UK's Labour to propose amendment aimed at avoiding no-deal Brexit

[melvinmelvin]

could somebody please explain what "leave on WTO rules" mean?

 

as I see it when the UK leaves EU, if ever, it will be on EU rules

or you could say UK EU agreed on rules

 

WTO plays no part in it whatsoever, unless  the deal and/or its political cover is altered

 

[damascase]

3 hours ago, stephenterry said:

The rationale is that Corbyn respects the referendum result. Norway is not in the EU, but is still a member of the single market and upholds the four freedoms, including the customs union. That is the deal that Corbyn is championing.

 

May, on the other hand, apart from leaving the EU like Norway and ONLY what the UK voted for, has determined that also leaving the single market and the customs union would be part of that withdrawal, which is totally incorrect. So she has cobbled together a 'deal' that just won't work as good as remaining in the EU. 

 

Corbyn's suggestive is that a Norway + deal would satisfy the referendum result and place the UK economy on a better footing than May's deal, going forward. As he places the country above political infighting by the tories, I support his stance.

Norway is NOT in the Customs Union..........

[damascase]

15 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

could somebody please explain what "leave on WTO rules" mean?

 

as I see it when the UK leaves EU, if ever, it will be on EU rules

or you could say UK EU agreed on rules

 

WTO plays no part in it whatsoever, unless  the deal and/or its political cover is altered

 

The only WTO-relevance I can think of is that the UK has to apply the same tariffs on importations from all other WTO-members. This so-called MFN (Most Favoured Nation) rule is only waived if there is a Free Trade Agreement in place with the WTO-member in question. If the UK would grant a country lower tariffs without an FTA, the same lower tariffs would have to be applied to all WTO-members.

Edited November 30, 2018 by damascase

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

what is plus?

 

 

and what on earth is meant by "leave on WTO rules" ? weird expression

 

leaving on a jetplane is more comfortable

 

and to those who say that Norway is in CU, she isn't

 

 

 

Norway plus CU.

[SheungWan]

Simple message for the Hard Brexiteers. Support May or get Corbyn.

[Thingamabob]

On 11/29/2018 at 11:18 AM, Nigel Garvie said:

If it had to be Norway plus, I would go for that, rather than one of the other disastrous economy destroying Brexit options on offer. Alternatively Corbyn would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the remain alter, however even McDonnell is beginning to see the writing on the wall (Ambition lurks maybe!). 

Whatever happens, I console myself with the image of the Brexiteer Boomer in his final days, lying in his bed and gloating over having severely damaged the futures of his childrens' and grandchildrens' generation, only to discover that they are now in the majority and have taken us back into the EU. They may decide that there is no real reason for them to fund our pensions anymore, I for one wouldn't blame them.

Rubbish.

[melvinmelvin]

The way I see it Norway and Norway+ is not even close to deliver on the results on the referendum.

It encompasses not being member of EU, fair enough.

 

But the legal environment is even worse than it is for EU now.

The legal framework was an issue of major concern to leavers, go Norway and enjoy even worse environment.

 

[stephenterry]

On 11/30/2018 at 12:42 PM, damascase said:

Norway is NOT in the Customs Union..........

Apologies for misleading info, damascase.

 

Here is the complete picture:

Norway is part of the EU’s single market (it is a member of the European Economic Area), but it is not part of the customs union. So it sets its own tariffs on goods imported from outside the single market. But Norwegian goods (with exceptions for farm produce and fish) are imported tariff-free into the EU. This creates problems for Norway because Norwegian exporters have to show that their goods qualify as having originated in Norway (through so called rules of origin) and are therefore eligible for tariff-free entry to EU countries.

[stephenterry]

23 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

The way I see it Norway and Norway+ is not even close to deliver on the results on the referendum.

It encompasses not being member of EU, fair enough.

 

But the legal environment is even worse than it is for EU now.

The legal framework was an issue of major concern to leavers, go Norway and enjoy even worse environment.

 

As you can see the highlighted sentence, not being a memeber of the EU satisfies the referendum result when the ONLY two options were to leave or remain in the EU. Nothing else.

[dick dasterdly]

16 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Apologies for misleading info, damascase.

 

Here is the complete picture:

Norway is part of the EU’s single market (it is a member of the European Economic Area), but it is not part of the customs union. So it sets its own tariffs on goods imported from outside the single market. But Norwegian goods (with exceptions for farm produce and fish) are imported tariff-free into the EU. This creates problems for Norway because Norwegian exporters have to show that their goods qualify as having originated in Norway (through so called rules of origin) and are therefore eligible for tariff-free entry to EU countries.

Sounds good to me.  Not in the CU, enjoys free trade with EU countries whilst being able to make their own agreements with other countries.

 

What am I missing?

[melvinmelvin]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Sounds good to me.  Not in the CU, enjoys free trade with EU countries whilst being able to make their own agreements with other countries.

 

What am I missing?

 

dd, you miss':

 

having no say in the development of acquis, or anything else for that matter

have to swallow and implement all relevant directives in UK law

still subject to ECJ or EFTA court and EFTA surveillance agency (they are tougher than the commission)

 

pretty feudal

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Sounds good to me.  Not in the CU, enjoys free trade with EU countries whilst being able to make their own agreements with other countries.

 

What am I missing?

That it crosses (at least?) one of May's red lines, as Norway accepts the 4 freedoms, which includes freedom of people to move in and out of the EU into Norway.

 

With my political cap on, the UK government is obsessed with curtailing immigration, much to the detriment of the NHS and some fruit farmers who cannnot recruit employees, even qualified ones from the EU or elsewhere.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, stephenterry said:

That it crosses (at least?) one of May's red lines, as Norway accepts the 4 freedoms, which includes freedom of people to move in and out of the EU into Norway.

 

With my political cap on, the UK government is obsessed with curtailing immigration, much to the detriment of the NHS and some fruit farmers who cannnot recruit employees, even qualified ones from the EU or elsewhere.

"That it crosses (at least?) one of May's red lines, as Norway accepts the 4 freedoms, which includes freedom of people to move in and out of the EU into Norway."

 

Thank you.  In which case it is definitely unacceptable.

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

dd, you miss':

 

having no say in the development of acquis, or anything else for that matter

have to swallow and implement all relevant directives in UK law

still subject to ECJ or EFTA court and EFTA surveillance agency (they are tougher than the commission)

 

pretty feudal

 

 

 

What you're just not getting, MM, is that today's world is awash with rues and regulations imposed by countries, and whatever course the UK takes would still be subject to rules and regs of some kind, some onerous and some not so onerous. 

 

To think that UK could blithly sail it alone without any restricitions in what they can or cannot do is pie in the sky thinking, particularly that e.g. the average trade deal with the USA takes two years to even reach agreement let alone the time taken to implicate it.

 

For the UK to leave the single market, the largest on our shores, and in which we have many trade agreements outside the EU by being a member, would be economic ruin - something that even a small country like Norway understands.

 

Just look at the supermarket shelves awash with goods from throughout the world - do you think we'd do better or even want to go it alone outside the single market?

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"That it crosses (at least?) one of May's red lines, as Norway accepts the 4 freedoms, which includes freedom of people to move in and out of the EU into Norway."

 

Thank you.  In which case it is definitely unacceptable.

Why?

 

Bear in mind that UK immigration has the independent power to refuse entry to any immigrant if it so chooses, as it's doing now by restricting numbers of overseas doctors into the NHS. While I'm not in favour of this particular restriction, to overwhelm the UK with immigrants like Merkel has allowed in Germany is also not a 'freedom' I would unilaterally support, without some restrictive measures.

 

Always has been in place, but immigration restriction has been used as a political tool by the Tory government, to garner support from the right-wing element and the home-grown unemployed many of whom are 'better off' living off benefits.    

[nbm47]

Waiting for ECJ to make a decision on Article 50 will take ages,certainly too close to 29th March, plus they all pee in the same pot with the EU, so they are not going to rule against them or us as its not in the EU interest. What are you all afraid of if we go into no deal. Forget the project fear and hysteria, nothing we can't overcome.

Edited December 1, 2018 by nbm47
misspell

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

What you're just not getting, MM, is that today's world is awash with rues and regulations imposed by countries, and whatever course the UK takes would still be subject to rules and regs of some kind, some onerous and some not so onerous. 

 

To think that UK could blithly sail it alone without any restricitions in what they can or cannot do is pie in the sky thinking, particularly that e.g. the average trade deal with the USA takes two years to even reach agreement let alone the time taken to implicate it.

 

For the UK to leave the single market, the largest on our shores, and in which we have many trade agreements outside the EU by being a member, would be economic ruin - something that even a small country like Norway understands.

 

Just look at the supermarket shelves awash with goods from throughout the world - do you think we'd do better or even want to go it alone outside the single market?

 

 

 

I fully understand the impact of int rulemaking, having worked with it for years and years.

 

Do better or want to go it alone outside SM,

do better is a question of perspective and preference,

want, definitely yes, that is what UK voted for.

 

no doubt, UK leavers did not want to have to adhere to the Commissions directives

and to be subject to ECJ - then better not go the Norway way

 

[brucec64]

Sounds good to me.  Not in the CU, enjoys free trade with EU countries whilst being able to make their own agreements with other countries.
 
What am I missing?

The irish border, on of the main factors that UK may stay in the CU indefinitely. Rules of origin checks would require border checks, and this is not acceptable to the good friday accord.

There has been talk of technological solutions, but these do not exist, and may never totally replace manual checks.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[brucec64]

Sounds good to me.  Not in the CU, enjoys free trade with EU countries whilst being able to make their own agreements with other countries.
 
What am I missing?

The irish border, on of the main factors that UK may stay in the CU indefinitely. Rules of origin checks would require border checks, and this is not acceptable to the good friday accord.

There has been talk of technological solutions, but these do not exist, and may never totally replace manual checks.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Grouse]

On 11/30/2018 at 1:44 PM, melvinmelvin said:

The way I see it Norway and Norway+ is not even close to deliver on the results on the referendum.

It encompasses not being member of EU, fair enough.

 

But the legal environment is even worse than it is for EU now.

The legal framework was an issue of major concern to leavers, go Norway and enjoy even worse environment.

 

We know you don't want the U.K. In EFTA. I don't blame you

[stephenterry]

22 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

I fully understand the impact of int rulemaking, having worked with it for years and years.

 

Do better or want to go it alone outside SM,

do better is a question of perspective and preference,

want, definitely yes, that is what UK voted for.

 

no doubt, UK leavers did not want to have to adhere to the Commissions directives

and to be subject to ECJ - then better not go the Norway way

 

The highlighted sentence is incorrect. The UK voted to leave the EU, only. There were two choices on the voting slip: Leave or Remain in the EU?. Nothing else. Nothing to do with the single market, customs union or ECJ. That was slipped in after by the Tory government and passed by parliament, despite not having a referendum vote on whether that was eligible.

 

Norway is NOT in the EU, but in the single market and accepts the four freedoms, which is what the UK should do as the government has independent powers to control/curb immigration if they so wish..

[stephenterry]

What I would like to know is whether any poster on here has been personally adversely affected by any EU directive, law, situation - or personally benefitted by any UK directive, law, or situation, and if not, why the hell would anyone want to leave the EU?

 

Quoting taking control, is political talk that means nothing to the British people. The ability to set up new trading treaties is pointless in that our membership of the single market means we enjoy trade treaties that are already in place for those countries outside the EU - and for which we'd have to renegotiate. Immigration numbers are already in our control.

 

And so on...

 

 

[smedly]

55 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The highlighted sentence is incorrect. The UK voted to leave the EU, only. There were two choices on the voting slip: Leave or Remain in the EU?. Nothing else. Nothing to do with the single market, customs union or ECJ. That was slipped in after by the Tory government and passed by parliament, despite not having a referendum vote on whether that was eligible.

 

Norway is NOT in the EU, but in the single market and accepts the four freedoms, which is what the UK should do as the government has independent powers to control/curb immigration if they so wish..

your definition of being in the EU is flawed, but hey it is your opinion and you are entitled to it, the vast majority of people understand exactly what it is

 

setting that aside, the UK people voted for independence, we have decided we want to control our own laws - monetary policy - trading policy - our waters - our borders ……………… our country, we do not have an issue trading with our EU friends and neighbors, the original concept of a common market was fine - it was a trading partnership, that is not what we have now, the EU has evolved into a political monster grabbing more and more central power and control to the point IMO to were it is now out of control.

 

People flooded into the UK to take advantage of its generous health welfare and benefit systems to the point now were it is breaking down, yes there were some who came and made contributions but an awful lot didn't and still don't

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

The highlighted sentence is incorrect. The UK voted to leave the EU, only. There were two choices on the voting slip: Leave or Remain in the EU?. Nothing else. Nothing to do with the single market, customs union or ECJ. That was slipped in after by the Tory government and passed by parliament, despite not having a referendum vote on whether that was eligible.

 

Norway is NOT in the EU, but in the single market and accepts the four freedoms, which is what the UK should do as the government has independent powers to control/curb immigration if they so wish..

That could certainly be one solution. However I’m not sure if the government Does have powers to control or even curb immigration.

As this goes against one of the core rules of the E.u. Furthermore I do beleive that D Cameron raised this subject at his feb2016 meeting with the Brussels Bureaucrats, and they flatly rejected any proposals to allow the U.K. to take any action to restrict free movement of E.u citizens.

[Nigel Garvie]

32 minutes ago, smedly said:

 

 

People flooded into the UK to take advantage of its generous health welfare and benefit systems to the point now were it is breaking down, yes there were some who came and made contributions but an awful lot didn't and still don't

It might be wise to avoid words like flooded, and indeed swamped, we are talking about people who are just like us, unless you think "We" are part of a master race. Actually your implied suggestion about the proportion of Immigrants who contribute is incorrect. Here are some statistics taken from those "Awful lefties" the Home Office, the OBR, and other official sources.

 

Are non-UK nationals more likely to receive out-of-work benefits than UK-nationals?

No. Non-UK nationals at the point of NINo registration are less likely to be receiving key DWP out-of-work benefits than UK-nationals.

According to the Labour Force Survey, in the first three months of 2016 people born outside the UK comprised 17.6% of the working age population. At the same time, in February 2016, 7.4% of working-age individuals receiving key-out-work benefits were non-UK nationals.

EU migrants are more likely to be in work than natives, with the participation rate for the group at just below 80 per cent, refuting the idea that most immigrants do not "contribute".

 

The OBR modelling reflects the economic research which suggests immigrants to the UK, particularly from Europe, are more likely to be younger than the native population and more likely to work and pay taxes than to claim benefits.

The tax benefit of the presence of immigrants is seen as outweighing the financial cost they impose through greater pressure on local infrastructure and public services.

Other research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests immigrants boost our national productivity by filling gaps in the labour market that would otherwise not be filled, which ultimately means faster GDP growth and higher incomes per head for us all.

[smedly]

49 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Are non-UK nationals more likely to receive out-of-work benefits than UK-nationals?

In the UK - yes, in their home countries - no

 

the fact remains that Brussels are on a power grab and I would prefer not to be part of it, there is only one country that benefited from EU membership - the rest just tagged alone donating vast sums of money and being held back

 

Like I said in a previous post - it was fine as a trading partnership (common market) now it is turning into a power grabbing "political monstrocity" and it is out of control

 

no thanks 

[nontabury]

4 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

It might be wise to avoid words like flooded, and indeed swamped, we are talking about people who are just like us, unless you think "We" are part of a master race. Actually your implied suggestion about the proportion of Immigrants who contribute is incorrect. Here are some statistics taken from those "Awful lefties" the Home Office, the OBR, and other official sources.

 

Are non-UK nationals more likely to receive out-of-work benefits than UK-nationals?

No. Non-UK nationals at the point of NINo registration are less likely to be receiving key DWP out-of-work benefits than UK-nationals.

According to the Labour Force Survey, in the first three months of 2016 people born outside the UK comprised 17.6% of the working age population. At the same time, in February 2016, 7.4% of working-age individuals receiving key-out-work benefits were non-UK nationals.

EU migrants are more likely to be in work than natives, with the participation rate for the group at just below 80 per cent, refuting the idea that most immigrants do not "contribute".

 

The OBR modelling reflects the economic research which suggests immigrants to the UK, particularly from Europe, are more likely to be younger than the native population and more likely to work and pay taxes than to claim benefits.

The tax benefit of the presence of immigrants is seen as outweighing the financial cost they impose through greater pressure on local infrastructure and public services.

Other research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests immigrants boost our national productivity by filling gaps in the labour market that would otherwise not be filled, which ultimately means faster GDP growth and higher incomes per head for us all.

You do seem to be in tune with the United Nation, who are considering making a recommendation,that any critism of immigration, should be made an offense.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

You do seem to be in tune with the United Nation, who are considering making a recommendation,that any critism of immigration, should be made an offense.

Making things up again.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

Making things up again.

 

 

 

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Making things up again.

 

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

 

 

As I thought. Making things up. Speech by Dutch MEP De Graaff, whose organisation is in bed with the French National Front. Not that many of our Hard Brexiteers here seem to know the difference between opinion and fact. Or rather they do, but disregard.