Squirrel away a little IT budget for likely Brexit uncertainty, CIOs warned IT departments should stash away some of their budgets to cope with the likely disruption caused by Brexit - the UK is scheduled to shift to a new trading agreement with the EU and further afield by the end of 2020. With MPs giving their final backing to the Withdrawal Agreement Bill last week, Britain's formal departure from …
While this is good advice, it is difficult to plan for what's going to have to be done - beyond working out which systems are involved with what will soon be cross-border trade. I bet a lot of those systems are bought in which means you're dependent on others anyway.
So (1) you probably need more than 'a little' and (2) until there's some documents that are reasonably certain to be signed off, nobody knows what will have to be done... so go with worst case scenario (no deal, gulp) and budget and plan for that.
Oh, and hope like hell that Boris proves to be more capable that he's displayed himself to be so far, the lazy *#$@&&. I'm not holding my breath.
Boris certainly seems to have set it up for Northern Ireland to head that way, and there's a lot of support for the same move in Scotland.
Ah, the glorious Conservative and Unionist Party. How long will it be before they're obliged to change their name or amend the Trade Descriptions Act?
"Northumbria independence is next.
Tek bak control, sithee"
I had a bit of a double take there, wondering why a Yorkshireman would be interested in Northumbria before I remembered those southerners down Yorkshire way are part of the Ancient Kingdom of Northumbria. As is Edinburgh of course, which will help put paid to the West Lothian Question once and for all.
If you drive your car into a brick wall after we've warned you your bumper could come off a bit dented doesnt mean we're hoping your bumper will get dented. We were hoping you weren't going to be so stupid.
Is a bloody forlorn hope but it was never a dream.
@Tom 7
"If you drive your car into a brick wall after we've warned you your bumper could come off a bit dented doesnt mean we're hoping your bumper will get dented. We were hoping you weren't going to be so stupid."
However its no help if there isnt a problem yet your clinging to the door handle crying and screaming we are all gonna die.
If you drive your car at a wall with your eyes closed, and fingers in your ears chanting "la la la there is no wall," you're welcome to do so.
If you do so with passengers in the car, and survive, you will be going either to prison, or a secure mental health unit for a very long time.
will also surely help Northern Ireland to stay in the UK. - The Brexiters are going to maintain the UK by kicking all the foreigners out, the Scottish, the Irish and eventually even the Welsh will be windrushed out - then we will finally, in their minds, be a ununited kingdom, just like we were before the Romans invaded 1997 years ago and started making everyone eat pizza and brussels sprouts.
BrexitersBorders, you gotta learn to love them.
The majority of Scots voted in favour of independence at the last referendum.
The vote was only won because the vast majority of English people living in Scotland voted for Scotland to remain as part of the UK.
If the vote was restricted to Scottish people, Scotland would have already left the UK.
Source : Scottish Referendum Study by the University of Edinburgh.
>> what "Brexit means Brexit" means
As an observer from the US I'm fascinated by the whole Brexit thing.
Has seemed an emotional issue more than anything else. Where people speak, it sound like they explain how they feel, but never express exactly why they feel that way.
I'd be surprised if it gets any more clear cut after all has been said & done.
Obviously should stash some cash away to make it through the (hopefully for you, a short) period where a massive amount of money and effort will be required to handle the changes. Obviously your politicians will proclaim success at some point... you know, because "we did it". I wonder how you will ever measure your gains/losses though. This really reminds me of some IT platform migrations I've been involved with. The kind of projects where I've been relieved when it was over but... I really can't tell you why we bothered, how much it really cost or how things are really better/worse than before we started. Where my gut tells me before and after is about six or half a dozen.
Anyway, I wish good luck with Brexit in the new year to all my cousins in Britain and Europe.
We''ll need some good fortune in the US too. As we have plenty of our own issues to work through in the coming year.
>As an observer from the US
As an Aussie in Aus who spent 20yrs living and working in the UK & across EU:
>the whole Brexit thing Has seemed an emotional issue more than anything else.
...is an understatement.
Interestingly, the vast bulk of public stridency comes from one side, and interestingly that side seems to focus strictly on narrative or symbolic ideals rather than what's actually there. And what's actually there typically is a pig with lipstick. If you're a largescale finance person, for example, THIS (Target2) will finally locate for you where the missing backside of one major moneyflow is going -- it's essentially in a "let's pretend" pile pushed under the carpet.
But weirdly, not ONE person has ever raised any of the jaw-dropping big-picture WTFs that for me by themselves would say Get Out Now! For example: Democracy.
Now, you're a yank, right? You guys are typically hot on the idea of Democracy, right? And you know what a Parliament is, right? Congress is one, for example. Core democratic legislative authority. Representatives voted-in to create legislation. Representative Democracy. Right?
Have a read of this official EU FAQ (only 6 paras): What are the European Parliament’s powers and legislative procedures? , in particular the last 3 paragraphs. It DOES match my (painful) reading of the Treaties but is VERY obfuscatorily written, in highly elliptical fashion (eg, "Implementing[-type] Acts" means all actual/normal legislation, the other type are just the minor tweakings). You'll know you're getting it if you're thinking bewilderedly "no, wait, that can't be right, I must have misunderstood, I'd better read that again."
Once you grok it, you'll be gobsmacked.
A return to absolute monarchy (all executive & legislative authority in one unelected group) (with 2 court jester groups). But with the royal class shifted, from accident-of-birth, to being strictly restricted to the laziest and most parasitic yet arrogant subset of society: voluntary civil servants.For the Brits: it's "Yes, Minister" without the ministers -- Humphrey took over.
For everyone else: democracy formally cancelled, ALL previously-separated powers now rest in career civil servants, court-jesters created who get to wear an important-looking hat and nominate just how much money to spend on themselves (E1.5bn/yr atm)
But that's just prima facie.
That's not what's really hair-raising.
Take a step back and think about the wider/longer picture.
The big WTFs are NOT accidental.
Here, the terms "parliament" and "council" are not accidental or mistakes. Those words were deliberately chosen to label those bodies. In order to imply a function. Which they don't actually have in real life. That's deliberate cover-up of the true structure --in fact, implying actually the opposite structure-- by referencing narrative tropes and standard symbols, and relying on people trusting and/or not having time to dig into the reality. Bread & Potemkin Circuses, Part II.
The mens rea is chilling. As is the contempt for the lesser folk, not just implied but demonstrated.
Big problem: What could that evolve into in future?
What slow businesses are left (okay, IBM excepted) ? Is he talking about Fortune 500 behemoths ? They're all Agile (TM) now, aren't they ?
Because I don't think that your local garage manager can do much planning where Brexit is concerned. Either his suppliers will continue to supply him, or he'll have to find new ones.
Most giants of any sort are still "slow", Agile™ or not. Tesco, Barcs, whoever - they always have legacy garbage fires smouldering away somewhere that make any change a long string of "but what about X?" questions that take time and money to answer.
If you're lucky, those questions happen in planning rather than halfway through implementation.
@Just Enough
"You're forgetting that Brexit policy is fundamentally about returning to 1935 and the return of the Empire"
I hear this from remainers who obviously want to be part of the EU empire in an institution designed around the cold war.
"randomly shaped bananas"
I never have found why the EU had such a problem with bananas. For the most part I had to explain to some remainers such laws were real because they didnt think the EU would be so stupid.
"This is just reverse gear being engaged. All going to plan, we'll hit 2018 by March."
Economically the EU is stifling the global recovery. Are you sure they are at 2018 yet?
I hear this from remainers who obviously want to be part of the EU empire in an institution designed around the cold war.
Centuries of Eurpiean conflict are "the cold war now"? Mmmmmkay...
Would've thought you'd have given up with the historical revisionism by now, but I suppose you can't fix zealotry...
@Loyal Commenter
"enturies of Eurpiean conflict are "the cold war now"? Mmmmmkay..."
Eh? Think you have read that very wrong.
"Would've thought you'd have given up with the historical revisionism by now, but I suppose you can't fix zealotry..."
You do seem to prove your statement
Let me clarify for the hard of thinking - you suggested the EU was formed in response to the cold war, whereas all the evidence suggest that it was formed as a way of promoting peace between nations that had, for centuries, been at war with each other for a greater amount of time than not, largely as a response to the Second World War.
Just because some of the institutions of the EU, at the time, may have been focused on the issue of the cold war, doesn't suggest that this was, or is in any way the purpose of the EU. The problems posed by the cold war haven't entirely gone away just yet in any case, such as US, Russian, and Chinese adventurism, and proxy wars. During the cold war, we had the Korean and Vietnam wars, these days we have the various conflicts in the Middle East that the same players have a hand in. It's just the UK is declining in relevance.
@Loyal Commenter
"Let me clarify for the hard of thinking - you suggested the EU was formed in response to the cold war"
Ah I see the mistake. No that is not what I ment (but I see how you got there). The EU is designed around an old world of high trade tariffs and hiding within trade blocks. The world has moved on since then and tariffs have fallen and globalisation and trade has taken off.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Fortunately the UK is blazing a trail and has broken free... ah, independence.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/boris-johnson-uk-us-trade-deal-under-threat-unless-iran-stance-changes-says-trump-ally
So this is how this great new independence is going to manifest itself. Donald Trump's crazy right wing loons shout commands, and the UK has to follow slavishly, or lose its magic trade deal.
The UK had a seat at the table at the EU.
It's exchanged this for a wet patch of carpet just under Donald Trump's desk, where it'll have to do whatever he demands when he unzips his pants, or the trade deal isn't going to happen.
So glad I left years ago.
Oh come on, brexit will not just be about the UK getting corn-holed by all comers.
There's blue passports, a shiny new 50p piece and bent bananas for everyone!
And Big Ben bongs. (Don't forget the bells!!!)
All together now... ”Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves! Britons never, ever, ever shall be wage-slaves. "
@NerryTutkins
"It's exchanged this for a wet patch of carpet just under Donald Trump's desk, where it'll have to do whatever he demands when he unzips his pants, or the trade deal isn't going to happen."
And there goes that anti-foreigner, the world is out to get me, hide behind the EU spirit.
An interesting problem with the EU is its high tariffs, restrictive quotas and regulation but requires trade deals to survive. So while trade deals are beneficial they are not the be all end all, that ability to turn them down if it is undesirable (as was the excuse for the EU losing the US deal).
High tariffs? The EU has done some blockbuster trade deals, such as the one with Japan which will virtually eliminate tariffs.
It's not a case of hiding behind the EU. It's simply that the UK, with some 60 million people, is simply not big enough to have clout negotiating its own deals. Collective bargaining as the EU, has given European countries enormous clout that they would simply not have on their own.
The EU never forced the UK to adopt any particular foreign policy with respect to Iran or any other country. Such positions were agreed collectively by the EU. The UK's access to the single market, and hence borderless access to a market accounting for half our trade was never restricted or even threatened based on the UK's foreign policy positions.
Now we see that the UK is not only going to have to bend over and part its cheeks economically for the US, it is going to have to follow whatever foreign and domestic policy goals the US demands.
The UK is going to find out just how much protection it got as a member of the EU, and just how much it is going to have to whore itself out after brexit. Nothing will be off the table, not the NHS, not the UK's 5G providers, or foreign policy.
Brexitters never cared about the UK becoming a 'vassal state'. Indeed, for the right wing loons who pushed this, their wet dream was being a vassal state of the USA.
@NerryTutkins
"High tariffs? The EU has done some blockbuster trade deals, such as the one with Japan which will virtually eliminate tariffs."
That is kinda my point. They have high tariffs, that is their starting position of restriction and protectionism of 28 countries industries. Their requirement then being to set up trade deals to survive.
"It's simply that the UK, with some 60 million people, is simply not big enough to have clout negotiating its own deals"
That really doesnt stand very well. How can Japan function and why the hell would the EU be interested in so a small place with no clout? Except they do. Same with all the various non-EU countries. First the EU is bogged down with 28 countries of industry to protect and competing interests. Second the EU clout did nothing for the US deal nor China and took 7 years to sort out a deal with Canada!
"The EU never forced the UK to adopt any particular foreign policy with respect to Iran or any other country. Such positions were agreed collectively by the EU."
I didnt comment on that but I dont disagree.
"The UK's access to the single market, and hence borderless access to a market accounting for half our trade was never restricted or even threatened based on the UK's foreign policy positions."
Ok. So? The EU isnt really important on a global scale for policy. When they upset another country they run to the US to sort it out. However an EU president made a speech over how the EU needs to speak with one voice on foreign policy and not be silenced by some members not agreeing with the others-
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-speech_en_0.pdf
Last but not least, by Sibiu I want to make visible progress in strengthening our foreign policy. We must improve our ability to speak with one voice when it comes to our foreign policy.It is not right that our Union silenced itself at the United Nations Human Rights Council when it came to condemning human rights abuses by China. And this because not all Member States could agree. It is not right that one Member State was able to hold the renewal of our arms embargo on Belarus to ransom, or that sanctions on Venezuela were delayed for months when unanimity could not be reached.This is why today the Commission is proposing to move to qualified majority voting in specific areas of our external relations. I repeat what I said last year on this matter. We should move to qualified majority voting not in all but in specific areas: human rights issues and civilian missions included. This is possible on the basis of the current Treaties and I believe the time has come to make use of this "lost treasure" of the Lisbon Treaty.I also think we should be able to decide on certain tax matters by qualified majority.
"Now we see that the UK is not only going to have to bend over and part its cheeks economically for the US, it is going to have to follow whatever foreign and domestic policy goals the US demands."
Why? We are not joining the USA and we are leaving the USE. The EU being the one desiring an army and more central control on top of what it already has.
"The UK is going to find out just how much protection it got as a member of the EU, and just how much it is going to have to whore itself out after brexit. Nothing will be off the table, not the NHS, not the UK's 5G providers, or foreign policy."
Cute scaremongering but again nothing of fact there. Just blind panic.
"Brexitters never cared about the UK becoming a 'vassal state'. Indeed, for the right wing loons who pushed this, their wet dream was being a vassal state of the USA."
Again the anti-foreigner argument.
For the most part I had to explain to some remainers have consistenly failed to demonstrate that any such laws were real
FTFY, no charge.
As I'm sure you are well aware, but yet still continue to wilfully misrepresent, the EU regulations that govern such things are based around people passing off "grade B" fruit and veg as "grade A". The example given is that a "misshapen" banana might not be marketable as "grade A", as such a deformity in the fruit might be a signifier of disease or pest infestation. The regs don't stop you selling "grade B" produce, they just prevent it being disingenuously marketed as something it is not, and prevent produce that doesn't meet minimum standards being sold (like chlorine-washed chicken, or hormone-fed beef).
The obvious counter-examples to cries of "the EU stops us selling straight / bent bananas", or "the EU say how bendy our bananas must be", etc. is the evidence of what one can buy in the supermarket or greengrocers, and the lack of any complaint from banana growers that their produce is being rejected by EU sellers for being too straight/bendy/whaetver. You know, what we might otherwise call "actual evidence".
You didn't reply the last time I called you out on this, or indeed the time before. I really would genuinely like you to provide details of your "bananas" claim, along with evidence (such as a link to the relevant EU regulation, all of which are conveniently available on the public internet, and the implemeting bill in UK law).
Otherwise, give it a rest with the lies, would you? You always seem to have previously claimed to have "proved" things. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you couldn't prove bread.
@Loyal Commenter
"FTFY, no charge."
I wouldnt pay for you to get it wrong.
"As I'm sure you are well aware"
So according to your fix (where you are wrong) you seem to imply the law doesnt exist. Then spend a lot of words explaining how you are wrong and the law does exist.
"and prevent produce that doesn't meet minimum standards being sold (like chlorine-washed chicken, or hormone-fed beef)."
Minimum standards of what? Not food standards as chlorinated chicken has been cleared by US and European food agencies as safe.
"You didn't reply the last time I called you out on this, or indeed the time before."
Either I didnt see your bull statement or you are lying. I have torn the chlorinated chicken argument consistently, and the banana law (that you have just been stating is true!). But for you here you go again (and probably again)-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/12/to-properly-explain-the-eus-bendy-bananas-rules-yes-theyre-real/
That link not only explains the law but links to it and quotes it. So after incorrectly changing my comment while claiming to fix it, then explaining to me that you are wrong you now also have a link I have posted regularly to people claiming the law doesnt exist. Are you going to continue with your mistake or do you finally realise you are wrong?
Tim Worstall writing an article on Forbes is not primary evidence. Try again.
Please:
1) State your claim clearly (i.e. what about bananas does the EU not allow)
2) State what you disagree with.
3) provide PRIMARY evidence that your claim is real - i.e. a link to the relevant legislation, not an opinion piece by a journalist that most people would acknowledge is highly biased.
@Loyal Commenter
"Tim Worstall writing an article on Forbes is not primary evidence. Try again."
Oh wow. No wonder you dont see any evidence, even when I hand it to you you dont see it! Read the article. Read the quoted law. Read the freaking link to the law. Its not hard. If you cant do it ask a child to help.
Once you read the evidence, the actual EU law, then come back and explain yourself.
"Oh wow"
In that very article, quoting from the regulation:
Commission regulation 2257/94 decreed that bananas in general should be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature”. Those sold as “extra class” must be perfect, “class 1” can have “slight defects of shape” and “class 2” can have full-scale “defects of shape.”
The fact that Worstall then goes on to contradict himself twice in the space of two paragraphs just indicates what a terrible journalist he is.
What is your actual problem with this regulation though? Do you bemoan the fact that sellers can't sell wonky bananas as "class 1"? They can still sell them as "class 2", nobody would (or does) care. They aren't prevented from selling them. The fact that you don't often see such fruit for sale is simply because people wouldn't buy them. Do you go into the greengrocer's or supermarket and deliberately pick up the small, mis-shapen, or over-ripe produce? (that's rhetorical by the way). Supermarkets have a problem with such unsold produce, and it has nothing to do with EU rules on classification, it's because people pick up the bunch of perfect-looking bananas, not the bruised or over-ripe ones. That's why they're the ones left when the others have been sold.
The article doesn't actually "prove" anything, other than the fact that Worstall is a journalist who likes to write anti-EU articles.
Again, actual claims, and primary evidence please.
Thank you for now reading the evidence you asked for. But before you move the goal posts can you now admit the law exists. The law you were trying to claim didnt exist.
This isn't evidence. FYI, I've read it beofre, and it hasn't changed since. I've also read the entire regualtion before, which Worstall selectively quotes from. My first post describes, accurately, what the regulation (not law) contains (technically, the 'law' would be the enabling act which brings that regulation into UK law).
Again, what is the actual problem with this regulation? That it exists is not in doubt, the claims that it is somehow "bad" are. Your claims. Your claims whicha re not well defined.
To put it perfectly clearly: WHAT IS YOUR ISSUE?
Is it that you don't think goods should be regulated in any way? In which case, I'm sure you look forward to the return of Victorian era boiled sweets containing lead and arsenic.
Is it that the regulation is somehow "unfair" to the UK? Does it prevent us from doing anything we otherwise would have been reasonably allowed to do? I don't think it does.
Is you problem not that the regulation is reasonable, and proportionate, but that it was drafted by "foreigners"? If this is the case then I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull out a large card marked "racist" and wave it at you, because such "forrriners bad, engerlish good" reasoning fails under the mildest of scrutiny.
Or is it some other issue? Please, enlighten me.
Or, finally, perhaps, just perhaps, you don't have any logical argument here at all, and you should concede that a regulation about the correct grading and labelling of agricultural produce (it's not about bananas specifically at all, just happens to mention bananas in the explanatory notes which don't form part of the regulation but are merely an elucidatory and hypothetical example, which you would be well aware of if you had read and understood the regulation) is actually a reasonable thing to have, when you're trying to ease friction in international trade amongst EU member nations.
@Loyal Commenter
"This isn't evidence"
If the link to the regulation itself isnt enough then what is? You might think it a pedantic point that I want you to acknowledge the laws existence but you started this by claiming it didnt exist. So you are wrong.
I have no issue with someone being wrong unless they cannot accept it, then it becomes a problem when trying to discuss issues because you obviously cannot accept fact.
To make this perfectly clear; I haven't at any point denied the existence of the regulation in question (I was actually the first to mention it in this particular dialogue). You might like to refrain from making claims that can be easliy disproved by reading the thread the occur in.
My claims are twofold:
1) You haven't actually said what your problem with a regulation around classifying foodstuffs by their quality is. Do you really have an issue with knowing that an apple bought in Spain or Lithuania has the same minimum standards* set as one bought in the UK, or do you honestly believe that we should be able to pass off shittier produce in this country than anywhere else in Europe? Of course, if you don't actually have a problem with the regulation in question, then your entire argument seems to be that you have demonstrated the existence of an EU regulation (via an opinion piece written by a journalist with an axe to grind), that it is somehow bad that it exists in the first place, and that therefore the EU is undesirable. There are two glaring nonsequiturs in that particular line of thinking.
2) It is a regulation, not a law. This might seem a trivial technical point, but it signifies what is probably quite a deliberate misrepresenation of how EU regulations work, and how their content is brought into domestic law.
I might further add that, at the time, nobody (including UK MEPs) had any problem with the regulation in question, and the UK voted for it.
*The minimum standard of course, applies to only which apples can be labelled as "Class A", and which as "Class B". It doesn't specifically prevent the sale of produce based on shape or size.
@Loyal Commenter
I quote you causing this thread-
"For the most part I had to explain to some remainers have consistenly failed to demonstrate that any such laws were real
FTFY, no charge."
And now-
"To make this perfectly clear; I haven't at any point denied the existence of the regulation in question"
You need to reconcile the above.
"(I was actually the first to mention it in this particular dialogue). You might like to refrain from making claims that can be easliy disproved by reading the thread the occur in."
You started this dialogue by changing my comment to be mistaken, to be wrong. You now seem to be revising recent history of just our conversation. All you had to do was admit you were wrong and we could have had a conversation about the issues etc, but instead it is a thread of you denying what you wrote and trying to change the subject.
And, in the post that I was replying to:
"randomly shaped bananas" I never have found why the EU had such a problem with bananas.
You haven't demonstrated that the EU has a problem with "randomly shaped" bananas. On the contrary, what the discussion in this thread has shown, is that there was a problem with various countries having the same standards around what is considered high-quality produce, so they harmonised them. Hardly "a problem" is it? And you havent' demonstrated that there is a law here that causes a problem, only that there is a sensible regulation (big wow) about classification.
As with most claims by brexiters, they start off sounding important and alarming, but when you peel away the onion-like layers of rhetoric, selective quoting, and misdirection, there's nothing in the core.
@Loyal Commenter
"And, in the post that I was replying to:"
Then you replied to the wrong person. Just Enough wrote that. I said I didnt understand why the EU had a problem with bananas. I hold that opinion because the EU supranational government wrote it into law.
However you are lying since this discussion has been about you rewriting my comment saying I never proved such a law exists and after being given the proof you flit between moving goalposts and claiming you never said that. You seem to refuse to admit you were wrong even after I pointed out all I wanted was you to correct your mistake (admit you were wrong) and we can move on.
You and others might be wondering why I am bothering to hammer this point of admitting mistakes so I will explain. The brexit debate often ends up with people calling each other liers, and brexiters particularly get accused. Not only do I keep correcting the same mistakes by remainers but its the same people restating what has been proven a lie over and over. I even have a troll over the brexit discussion. If you cannot accept your mistake and be able to move on with your new knowledge then you are intentionally misinforming people. Just because the law exists doesnt stop us from debating its relevance, but your outright refusal to admit a mistake shows that evidence and fact has little to do with your opinion.
Remain or leave you should at least be capable of this simple adult trait (apologies to any too young to possess such a trait yet). Informed opinions dont need to have the same conclusion, but if you cannot agree to the basic facts especially when provided evidence then all you have is ignorance.
I said I didnt understand why the EU had a problem with bananas.
Indeed, and you haven't demonstrated what problem (extra emphasis here to make sure the bit I am referring to is absolutely clear) you think the EU has with bananas (hint: reasonable regs about classification aren't in most people's midns a "problem"), you just claim that the EU has a problem. The evidence seems to indicate that no "problem" exists, other than, for some reason, your dislike fo the mere existence of this regulation (which, once again, I have never claimed does not exist)
If you'd like to keep the goalposts still for a moment, please, please please, just tell us what the problem is, or concede that there isn't one, and give the whole banana thing a rest.
Finally, a footnote on sources:
For those who are unaware of what is meant by a "primary source", here is a handy guide that it took me literally a few seconds to find on the internet. In this context, the text of a regulation is the primary source, and an interpretive op-ed piece by an journalist is a secondary source. The first is a fact, the second is an opinion. When it comes to the likes of Tim Worstall, those opinions need to be taken with a pinch of salt, since they are often at odds with what people with a more expert understanding of the subject matter (such as those who draft the regulations, or those tasked with interpreting them, drafting them into domestic law, etc.).
@Codejunky likes to quote secondary sources as if they are facts. He likes sources from people such as Worstall, and that outsider economist in Cardiff whose name currently eludes me. When looking at secondary sources, it is best practice to draw from as many as possible, and see what the consensus is, rather than cherry-picking those which confirm your own views. This is something everyone should do, as it is very easy to unconsciously fall into the trap of self-reinforcing bias, and oddly enough something that some prominent brexiters and right-wingers would rather you didn't do (such as Gove telling us we've "had enough of experts").
@Loyal Commenter
"@Codejunky likes to quote secondary sources as if they are facts."
Cute grandstanding but still you dont admit you were wrong? The article of Worstall's also linked the source document you wanted (as I clearly stated when I referred you to it).
Again you refuse to admit your mistake which is now a lie as you are aware you are wrong and just want to change the topic. I wont discuss this thread with you any further, I know you wont change your opinion. But you have demonstrated it isnt worth discussing with you on a factual basis.
Cute grandstanding but still you dont admit you were wrong? The article of Worstall's also linked the source document you wanted (as I clearly stated when I referred you to it).
Once again, I haven't disputed that a) Worstall quoted the link, or b) the document doexn't exist.
What I am disputing is the claim that there is something wrong with the reguilation in question. It's an imprtant point, because it is something ardent brexiters like yourself like to use to "demonstrate" that the EU is somehow preventing us from selling bananas we would otherwise be allowed to sell.
That trade harmonisation exists within the EU is not in doubt. I fail to see, however, why this is "bad", or "interference", especially when you consider that the regulation in question was put in place to ovecome problems that existed due to multiple incompatible standards (in other words, to make it easier to sell bananas)
By quoting the Worstall article, you are also implying that his claims are the same as yours. He makes a number of claims in the article, some of which are contradictory, and others which are obvious nonsense (such as people being imprisoned over selling non-standard bananas). As someone who has a passing familiarity with his articles, I am aware of how much cherry-picking and leaping-to-conclusions he does. If you are relying on his articles as evidence of something, you would be well advised to take them with a pinch of salt, and to quote the sources instead, free of his rather free-form interpretation.
An example of this (and I'm going from memory here, as it was some years ago, as, incidentally, is the article you quoted), is an anti-AGW article, which quoted from some scientific research measuring the melting of glaciers. The research showed that, overall, glaciers are in retreat worldwide, but that in some cases, due to changes in weather patterns, very few glaciers are gaining area. Worstall selectively quoted the research and claimed that it showed that glaciers are not in retreat, and thus AGW is not real. Not only is Worstall clearly wrong in his conclusions (AGW is obviously real to anyone who bothers to learn about the basics of the science behind it), but he is clearly and deliberately misleading people. This does call into question his motives, and quite clearly also his credibility. As I said, better to quote the primary sources, or make it abundantly clear that you are only referring to that source in the article you did quote, and not the conclusions of the article itself, which are obvious bunk.
Again, though, you are happy to use the "work" of others to insinuate, without making clear claims about what problems you have with the EU regulation in question.
As you say, regulations must be passed into domestic law. In the UK breach of this one carries a penalty of up to 6 months in jail and or a fine of up to £5,000. As with the jams, jellies, marmalades stuff and so on.
And you're specifically missing the point I did make. The problem is not that there are standards. The problem is that the standards become law.
Industry standards are industry standards, criminal law* is criminal law, the two are not the same and shouldn't be.
Which is actually the base complaint about the EU regulatory system. It's mixing those two things which should not be mixed.
*Yes, it's criminal, not civil, because you can't go to jail for civil things.
"As you say, regulations must be passed into domestic law."
WRONG. Regulations are directly acting on Member States, as those in my own industry know well (and relish because they provide certainty, and by preventing the sort of local differences that can add prohibitive costs to doing business in countries that use that technique to favour home suppliers).
'Directives' do have to be transposed into National Law.
For the hard of thinking the clue is in the name.
Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 makes it absolutely clear:
"This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994R2257:EN:HTML
What sort of economist doesn't know that distinction?
I used to like Worstall's pieces - he was particularly perceptive on the true effect of economic forces in the Rare Earths market (and I still believe his thinking there to have been accurate). But I gave up when I started seeing the the sort of alternative truth implied here..
"Bananas are never advertised in the shops as being Class 1, so obviously nobody cares. "
Well, the fact is that the standards which the large UK supermarkets set for their suppliers are usually tighter than UK/EU legislation. See, for example, https://www.brcgs.com/ And, unlike EU legislation, you don't have any democratic influence on those standards.
Incidentally, since I'm so comfortable on my soapbox, here's some info for anyone complaining about "EU health and safety madness": UK legislation is often stricter than EU legislation (e.g. the boxing ring type fall protection on earth moving equipment is only required in the UK), and UK businesses often impose stricter requirements than UK legislation (e.g. the CSCS safety passport system and use of 110 V equipment on building sites).
One of the sad things is that the UK currently has a lot of input in EN standards. Outside the EU it'll lose that influence, but most equipment will still be made to the same standards. Unless you want to introduce UK-specific standards which is only going to drive up prices due to small volumes - madness.
Nurse, can I have my pills? Yes, the dried frog ones.
"Gold plating" - sometimes yes, but sometimes no.
As alluded to by H in the Hague, on construction H&S for example, the UK's rules seem to be notably tougher (and for the most part better/safer) than the default level in the EU, so the UK applies the EU rules, then tops up what we think is needed (because the EU as an organisation has rejected the UK view and not implemented it throughout the EU).
Our H&S rules are not (generally) gold plated, it's the rest of the EU that is lagging behind.
If I recall correctly, the UK also led the way in banning live animal export, which was generally resisted by some EU partners, so again, not "Gold plating", but actively (and rightly) promoting improvements in animal welfare.
In other fields, I suspect that you are right that there is unnecessary "Gold plating".
> Do you bemoan the fact that sellers can't sell wonky bananas as "class 1"? They can still sell them as "class 2"
You either did NOT read that linked legislation, or you are not capable of keeping things straight in your mind as you read. Based on your various other claims in this thread, at least the latter is very clearly the case.
No, you may NOT sell wonky bananas as Class 2.
The curvature restriction applies to ALL bananas, regardless of other later classification: " A. Minimum requirements
In all classes"
You are coming across as a madman who has trouble reading BUT NEEDS PEOPLE TO TOE THE LINE, rather than a reasoned arguer or a fact-based arguer.
This is the text on class II classification. Note the bit where the words, "are allowed" and "defects of shape" appear. This woudl appear, to the casual obsever, to directly contradict what you have written, woudl it not?
(iii) Class II
This class covers bananas which do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes but satisfy the minimum requirements specified above.
The following defects of the fingers are allowed, provided the bananas retain their essential characteristics as regards quality, keeping quality and presentation:
- defects of shape,
- skin defects due to scraping, rubbing or other causes, provided that the total area affected does not cover more than 4 cm2 of the surface of the finger.
Without resorting to reproducing the full list of "requirements specified above", or arguments about semantics, that list doesn't include "wonky".
It does include " free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers", but also explicitly states "defects of shape" as not preventing sale as class II.
The usual practical interpretation of this is that if you sell bananas as "premium" class or class I, then they should not be "wonky".
The term "abnormal" isn't actually defined in the regulation and is open to interpretation. As far as I know, it has never been invoked. One would reasonably expect that since the regualtion also talks about "defects of shape" as being permissible, then "abnormal" refers to more than this, such as, for example, bananas with large swollen lumps on them, or that curve back on themselves in a spiral - you know, things that would be an obvious sign of abnormality, due to disease or genetic mutation.
This could be considerd in the same way that you wouldn't want pork that is full of tumours entering the food chain, but wouldn't have an issue with pork from a pig with scoliosis (unless you don't eat pork, of course).
I don't think it unreasonable to give the regulation writers the benefit of the doubt here; to attribute intention to ban misshapen fruit is to strecth credibility.
I'll also point out that the one you linked is the version of the regulation that was repealed in 2011, and the updated one is here
The workding hasn't changed significantly in the area in question, so I'll let you off on this one, but it still deosn't practically define what "abnormal" here, so one can reasonably suggest that the requirments go something along the lines of perfect (good)-> slightly imperfect (ok) -> wonky (ok, but sell as class II) -> serious misshapen (probably indicative of disease, unsaleable, probably moot because nobody would buy it anyway).
Something else you might not be aware of, is that all cultivated bananas are propagated vegatively (not from seed), so are essentially clones of a small number of varieties. If you find a banana with a fully formed seed in it, it's actually worth a hell of a lot of money, because genetically identical crops have the issue of being all equally susceptible to disease, and this woudl represent a potential new propagation line.
This is why all the bananas you get in the shops look pretty much the same (apart from changes in size, and ripeness) because, from a biological sense, they all come from the same plant (just one that has been chopped into probably several billion separate bits).
Unlike crops, where there is genetic variation, if you get a banana that looks different it is a fairly good indicator that there is something wrong with it, and that "something wrong" is probably pest infestation, or disease.
"chlorinated chicken has been cleared by US and European food agencies as safe"
Um, no, it very much hasn't.
"Washing chicken in chlorine and other disinfectants to remove harmful bacteria was a practice banned by the European Union (EU) in 1997 over food safety concerns. The ban has stopped virtually all imports of US chicken meat which is generally treated by this process. ... The EU believes that relying on a chlorine rinse at the end of the meat production process could be a way of compensating for poor hygiene standards - such as dirty or crowded abattoirs."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47440562
@mr-slappy
"Um, no, it very much hasn't."
Yes it has-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47440562
in fact in 2005 the European Food Safety Authority said that "exposure to chlorite residues arising from treated poultry carcasses would be of no safety concern". Chlorine-rinsed bagged salads are common in the UK and other countries in the EU.
Amusingly we both cite the same article. That itself links to the report from the food standards agency which concludes no problem too. Also-
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac92/t/59747741bf629a8e3d01a494/1500804930480/Chlorinated+Chicken.pdf
The average adult woman would have to regularly eat more than two and a half chlorinated chickens a day before suffering any noticeable health effects.13 The typical man would have to eat nearly three whole birds each day. That is before “the expected decreases in the levels of these [chlorite] residues after processing, including cooking”, according to the European Commission.
To an extent you are right, but being disingenuous with your statements. Chlorine washed chicken is not in and of itself a health hazard, but the reasons for doing it may well be. ie much of US chicken production is done in poor conditions such that they need to disinfect the chicken carcase to make it safe. It's partly an animal welfare issue, but also a case of unhygienic processing methods. Keeping the process "clean" throughout production is better for our health than relying on a single end-of-process disinfection.
@John Brown (no body)
"To an extent you are right"
I said "chlorinated chicken has been cleared by US and European food agencies as safe" and that is right. So it isnt considered a health issue.
"It's partly an animal welfare issue"
That is the issue, and one with some merit maybe. But that has less grounds considering how animals are treated even in the EU.
"but also a case of unhygienic processing methods"
Which is pretty bunkum. Who cares? If we are to discuss the method then the chlorine wash is part of the cleaning method which makes it safe. Do people not travel to the US? God help anyone going to various countries in the world, they even have varying choices of what animal the meat comes from (horse, dog, cat, rat) its probably best not to ask.
And when I say who cares that is a real question. Some people really do and others dont. That is where people free to choose should be able to decide what they consider acceptable.
"Keeping the process "clean" throughout production is better for our health than relying on a single end-of-process disinfection."
I may need some proof for that. Since both are deemed safe for human consumption is that true?
Well, it doesn't, yet it actually does. The underlying problem is a large one, and Worstall's last line hints at it:
Standards? Sure.
Guidance? Why not?
You go to jail for bendy bananas? [WTF?]
As he points out, blindly slapping existing classification guidelines into force-of-law via copypaste is not a sensible way to run an empire. And blithely changing legal bases for things without being careful, is mad. Power without responsibility. And often without even awareness. Which is where we start stepping into the territory of the real problems of which this banana thing is just an amusing very much secondary result (and hence a furphy).
"WTF" indeed. Worstall (also known for his climate-change denying articles where he selectively quotes pieces of research out of context in an attempt to "deomnstrate" that their conclusions are the opposite of what they actually are) seems to be claiming that people "go to jail [sic] for bendy bananas".
I'd love to see the news reports about this happening. I suspect it hasn't. I could possibly foresee somone being fined for consistently passing off low-grade fruit as higher-grade fruit, but what would be more likely here is that people would just stop buying from that producer. I don't honestly believe anyone is going to be imprisoned for it, unless the fruit they are passing off is dangerous in some way, and someone was harmed by it. Unlikely, to say the least, but also justified.
I never have found why the EU had such a problem with bananas.
Let me help you out there: They didn't. It was fictitious tabloid nonsense.
The EU is indeed guilty of setting up one banana standard to rule them all, but it's not because they have a problem with them. The reason is that traders wanted to trade bananas across the EU and found out they couldn't do it due to differing conflicting banana standards. National governments therefore got to work and came up with a common banana standard and that happily meant trade in bananas became more profitable than it was previously when there were differing conflicting banana standards.
Something even Worstall could be happy about for a moment, if he'd only take that chip off his shoulder about Europe (as should you).
"Economically the EU is stifling the global recovery. Are you sure they are at 2018 yet?"
^ That is just such a load of profoundly nescient and grossly inaccurate Brexit propaganda.
In reality, Brexit has already cost the UK economy £130 billion since the 2016 referendum and there's another £70 billion of economic damage on the way (source = Bloomberg Economics). That also means that the amount of damage that will end up being done to the British economy will be more than the entire sum of all the UK's net contributions to the EU over the past 47 years.
And all of this so that blue British passports come back and so that nationalist Brexit savages can now morris dance down the high street to the tune of "There's always be a Little England".
@TVU
"That is just such a load of profoundly nescient and grossly inaccurate Brexit propaganda."
Interesting view. There isnt any doubt that the EZ reacted poorly to the recession which nearly ended up in deflation. Their lack of action and when they did their failure to act enough inflicted a lot of harm. Even now the picture in the EZ is dire but I will put an example-
https://www.cityam.com/germany-enters-recession-territory-as-eurozone-close-to-stagnation/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-stalling-economy-sounds-alarm-for-global-growth-11564563688
"In reality, Brexit has already cost the UK economy £130 billion since the 2016 referendum and there's another £70 billion of economic damage on the way (source = Bloomberg Economics)."
I wont argue the figures, but we havnt left. That cost since the referendum is due to uncertainty, which yes some of it would have happened and then we would have decided on the outcome (or failed to agree and hard brexit) and that would be it.
Instead Cameron refused to prepare for brexit at all, promised to remain to negotiate right until the result and then ran away. May started strong then caved to the EU making a deal nobody wanted. Now Boris is having a go. We have shot past the leave date and then past the extensions. At no point have we left.
"And all of this so that blue British passports come back and so that nationalist Brexit savages can now morris dance down the high street to the tune of "There's always be a Little England"."
If thats your view as to why then you might want to look into the actual reasons why people voted leave.
> If thats your view as to why then you might want to look into the actual reasons why people voted leave.
Quite so.
And very tactfully put, if I may say so, sir.
The anti-brexit brigade rely utterly on bizarre non-facts, tiny parts of bigger facts extrapolated back up into a madly skewed whole, and completely fictional strawmen, and boy do they scream if facts are presented. As seen here. Sadly, unlike their simple memes, simple facts do not lend themselves to strident slogans and easy short soundbites. *sigh*
TVU>And all of this so that blue British passports come back and so that nationalist Brexit savages can now morris dance down the high street to the tune of "There's always be a Little England".
You forgot "wear blackface and wax lyrical about their gollywog"
Can't wait for the post-brexit influx of immigrants from the sub_continent. As promised to India by Priti et al.
It's gonna be Gammongeddon when they work it out. [chortle]
The UK government seems to change its mind regularly about whether it wants to stay aligned with the GDPR and other EU privacy regulation or not.
If the UK does lose its status as a safe haven for EU customer data it means that many UK businesses operating internationally may need to move their user databases, billing and perhaps even marketing (if it's advanced enough to make use of existing customer data) to a country that is still in the EU on 1 January 2021.
The UK will doubtlessly fail to get its act together when it comes to protecting user data so it most likely works one way. The EU will be a legal place to store UK customer data but the UK will not be a legal place to store EU customer data. Fun times.
Given that the GDPR is implemented in UK law as the Data Protection Act 2018, how is leaving the EU going to make us non-compliant with the GDPR so the EU will be unable to send data to the UK?
If there was some serious analysis rather than "some teenager on twitter said..." then i'd be quite glad to hear it.
The short version is while we're in the EU we are under the GDPR, the R standing for regulation, meaning it applies across all countries, even if local law doesn't perfectly implement it we are still within the EU framework. After leaving the EU, even if our laws are for the moment the same, we are not under the same umbrella, we are a third country (one of those strange instances where people keen to leave the EU are surprised that once you are not in the EU you are outside the EU - sic.), so our data adequacy needs to be assessed (which might include things like UK laws for spy agencies seemingly being at odds with data protection) and companies dealing with us need contractual frameworks for data management.
These people do it for a living: https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacymatters/uk-gdpr-brexit-flowchart/.
More specifically, as identified by the House of Lords select committee (EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee report ‘Brexit: the EU data protection package’) looking at the issue, the UK currently has some member exemptions related to national security (the UK government can look at any data it wants because 'Terror' and that's allowed because none of the major EU governments would have ratified GDPR if they had to stop doing that) but 3rd country government can't look at EU citizens data because 'Privacy'.
"The UK government seems to change its mind regularly about whether it wants to stay aligned with the GDPR and other EU privacy regulation or not."
What a pity HMG hasn't come up with something like this: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/419/introduction/made
The thing is, as so much in the UK after Brexit, HMG's words and actions are becoming less relevant. Westminster has voted to demote itself.
If the EU27 do not consider the UK's regulation to be equivalent with the GDPR there is nothing the UK government can do about it. On 31 January the UK will no longer have control over EU laws, regulations and decisions. Yes, you can try and copy every single element and change in EU privacy policy meticulously but that still does not guarantee that the EU will hand out equivalence status (or not revoke it with a few month's notice).
Moreover, with the UK government's authoritarian streak, I don't see HMG being very keen on privacy of citizens. I expect more exceptions to privacy regulations for the Home Office and Police within 12 months after Brexit.
It's not uncommon for, say, the French office to be in France and the London Office to be in Reading, but both using a datacentre in Ireland. In that case, it's just the database that needs to move, with a possible bonus headache of what to do with your central functions that currently have access to both sets of data.
As we have already seen with the likes of the Schengen Information System, only after Brexit the UK will move from the trusted to the untrusted zone for everything.
Once Brexit happens, the island of Britain will enter the heady days of when Britain was Great (and not just geographically either) and incomes will verge towards the glory days of Queen Victoria's most splendid reign. I'm even expecting India to rejoin the empire. Nobody does famine quite like the Foreign Office.
I do find it fitting that the voters of the U.K. are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1921 with their own independence from an oppressive and overbearing empire.
AC» some mixed messages there.. or you don't understand how sarcasm works
I disagree with you on the first point. Your second point may very well be true.
Both the U.K. in the early 2020s and Ireland in the early 1920s are striving/strove to leave a larger economic area. Thanks to progress in the last 100 years, it has been a relatively painless process for the U.K. The Irish had a harder time of it 100 years ago.
Leaving the E.U. does seem to be to detriment of the U.K.'s economic well-being. Ireland's leaving the United Kingdom in 1921 was seen by many as an unwise economic move. The professional and educated classes tended to be of more unionist or Home Rule bent. The times were, however, very different then and the attitude of those in power towards the little people was also markedly different.
Whether the Irish would have been better off in the long run as a member of the U.K. with her devolved parliament is a debatable point. The Scots don't seem to have thrived, despite all of the oil in their waters and i don't know about the Welsh. That being said, the Irish now are little more than wannabe yanks. They have thrown off one cultural imperialism only to adapt another.
So, in conclusion, the U.K., to some extent, is following the same path as the Irish 100 years later, albeit in more agreeable times. Hopefully, the authorities in the U.K. will be able to keep a better reign on the powerful forces sweeping the populus than the Irish could. The Irish, for its shame, had rampant repressive hard-line Catholicism. Will the U.K. be able to handle its own nationalism, especially if the Kingdom does not thrive as it once did?
"If you are referring to Jacob Rees Mogg, he is the Right Honourable Member for the eighteenth century - so he'll have nothing to do with this modernist 19th century rubbish."
I was very depressed the day that I found out the Jacob Rees Mogg was actually *younger* than me :-(
Buchanan said organisations need to prepare for the opportunities presented by Brexit, both in terms of their IT strategy and overall business plans. Those which focus only on risks will fail to gain any upside from the UK’s departure from the UK, he said.
I'm sure all businesses would love to capitalise on those "opportunities" three-and-a-half years on, and we're still waiting to hear what they actually are.
To state this perfectly clearly; we are never going to get a better trading relationship with our partners in Europe as a country external to the EU, compared to the trding relationship enjoyed by those within. The remaining 27 nations aren't going to magically say, "screw ourselves, lets give the UK a better deal", no matter how many times the racist liars* of organisations like leave.eu tell you it's the other way around...
*Go ahaed, please tell me that how everyone who voted for leave wasn't racist or a liar, then put that straw man away, and take a look at the company you are keeping.
@Loyal Commenter
"To state this perfectly clearly; we are never going to get a better trading relationship with our partners in Europe as a country external to the EU, compared to the trding relationship enjoyed by those within."
Ok. Reasonable point. So we get a worse trade relationship with a block that is economically struggling since it failed to deal with the recession of 2008 (and actively pursued self damaging actions) and more freedom with the rest of the world.
Glad to hear you finally acknowledge that there isn't a better deal availalbe than the current one (Eu membership).
Whether the individual countries of the EU are struggling is a moot point (and obviously so). Many businesses currently trade with people in those countries, buying and selling goods and services. If it costs those companies more to do business with those nations, then it costs those companies more (a tautology I know, but it's worth spelling out). Their margins shrink (and they lose money), or their cost is passed onto their customers (and they either lose customers, and therefore money, or their customers buy less, and they lose money). Either way, trading on less favourable terms will cost businesses money. There is no benefit to them.
In fact, loss of access to, or a reduction in access to, the EU labour market will likely also cost businesses money, as they will lose access to that pool of talent. Yes, there is also talent here (just to save us from having that particular straw-man argument). Nobody is saying there isn't, but some skills are rarefied, and limiting the pool from which you can draw such resources is an obvious handicap, especially if you have competitors who can take advantage (their pool of 28 countries is reduced by one, ours is reduced by 27).
@Loyal Commenter
"Glad to hear you finally acknowledge that there isn't a better deal availalbe than the current one (Eu membership)."
I dont think I have ever suggested we could get a better deal with the EU than being in unless the EU was somehow thicker than they already demonstrate. I do think we can get a trade deal as a third party and possibly more but its the freedom from the protectionist block that would benefit us.
"Whether the individual countries of the EU are struggling is a moot point"
Or the area in general. The EU proper (eurozone) being particularly afflicted badly and so a problem in the global recovery. It isnt moot to say the protectionist trade block we are tied to is sinking while others growing.
"Many businesses currently trade with people in those countries, buying and selling goods and services. If it costs those companies more to do business with those nations, then it costs those companies more"
Very true. Incentives matter. Being walled in and protectionist policies pushing trade with those who cannot compete at market makes things more expensive but causes more trade within the walls. Take away the walls and trade changes.
"Either way, trading on less favourable terms will cost businesses money. There is no benefit to them."
If their existence is entirely reliant on the walls then no they wont see the benefit of the protectionism being removed. But their over expensive existence is based on that protectionism. By saying there is no benefit to such businesses is to show the harm of the protectionism (they cannot survive in the market). Someone else is better or cheaper or both.
"In fact, loss of access to, or a reduction in access to, the EU labour market will likely also cost businesses money, as they will lose access to that pool of talent."
Why? Are we banning talent from coming to the UK?
"Nobody is saying there isn't, but some skills are rarefied, and limiting the pool from which you can draw such resources is an obvious handicap"
Very true. And I agree with you that we shouldnt block talent, from the entire world!
If it costs these companies more to do business with those nations, then it costs those companies more (a tautology I know, but it's worth spelling out)
I think you put it perfectly!
Remember, you're talking to a subset of society that thinks "BREXIT MEANS BREXIT" is clever.
But enough from me... I'm going to have my dinner.. I'm starving. I hope "DINNER MEANS DINNER" because that will make all the difference!
" and more freedom with the rest of the world."
This is incorrect I'm afraid. More "perceived" freedom, but in reality we won't.
We'll create trading relationships out of desperation (there's very good reasons why the EU/US don't have a proper free trade agreement after MANY years of negotiations).
Brexiters will then realise that when we create trade deals, we will have to take on different rules/regulations to harmonise sectors to enable free and fair trade. In the exact same way we did with the EU and Brexiters argued we were being ruled by the EU.
There's no question that the US has lower food safety standards and animal welfare, do we match that? If so that prevents us trading with the EU and other areas.
We will have very little freedom.
@elaar
"This is incorrect I'm afraid. More "perceived" freedom, but in reality we won't."
Can you explain why or how? Right now our trade relationships are dictated by the EU tariffs, quotas and trade deals. One of the huge brags from remainers is that we are not able to sign any trade deals while we are in the EU. That we are bound to EU diktat.
"We'll create trading relationships out of desperation"
Why? Yes a bunch of copy paste agreements will continue but that is to keep those trade relationships stable and active as we leave the EU. The problem with this argument is the desperation for trade deals, not trade. The EU is protectionist and requires lots of complex trade deals to survive. That is an option for us but a pretty stupid option. If we want a growing economy then we want to reduce the trade barriers and import the things we need and want.
"Brexiters will then realise that when we create trade deals, we will have to take on different rules/regulations to harmonise sectors to enable free and fair trade"
Not exactly and this is a big problem with the EU. Our domestic standards are dictated by the same people dictating EU internal trade. Why? We dont need to apply China's standards here to sell them stuff, it just needs to meet the importing countries criteria. Same with the US, Asia, etc, it would be impossible to have a working economy and domestically support all the rules and regulations.
"There's no question that the US has lower food safety standards and animal welfare, do we match that?"
Maybe. Maybe not. Considering the EU standards are over and above for protectionism reasons then we probably can reduce it a bit. But right now we are forced to buy the over expensive EU stuff and banned from the cheaper yet food safe produce because of EU protectionism. We are being forced to shop at waitrose because asda isnt up to EU lofty standards.
"If so that prevents us trading with the EU and other areas."
Prevents us trading at all? Or just in the products the EU regulations block? If the former then we really do not want to be trapped in the EU as it is isolationist. If the latter then we get a reduction in the populations expenses and it makes no odds to us.
We dont need to apply China's standards here to sell them stuff, it just needs to meet the importing countries criteria. Same with the US, Asia, etc, it would be impossible to have a working economy and domestically support all the rules and regulations.
Ah, but we do. Because trade deals. That's how this works. We want to sell more to China (and n.b., Germany sell a lot more to China than we do, from within the terrible terrible straight-jacket of the EU), China says, "Fine, but there are some things we'd like to sell you." We say, "Actually, we're okay thank you." China says, "No really, why don't you take a look." We say, "Well, actually, we're a bit concerned about the safety of some of these electrical goods, and the additives you use in your plastics seem a bit unpredictable and, good grief, I didn't know there was so much arsenic in rice." China say, "Are you sure you wanted to sell more things to us?"
What we're doing is exchanging a customs union with a democratic structure attached for deals decided by negotiation between our and other countries' diplomats. There's no country in the world with untrammeled national sovereignty.
@ibmalone
"What we're doing is exchanging a customs union with a democratic structure"
That last bit is questionable (the democratic bit).
"for deals decided by negotiation between our and other countries' diplomats"
That is true, that is negotiators trying to agree to something. Sometimes they agree, sometimes not. Currently its deals decided by negotiation between other countries and other countries diplomats.
"There's no country in the world with untrammeled national sovereignty."
The choice to accept a deal or not is a sovereign choice. We dont have that currently.
"Ah, but we do. Because trade deals. That's how this works."
Your example is pretty good. But before that lets start with not being protectionist of 27 different countries industries. So negotiation not only becomes easier (only our interests on our side) as we are not as restrictive as a cluster of 27 countries. As we dont need to be so protectionist we can lower tariffs and change/ditch quotas on things that we want unilaterally. We also dont need to match EU regs domestically so we can make more products we want and sell them to places less restrictive than the EU.
This of course isnt guaranteed. The gov might be dumb enough to keep EU regs, tariffs and quotas but that would be really dumb. This is why when the result came out I hoped (even wrote it on the reg) that I hoped globalist remainers and leavers could band together to push the country the right way. Of course the racists and isolationists in both leave and remain will likely band together so we should too.
> Right now our trade relationships are dictated by the EU tariffs, quotas and trade deals
Weasel words. We follow rules democratically agreed amongst all countries, whilst we have a huge influence in the decision process.
In return for that, we are able to compete as part of the biggest trading block in the world.
Meanwhile, now we are dictated over by unelected ruler Cumings.
Could a brexiter please explain why all the news and advice these days regarding brexit is not how to enjoy and spend our new wealth, but how to best mitigate it's effects?
Don't tell me, it's all down to the sabotage inflicted by remainers / the EU / foreigners / Democrats.. ?
@Jamie Jones
"Could a brexiter please explain why all the news and advice these days regarding brexit is not how to enjoy and spend our new wealth, but how to best mitigate it's effects?"
Because we had a result, to leave. We passed the deadline twice and still there is massive uncertainty of how we will leave. Every attempt to remain instead of leave has brought a delusional situation where MP's even vote against a hard brexit, the legal default they actually cannot stop!
Brexit is not a legal default that cannot be stopped. If there is a will to stop it then there is a way.
And in the future, any party may campaign at a general election with rejoin as an election pledge and subsequently apply to go back into the EU. Quite a plausible scenario when the young start to reap what the old bigots have sown for them.
@werdsmith
"Brexit is not a legal default that cannot be stopped."
Actually no agreement results in hard brexit which is the default. To change that would require the gov revoking art50 or negotiating a different outcome. So hard brexit is the legal default.
"And in the future, any party may campaign at a general election with rejoin as an election pledge and subsequently apply to go back into the EU"
Very true. Unlikely to succeed however as we would lose our opt outs and attempts to keep some distance from the EU control. We would have to accept the Euro, not a good currency at all as the EU proper (Eurozone) is in real bad shape. But it is possible.
Very true. Unlikely to succeed however as we would lose our opt outs and attempts to keep some distance from the EU control. We would have to accept the Euro, not a good currency at all as the EU proper (Eurozone) is in real bad shape. But it is possible.
Oh, you mean those special arrangements we had? Nice for a brexiter to admit they existed for once!
And yeah, but you realise the country will be desperate to join, due to the crashing economy, and the increased determination by those young you screwed over who will become old enough to vote.
Face it, we will eventually have the Euro as our currency, all due to you leavers! Still, if you don't like it, you can leave!
@Jamie Jones
"Oh, you mean those special arrangements we had? Nice for a brexiter to admit they existed for once!"
Sorry if that has been your experience, I have always admitted them. They upset other members who are committed to the project while we seem to be half in half out. One such opt out (the Euro) has allowed this country to bounce out of recession as the US did while the EZ is still dire.
"And yeah, but you realise the country will be desperate to join, due to the crashing economy, and the increased determination by those young you screwed over who will become old enough to vote."
if we hate a crashing economy then why would we sign up to the EU proper? While the world grows it struggles which is holding back the global recovery.
Now I really can't work out: are you just trolling, or do you really not understand what I wrote?
For the record: no, I'm not. I want to keep the opt-outs, but brexit means that when we rejoin we will lose them. Brexiteers, in fact, are the federalists.
@tfb
"Now I really can't work out: are you just trolling, or do you really not understand what I wrote?"
Not trolling and it wasnt an implication, I was genuinely asking the question.
"For the record: no, I'm not. I want to keep the opt-outs"
Why? If the EU project is so wonderful why desire only to be half in? An acceptable answer would be that the EU proper is crap so you dont want to join fully. Except we got a very close escape when Blair wanted the Euro and we just avoided it. And at some point we will end up with another sell out like Blair selling us off. The EU want more and more central control so how long can we hold out?
"when we rejoin we will lose them"
You seem certain we would rejoin. There wasnt even a majority to keep our opt out status with the EU.
"Brexiteers, in fact, are the federalists."
Care to explain?
Don't pretend to be that stupid.
The EU is the cake.... The opt-outs let us eat it.
The Eu is overall a huge advantage to be part of, but for everyone there has to be compromises. To be able to have to make less compromises is a win (for us).
Even without the opt-outs, we'd be far better in.
Simple, really.
@AC
"Don't pretend to be that stupid."
No stupidity, if the project is so great why dont we want to join it fully? This is a very important question because to remain in the EU we probably will end up having to cave in or be pushed out. The aim and solution to every problem is 'more Europe' (meaning EU not Europe).
"The EU is the cake.... The opt-outs let us eat it."
So the opt outs let us take advantage of the EU? Ok. Its a reasonable view to hold. But that still comes back to what happens if some spineless or ambitious PM gives up the opt outs? We have already seen it with Blair. Remember the rebate that was not on the negotiating table? The referendum we would be given over coming changes? Wont take much to take us in fully.
"The Eu is overall a huge advantage to be part of, but for everyone there has to be compromises. To be able to have to make less compromises is a win (for us)."
Ok. That is the claim but why? We make less compromises out of the EU than in it so being part of the EU needs to outweigh that loss. That is where opinions often diverge.
"Even without the opt-outs, we'd be far better in.
Simple, really."
Simple to say but very difficult to prove. It is difficult to prove with the opt outs that being in is worth more. It is so difficult that to claim actual losses for leaving the projections of our economy were valued a decade or more away where the margin of error is huge. Nothing simple about it.
@Chris 15
"Ahh yes, this was foretold in a prior post: 'It's the remainers' fault that this is a gigantic mess!!!1111'
You sir, are a fool."
Are you claiming we are out of the EU? That we have left? If we had left then people would know where they stand, it is the uncertainty causing the problems. So unless we have left I dont see how it can be anyone but remains fault for keeping us in.
Because we had a result, to leave. We passed the deadline twice and still there is massive uncertainty of how we will leave. Every attempt to remain instead of leave has brought a delusional situation where MP's even vote against a hard brexit, the legal default they actually cannot stop!
So, that would be "remainers" from the list of excuses I posted.
Damn those democratic politicians doing their jobs as elected for... "the will of the people"
And damn that Westminster parliamentary sovereignty eh? You know, the one that we don't have, but you want to get back from the evil EU.
Of course, nothing to do with the fact that leavers didn't have a frigging clue what "leave" means, and as evidenced by your post, they still don't.
Still, you won. Get over it.
@Jamie Jones
"So, that would be "remainers" from the list of excuses I posted."
So you blame remainers for it. Ok.
"Of course, nothing to do with the fact that leavers didn't have a frigging clue what "leave" means, and as evidenced by your post, they still don't."
That of course being the uncertainty which we are talking about because we still havnt left nor did remainers in gov do as instructed by democratic vote.
Exactly that. In the minds of brexiters, everything is always someone else's fault. If brexit didn't happen, it would have been someone else's fault, If brexit happens but it is the wrong sort of brexit, it's someone else's fault. If the right sort of brexit happens but the consequences are bad it will be someone else's fault. Indeed, if the right sort of brexit happens but it turns out to be bad, then it not only will be someone else's fault but in fact no brexiter will ever have claimed that it was the right sort of brexit after all: that claim will have been made by socialist elitistssomeone else. If the NHS falls apart it will be millennial #metoo snowflake'ssomeone else's fault. Climate change: fake, obviously and a conspiracy by intellectual liberal science remainerssomeone else. Climate change turning out to be real and fucking us all: definitely someone else's fault, after all brexiters have never denied climate change and claimed it was a fake conspiracy by chinese russian communist liberalssomeone else.
Nothing, ever, is the fault of brexiters, nothing ever has been the fault of brexiters, nothing ever will be: this is simply axiomatic. Please adjust your thinking.
I never quite understand how, if the UK is such a victim of outside forces because the EU is holding it back and especially because of the EU itself, it will be able to once again be able to rise up and form Empire 2.0 and subjugate those same outside forces (and especially the EU) back down to their natural place in the world with the UK (or rather, England) on top. Just doesn't compute.
You're saying that as if you don't know the idea of Empire 2.0 is thing, which of course it is.
@Dan 55
"You're saying that as if you don't know the idea of Empire 2.0 is thing"
Actually I had never heard of it so thank you for the link, I will have a look. When I hear of empires its usually remainers claiming we want to make the old british empire. I dont think I have heard a single brexiter suggest making the empire although its possible some have. I hear the EU referred to as an empire occasionally (I have done so too), often in retaliation for claiming leavers want to make an empire.
Looking at the link you provided it doesnt seem to be leavers talking about an empire 2.0 but just the usual remainer made up thing. Civil servants (not known for their pro-brexit stance) saying it and remainers attacking it seems to be a straw man. Feel free to show me where some idiot uses it as a goal.
You are making the mistake of attributing rational thought processes to brexiteers. Remember, these are the people who won a referendum to leave the EU with no plan at all about how that would work and no understanding that things like Northern Ireland might present a littly problem (generally, brexiters don't really have a very strong idea that anywhere other than England really exists). Now, after having fucked the country for three-and-a-half years, now we're about to leave, they have no plan at all for what will happen after the end of the year.
But of course, always remember: it's the fault of the remainers. It's the remainers who should have made the plans for leaving. Of course it is, how obvious!
"Forrester said back in October that CIOs generally have two main tasks during challenging times: to cut IT costs and help push efficiency across their employer's business"
You can't make broad sweeping statements like this without explaining how you think that this would be possible. As IT is supposedly the principal means by which you "push efficiency", how is cutting spending on it going to help you? All these politicians promising to be great dealmakers, but who can't reveal what they want as they posture like poker players completely miss the fact that a business can't plan or implement systems for a situation they don't know the details of, or that trying to plan for every scenario will result in a huge waste of money, as only one scenario will actually happen. And dumb trust in Agile as a "solution" will definitely not help. Administration of tax and customs relies on clear rules and procedures, and if these change significantly it will require a lot of changes to IT systems. So being different for the sake of being different because sovereignty carries a massive real cost. And they've not even begun to realise how much time it will take as well. Maybe they really believe that it's possible in 6 months, just as long as the PM gives one of his doddery public school headmaster pep talks to inspire some vim and vigour.........
The cliff edge is 31st Dec 2020, and right now nobody has a farkin' clue what the 1st Jan 2021 will look like*. We won't until late October 2020 at the very earliest, too late to do much about it.
This year is thus a near-total write off as far as business investment goes, because the level of uncertainty is only going to increase due to Boris's recent Acts.
* Aside from being a worse economy than before. While few agree on how much worse, all vaguely competent analysts agree that it will definitely be worse. The most bullish proponents claim that in 50 years time the country will finally become better off than it otherwise would - and perhaps they are correct, though that's a rather long game, especially as the people claiming this - and practically everyone who wanted it - will be long dead.
But yeah, let's waste another half million on ringing a bell, instead of I dunno, paying some nurses or something.
>This year is thus a near-total write off as far as business investment goes, because the level of uncertainty is only going to increase due to Boris's recent Acts.
Not quite!
You have 11 months to do the sensible thing and relocate your operations to the EU27. What is clear, as from 1-Jan-2021 if you are a UK company trading with the EU27 is going to get a lot harder, however, as the UK is likely to be up shit street... you are unlikely to incur too many problems exporting goods and services from the EU27 to the UK...
Its called democracy. People can vote how they wish. They also have the right to not vote. You can be annoyed with their way of voting but calling them fuckers doesn't really help. They used their democratic right to vote how they did. We could argue they were mislead by a cock with a mop for hair but still.
I think that's a mistake. We (for some values of 'we') like to say that, people who voted for Johnson were, as you said, 'mislead by a cock with a mop for hair', and by implication that they were, well, too stupid to not be mislead by him, unlike people of superior intelligence like, well, us (again, for some values of 'us').
I think that's offensive: what it's saying is that all these people have such weak intelligence that they were fooled by a plausible-sounding posh person. I don't think they were: I don't think they're any more stupid than I am. Rather I think they understood perfectly well what they were voting for. I think they knew that brexit means that their children and grandchildren will not have the opportunities they had. But they don't care about their children: they care only about themselves and that there should be less foreigners.
There's really no third option here.
So, yes, of course people can vote how they wish: they can also be selfish bigots. And it turns out that really a lot of people are just that. I'm completely fine with calling those people fuckers.
I somewhat disagree. I still feel some were mislead and no, not out of stupidity but because they either have decided they are too busy to look the facts up for themselves and/or blindly believe what mob head says. Doesn't mean they are stupid, may mean they are easily lead and too lazy or genuinely too busy to look up the facts themselves.
I think that I would classify 'easily led and too lazy' as being stupid behaviour. I also think that if you're voting on your country's future but you are too busy to look up the facts, then you probably should not be voting.
While I am sure that some were mislead I think it was a relatively small number. However I admit I only think this because I don't want to believe that so many people are stupid. Unfortunately that leads me to a worse conclusion about people.
I do accept that a lot of people didn't look up the facts, but that's because they didn't need to know them: they already knew how they would vote and why.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
