reliable.
We have at least another 30 months of this :(
May your god help us!
great fun :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

RobFZS

Member
And which version (there does seem to be a growing number) do you have in your head?
You seem to have answered that yourself, the flexit, the flexible exit to the eu, it's never been done before, there is no set way to leaving the eu, setting yourself to one way of doing things is asking to fail.
 

czechmate

Member
Mixed Farmer
As somebody sat painfully on the fence. I do find the bullsxxt coming from both sides both tiresome and on occasion laughable.
the truth is all we know is that there will be negotiations and they will at times be difficult. That's is all we know. The smugness from the brexiteers and the remainers predictions are predicated ON NOTHING no FACTS only OPINIONS yet they are thrown about as if 100% reliable.
We have at least another 30 months of this :(
May your god help us!


Don't you have a god?
 
no worries. I was very young when I first came across his work. I went to school with the daughter of one his main sketch actors micheal sharvell-martin.Since then I have much admired his work the way he poked fun at the hypocrisy of the establishment especially religion.

one of my favourites-
We spend our lives on the run;" he said. "You get up by the clock, you go to work by the clock, you clock in, you clock out, you eat and sleep by the clock, you get up again, you go to work -you do that for forty years of your life and then you retire -what do they f***ing give you? A clock!"
 

czechmate

Member
Mixed Farmer
no worries. I was very young when I first came across his work. I went to school with the daughter of one his main sketch actors micheal sharvell-martin.Since then I have much admired his work the way he poked fun at the hypocrisy of the establishment especially religion.

one of my favourites-
We spend our lives on the run;" he said. "You get up by the clock, you go to work by the clock, you clock in, you clock out, you eat and sleep by the clock, you get up again, you go to work -you do that for forty years of your life and then you retire -what do they f***ing give you? A clock!"


(y)(y)(y)
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Hard brexit won't happen, we'll end up being in the EEA as a step out of the eu, in a full on process for leaving while getting the complete entanglement with the eu undone, which will frankly take years, it took 40 years to get in to this mess, it certainly won't take 2 to get out without massive damage

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=251

Much of the speculation around what Britain should attempt to negotiate centres around what Britain shouldn't do rather than what it should. On the one hand we have John Mills of Labour Leave, absolutely adamant that the suicidal WTO option is a possibility and on the other we have Andrew Tyrie in an Open Europe report ruling out all of the options including the EEA.

"The UK need not replicate the arrangements of other countries" he asserts. It "will want more market access than Canada, whose trade deal with the EU contains only limited provisions on services, and more control and influence than Norway, which is a passive recipient of single market regulation."

This is cake and eat it stuff. Tyrie recognises the failings of the WTO option and that it should be avoided at all costs. The basis for this is that the WTO option says nothing of recognition of standards along with all the other issues surrounding non-tariff barriers. He recognises that a Canada deal is insufficient and so he leans toward a comprehensive and close relationship with the EU.

It appears he wants the same level of participation as Norway but a direct say over the rules. Some might say that is EU membership. However this blog would challenge the assertion that Norway is "a passive recipient of single market regulation". It isn't. As much as there is direct consultation and a veto mechanism within the agreement, Norway gets an enhanced say in the rules by way of being full participants in the global bodies where the rules are made. Tyrie make no real mention of this. He is merely repeating empty mantras.

This though is a common view and an enraged Tweeter informs us that "Britain does not need or want prior agreements. We can make our own agreement, not cobble together someone else's". Indeed we can make our own agreement but if we want to negotiate something as comprehensive as the EEA then we are looking at six to eight years of negotiation. Tyrie remarks that his fantasy scenario will indeed take more than two years and believes that some unspecified "transitional arrangement" will fill the void. There are no details as to what this looks like.

What critics of the EEA miss is that the EEA agreement is not just an agreement on single market participation. It is an interface mechanism with its own infrastructure for constant review and reform for the purposes of entering special conditions, exemptions and reservations. And so though we may be adopting an agreement that someone else has, there are mechanisms to tailor the agreement to the needs of the UK, be that enhanced controls over freedom of movement or better consultation on regulations.

Because it is a system of continuous development, including efforts to extend financial services access it is not set in stone. Far from cobbling together a copy of the Norway agreement we would simply be using the same conduits into the EU. The purpose of joining it is that as an agreement to which we are already a party, we would simply be switching sides, the groundwork for which we could do before even triggering Article 50 which means part of the process can be under way without having to negotiate and extension. We can have concurrent negotiations.

Once we have transitioned into EEA status we then use the mechanisms and processes to further negotiate our exit issue by issue, leaving things that work untouched. We then have no need of bespoke transitional agreements because the EEA very much is a bespoke transitional agreement with a view to eventually leaving the single market to participate in the global rules based system as it develops.

Opponents of the EEA really need to explain what the point of reinventing the wheel is. Why should we create unnecessary uncertainty to achieve much the same as what already exists? Moreover, the EU is not especially keen on a patchwork of agreements like Switzerland which need constant unstructured attention where neither side is happy with it. If it doesn't want that then why would it want to replicate an EEA style agreement solely for the benefit of the UK when it already has an interface mechanism for non-EU market participants?

More to the point, why add the complication to something which need not be complex? Effectively the EEA serves as a Brexit safe space with no cliff edges where the process of exit happens at a pace that doesn't disturb business.

What Tyrie is doing is closing down the debate, rubbishing entirely viable options in favour of a lengthy and risky process for no real advantage. You could point out the numerous deficiencies in the EEA agreement where Norway suffers, but the obvious point is that we are not Norway. We have market clout and we have world leading industries which means we have a strong hand when we seek new annexes to the agreement.

Moreover there is a structured means of reviewing the EEA agreement. Entering some custom final agreement means we have to persuade the EU to open it up for review in the future. The EEA already has review systems in place so we can revisit things we get wrong.

As to immigration, the EEA does have safeguard measures on freedom of movement and we can leverage them into a more formal quota system within the EEA framework. That would be a strong start to immigration reform. This would be sufficient if we use the opportunity to also tackle non-EU immigration issues. We will still need a fairly high turnover of EU people and we do not want to close down opportunities for UK citizens living in the EU. One thing the UK does not want to do is cut its nose off to spite its face. Full control is neither necessary or desirable and the advantages are slender.

There is every reason to believe the EU would be amenable to EEA membership. Firstly a messy Brexit is damaging to the EU economy as a whole. Secondly, as discussed, a bespoke system is time consuming and will require ongoing use of diplomatic runtime for the next decade. Using that which is already in place requires only a marginal increase in resource. The alternatives to the EU require a gargantuan commitment of intellectual resources right about the time the EU needs to be directing its trade expertise elsewhere. Not least with the alleged imminent failure of TTIP and CETA.

The EU can either concede on Freedom of Movement for the sake of a cost effective Brexit or we can create risks and complications that serve nobody. There is no reason why we should accept freedom of movement as an EU red line since every other member wants similar concessions and at some point in the future the EU, if it wants to survive, it will have to bend to this dynamic. Nobody is happy with freedom of movement as it stands and a refusal to reform it is more likely to see others moving toward exit than any special concession for the UK.

When looking at the available options it would appear that the EEA is the instrument most people can live with. Scotland will want full single market participation and so will the forty eight per cent of the UK who voted to remain. There simply isn't a large enough majority for the hardline Brexit proposed by eurosceptic Tories. It would not bring the benefits they believe it does and a hard Brexit would be considered one of the greatest unforced political errors of all time. By the same token, attempting a bespoke agreement would be considered a curiously pointless waste of energy.

From the beginning The Leave Alliance has maintained that Brexit is a process, not an event. The EEA is far from ideal but in the very first instance it does return control over some crucial areas of policy which gives us enough to be getting on with. The structure of the agreement means that we can revisit the process at our leisure and provides the least disruption for the EU and the UK which is ultimately what the markets want too. There is no value in attempting to appease the unappeasable by pursuing a hard Brexit because it will not deliver in its promises. Tory fantasies of "free trade" are for the birds. Nowhere in the real world does this exist.

It is to our great bemusement that there is such an irrational phobia of the EEA. It is is the most pragmatic, most flexible means of leaving the EU and it is not set in stone even after the fact. The often repeated canard that Norway has no influence is demonstrably untrue, as is the assertion that the EEA means accepting full EU freedom of movement. It is our view that those who persist in repeating these mantras do so for less than honest reasons.


The EEA may indeed be a best default position. My point is that we are now entering the most important bargaining of our countries recent history and it is absolutely essential that we have a plan for complete independence when having discussions.
It may or may not look attractive but to not have it leaves us completely open to a right royal shafting. I fear a sh!t compromise more than anything.
 
More to the point, why add the complication to something which need not be complex? Effectively the EEA serves as a Brexit safe space with no cliff edges where the process of exit happens at a pace that doesn't disturb business.

EEA interim option is like having the stabilisers on the bike through this learning stage for our government, we have lost our trading instinct - which is a consequence of EU membership. To our eternal shame. Now we correct that.

This is all just talk, and presumes (incorrectly) that exiting the EU and simultaneously remaining a member of the EEA is relatively straightforward or indeed legally possible.

Putting it politely, those dudes at leave alliance are smoking crack.
 

RobFZS

Member
This is all just talk, and presumes (incorrectly) that exiting the EU and simultaneously remaining a member of the EEA is relatively straightforward or indeed legally possible.

Putting it politely, those dudes at leave alliance are smoking crack.

But what do you suggest? going on to WTO rules, where we pay massive tariffs and practically impossible to sell in to the eu market because we have no regulatory system in place that is equivalent to the eu that can be put in place within 2 years?

A bilateral deal such as what the swiss have that would take alot longer than 2 years to negotiate every single sector etc, it has never happened before and it won't happen, the whole reason we're leaving the eu is because they're crap at this sort of thing, the whole idea of the interim option is to still be able to trade in the single market, with all the equivalent regulatory systems in place, while being able to negotiate our own deals outside of the eu, as for legality, the whole idea of leaving the eu itself is supposedly illegal from some you talk to, but it will get dealt with.
 
Last edited:

But what do you suggest? going on to WTO rules, where we pay massive tariffs and practically impossible to sell in to the eu market because we have no regulatory system in place that is equivalent to the eu that can be put in place within 2 years?

A bilateral deal such as what the swiss have that would take alot longer than 2 years to negotiate every single sector etc, it has never happened before and it won't happen, the whole reason we're leaving the eu is because they're crap at this sort of thing, the whole idea of the interim option is to still be able to trade in the single market, with all the equivalent regulatory systems in place, while being able to negotiate our own deals outside of the eu, as for legality, the whole idea of leaving the eu itself is supposedly illegal from some you talk to, but it will get dealt with.

Yes if we want to remain part of the EEA, then we would be required to negotiate and effectively re-join as non-EU EEA state like Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. After leaving the EU, we would not simply by default stay in the EEA. This in a nutshell is the conundrum, as summarised by a legal pal:

The UK is a signatory of the EEA Agreement and is one of the 31 Contracting Parties of the EEA Agreement, together with the EU Member States and three of the EFTA States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

- Article 126 of the EEA Agreement specifies the Agreement applies to the territories of the European Union and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.

- Article 127 of the EEA Agreement sets the conditions in which a state can withdraw from the Agreement: "Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months' notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties."

- Article 128 of the EEA Agreement specifies that when a State becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EAA Agreement.

In theory, upon Brexit, unless the UK formally withdrew from the EEA Agreement, the UK would still be a Contracting Party of the EEA Agreement. This would lead to an unprecedented situation in which the UK would continue to be a party to an agreement that would no longer be applicable to the UK, as UK would no longer be a part of the EU.

So if the desired position is to move to the EEA as an 'interim' solution, or even a permanent solution, the UK effectively becoming a non-EU EEA state (like Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland), then that in itself will require negotiation (with the other 31 Contracting Parties), with the result that there would need to be mechanisms in place to ensure that the relevant EU legislation, that is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, applies to the UK as well.

The current expectation from EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Secretariat (bodies governing the EEA Agreement) is that the UK will serve a notice at a relevant time, in order to withdraw from the EEA at the same time as it withdraws from the EU.

According to Article 56 of the EFTA Convention, in order for the UK to re-join the EEA, the UK would first need to apply to become a member of EFTA (to which other EFTA States need to agree) and reapply to become a member of the EEA, subject to the agreement of all EEA contracting parties, following the procedure descried in Article 128 of the EEA Agreement.
 

RobFZS

Member
Yes if we want to remain part of the EEA, then we would be required to negotiate and effectively re-join as non-EU EEA state like Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. After leaving the EU, we would not simply by default stay in the EEA. This in a nutshell is the conundrum, as summarised by a legal pal:

The UK is a signatory of the EEA Agreement and is one of the 31 Contracting Parties of the EEA Agreement, together with the EU Member States and three of the EFTA States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

- Article 126 of the EEA Agreement specifies the Agreement applies to the territories of the European Union and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.

- Article 127 of the EEA Agreement sets the conditions in which a state can withdraw from the Agreement: "Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months' notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties."

- Article 128 of the EEA Agreement specifies that when a State becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EAA Agreement.

In theory, upon Brexit, unless the UK formally withdrew from the EEA Agreement, the UK would still be a Contracting Party of the EEA Agreement. This would lead to an unprecedented situation in which the UK would continue to be a party to an agreement that would no longer be applicable to the UK, as UK would no longer be a part of the EU.

So if the desired position is to move to the EEA as an 'interim' solution, or even a permanent solution, the UK effectively becoming a non-EU EEA state (like Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland), then that in itself will require negotiation (with the other 31 Contracting Parties), with the result that there would need to be mechanisms in place to ensure that the relevant EU legislation, that is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, applies to the UK as well.

The current expectation from EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Secretariat (bodies governing the EEA Agreement) is that the UK will serve a notice at a relevant time, in order to withdraw from the EEA at the same time as it withdraws from the EU.

According to Article 56 of the EFTA Convention, in order for the UK to re-join the EEA, the UK would first need to apply to become a member of EFTA (to which other EFTA States need to agree) and reapply to become a member of the EEA, subject to the agreement of all EEA contracting parties, following the procedure descried in Article 128 of the EEA Agreement.
Other than copy pasta, whats the issue? Flexit covers this with shadow EEA etc

Alternatives to the "Norway option" There is a possibility, though, that an Efta member could veto British accession, blocking the direct participation in the EEA. In response, Britain could retain the EEA component of the acquis, including the four freedoms, allowing it to adopt a "shadow EEA" without formally subscribing to the agreement.136 Perforce, it would not then benefit from Efta's consultation arrangements, so provision would have to be made for bilateral consultations on new legislation. This arrangement would affectively amount to a agreement to adopt the entire Single Market acquis, shadowing the EEA in all respects, without being a formal party to the agreement. The UK would adopt dynamic mechanisms for the incorporation of new laws, so that there would be no divergence once the arrangement was in place.

In practice, one might expect joint EU/UK committees, to progress consultation and harmonise administration, and also to facilitate agreement of common positions, where appropriate. This then leaves the way open for a later reapplication to join Efta, as there is no bar to the UK making multiple attempts to become an Efta member, after an initial veto.

The Australian process If, for whatever reason the "shadow EEA" option is deemed unacceptable, there is a further option, adopting the process used by the Australian government in 1997 to secure a trade agreement with the European Union. This had two main elements: a joint declaration on EU-Australian relations and, two years later, a Mutual Recognition Agreement on conformity assessment. 137,138 Resort to a political declaration rather than a binding agreement gives more flexibility, but it is anchored by the MRA, which is a formal treaty. The scope exists for the UK to do likewise, making a commitment, by way of the declaration, to continued regulatory harmonisation. This full commitment would be akin to the shadow EEA agreement, only made unilaterally and without the biding effect of a treaty. It would not need assent from EU member states, while the MRA would come within the competence of the EU and would not need Member State ratification. With it agreed, the UK would then be in a very strong position to insist on access to the EU Member State markets, invoking WTO non-discrimination rules. Completing the process, the UK would then negotiate an agreement on tariffs plus a series of bilateral agreements on programme participation. Collectively, these agreements and declarations would give a rough equivalence to the EEA Agreement. Carried out under the aegis of Article 50, the negotiations would be given a formal framework. As long as the UK did not seek access to Member State markets on better terms than were available to a full member, there would seem to be no serious obstacles to concluding the exit settlement

.

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf
 
Last edited:

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.2%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top