Amusing quote in the FT from an unnamed UK official saying "We can't live on promises" in relation to putting a trade deal superseding the backstop in the political declaration. Living on promises is of course exactly what the UK has been proposing for the border all along.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Brexit Thread
Collapse
X
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ay-week-brexit
Jaguar Land Rover has announced that more than 3,000 staff will move to a three-day week at its Castle Bromwich plant in the West Midlands.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View PostThe constituency estimate (Meriden) is even worse than the borough vote. 58% leave (per Hanretty).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Posthttps://www.theguardian.com/business...ay-week-brexit
Castle Bromwich is in Solihull borough. 56.2% vote for Brexit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Eggchaser View PostI suspect that this has a lot to do with JLR throwing their lot in with the laughable notion that diesel is "green", which was the easy lie, sorry, solution to the emissions regulations which the car manufacturers put forward when faced with the choice of developing proper EVs like that looney in California (and thus, in many ways understandably, not wanting to spend container ships full of cash on solving the problem) or faking it which was cheaper and more palatable for politicians to swallow.
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 20914
- The House with the Golden Windows
- Fast falling out of love for football.
- WasPlain Hobnobs
Between a rock and a head case?
https://www.ft.com/content/1e551f02-...2-17176fbf93f5
Your move, Dr Fox?
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/1e551f02-...2-17176fbf93f5
The socialist government of Pedro Sánchez wants the UK’s withdrawal treaty to include a so-called “protocol” on the disputed British territory, a request that goes beyond the original plans of EU negotiators, according to people close to the talks.
Comment
-
We haven't had much Hannan inanity recently, so here you go
What if we removed all trade barriers among a group of compatible countries — countries, in other words, with the same legal systems, accountancy methods, business norms and wage levels?
...
Its core idea is simple: What is legal in one country should automatically be legal in the other. Mutual recognition should cover goods, services and professional qualifications. If a drug is approved by the FDA, that should be good enough for the Brits. If a trader can practice in the City of London, he should be free to work on Wall Street. Where there are different standards, businesses should be free to follow whichever they prefer — something that will lead, unprecedentedly, to downward pressure on regulations.
And why stop at the U.S. and Britain? There are other English-speaking common-law countries whose systems of corporate government and professional credentials resemble ours. Shouldn’t we aim to extend mutual recognition to all countries with interoperable systems and equivalent levels of GDP per head, such as Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand?Last edited by Ginger Yellow; 18-09-2018, 09:29.
Comment
-
Also, the latest select committee report is out:
Negotiators have agreed that there must be a backstop option in the Withdrawal
Agreement to protect an open trade border on the island of Ireland, otherwise
there can be no deal. We welcome the fact that the European Commission has
said that it has no objection to a UK-wide backstop “in principle”. This is the only
approach that will prevent an economic border from being drawn in the Irish Sea
which would not be acceptable. However, time is running out and therefore the
European Commission must show more flexibility and a willingness to work with
the Government to find a practical solution. (Paragraph 23)
4. In the Joint Report of December 2017, the Government accepted responsibility for
proposing specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of
Ireland, and while we welcome the Government’s publication of its own backstop
proposal it is becoming a matter of serious concern to us that it is not complete. It
does not explain how regulatory checks—which are more onerous than those that
relate to VAT, excise or tariffs—would be eliminated, and it does not explain fully
how a backstop, which must meet the objectives in the December 2017 Joint Report,
can be “time limited”. Without a workable backstop proposal to solve the Irish
border question there will be no Withdrawal Agreement. As a matter of urgency,
the Government must set out clearly how it intends to eliminate regulatory checks
at the border and how the backstop might be time limited when, by definition, it
would need to remain in place until such time as an alternative arrangement that
would achieve the same outcome could be implemented. (Paragraph 24)
The progress of the UK’s negotiations on EU withdrawal ( 4 June to September 2018)
5. The Government has not set out the full extent of the rules that are necessary
to maintain North-South cooperation on the island of Ireland, which have been
scoped in a joint mapping exercise between the Government and the European
Commission. We note that the exercise is subject to ongoing negotiations, but we
were told in April that the Government was hopeful that these would be concluded
“soon”. We call on both sides to conclude these negotiations and to provide the
results of the mapping exercise to us as soon as possible. (Paragraph 25)
6. We think it is essential that the joint commitment to avoid a hard border in the
Withdrawal Agreement is reflected in the Political Declaration and ensured in the
future relationship. (Paragraph 26)
7. Since our last report on the progress of the negotiations in May 2018, we have
not seen any progress between the two sides on agreeing how disputes over the
provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement should be settled. We acknowledge that
the European Union will wish to preserve the autonomy of the CJEU to interpret EU
law, but it should recognise that the Withdrawal Agreement is a deal between two
sides. In August 2017, the Government set out a range of possible dispute settlement
mechanisms and models of arbitration that are common in international agreements,
but it did not declare which one it preferred. We repeat our recommendation from
our May 2018 report that the Government set out its preferred arrangement for
dispute resolution. (Paragraph 33)
8. There has been renewed debate in the UK on the prospect of the UK leaving the
European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement. It is in the interests of both
sides to successfully conclude negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement, so that
the 21-month transition/implementation period is secured, and that certainty
is provided for citizens and businesses in the European Union and the UK. It is
clear that there would be significant consequences for the UK and the European
Union from a no deal outcome. We remain of the view that this would be chaotic
and damaging for the UK economy and would leave many businesses facing huge
uncertainty. (Paragraph 44)
9. In many areas, the Government’s no deal contingency planning rests on the European
Union taking reciprocal action to minimise harm. This assumes that, if no deal
is reached, there would be sufficient goodwill between the two sides that specific
sectoral agreements could still be reached to minimise damage to the UK and EU
economies. When we met Michel Barnier, he ruled this out and we would ask the
Government to respond to his statement. Furthermore, even if both sides wanted to
work together to find ways to mitigate the worst effects, it is far from clear that there
would be enough time to negotiate, agree and implement any sectoral deals before
the UK leaves the European Union at the end of March 2019. The Government has
said that further technical notices will be published throughout September. We will
take further evidence on these and the effects of a potential no deal exit from the
European Union. We think it particularly important that there should be a notice
covering the Irish border issue. We also call upon the Government to publish the
country by country assessments on EU member states’ economic interests that the
Department has undertaken. (Paragraph 45)
Comment
-
Originally posted by hobbes View PostGiven that Jaguar are about the only UK car maker taking EV seriously - making a long range, high performance model to compete with Tesla rather than weird 75 mile runabouts or phevs, I'd say you're pretty wide of the mark.
P.S. "Weird 75 mile runabouts?" I suppose that the Ion and I-Miev are still just about in production, and there is a nice amount of first generation 24 kWh Leafs about but the current and next generation of (serious) EVs are not in that category. The Renault Zoe will do 200-250 miles real world, Hyundai and Kia have just launched EVs that do the thick end of 300 miles and even my Ioniq, which only has a 28 kWH battery, will do 120-150 miles.
The problem with EVs is not that the technology doesn't exist - it does - it's that the legacy manufacturers are facing huge issues with the change batteries bring to everything they do, and are reacting by producing mild hybrid bullshit, compliance cars, getting investigated by the EU for cartels, actively lobbying for reductions or delays in emissions regulations or barking up the wrong tree with fuel cells.
Comment
-
There are quite a few of us here who are UK citizens living in Europe. This is quite a useful checklist for us https://britishineurope.org/the-brit...eal-checklist/
Comment
-
Originally posted by ad hoc View PostThere are quite a few of us here who are UK citizens living in Europe. This is quite a useful checklist for us https://britishineurope.org/the-brit...eal-checklist/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...sory-committee
Comment
-
Is May seriously suggesting an NI referendum on the backstop?
https://www.politico.eu/article/ther...on-eu-demands/
Comment
-
https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1042372356142968834
Do they even know what current US trade policy is?
Comment
-
https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1042424760695775233
At least three EU members have live experience of same.
Comment
Comment