MINI factory may shift from UK if No Deal Brexit Watch

Doones
  • Section Leader
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
Not unsurprisingly

https://news.sky.com/story/bmw-may-s...rexit-11655739
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
muh taking control.... of whatever odds and ends are left after the high quality industries have fled to normal countries.

smh
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
Look! Something negative will happen in absolute worst case Brexit scenario! Says news corporation that wants us to click on its articles.

A no-deal scenario isn't hugely probable as the government will most likely stop a no-deal Brexit from occurring.
0
reply
Doones
  • Section Leader
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Look! Something negative will happen in absolute worst case Brexit scenario! Says news corporation that wants us to click on its articles.

A no-deal scenario isn't hugely probable as the government will most likely stop a no-deal Brexit from occurring.
And yet TM refuses to rule it out.
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Doonesbury)
And yet TM refuses to rule it out.
Because she relies on it as a looming threat.

But Parliament simply doesn't have a majority that would allow a no-deal Brexit. Even the majority of Tory MPs don't want a no-deal scenario. Come the end of March, there will either be a hasty deal made with compromises or a deferral.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
Oh whatever....

I’m fed up with all the posturing from all sides it’s been so draining for everyone concerned over the last 33 months.

And now we are going to have to put up with it for a few months more because our incompetent PM signed up to the wrong order of talks and now doesn’t have the lady balls just to drag us out as her deal won’t pass without the backstop change which they aren’t offering yet.

The whole things pathetic from all sides except the voters who actually won the referendum who have had to listen to all this crap and watch their politicians continuously **** it up
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by paul514)
Oh whatever....

I’m fed up with all the posturing from all sides it’s been so draining for everyone concerned over the last 33 months.

And now we are going to have to put up with it for a few months more because our incompetent PM signed up to the wrong order of talks and now doesn’t have the lady balls just to drag us out as her deal won’t pass without the backstop change which they aren’t offering yet.

The whole things pathetic from all sides except the voters who actually won the referendum who have had to listen to all this crap and watch their politicians continuously **** it up
Blaming the politicians is the easy way for the electorate to avoid taking responsibility. The fact of the matter is that the only form of Brexit that isn't economically damaging was -- and is -- the EEA option. Mrs May's agreement is the only other way to avoid a hard border on Ireland, and it protects the economy to a certain degree too (though still not to a great extent).
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
perhaps it is time to start a genuinely British Motor company.

The People's Car will be a low cost low tech model; available only in white. Due to the soaring cost of petrol after Brexit Liberation Day it will run on bin juice and left over cider.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by viddy9)
Blaming the politicians is the easy way for the electorate to avoid taking responsibility. The fact of the matter is that the only form of Brexit that isn't economically damaging was -- and is -- the EEA option. Mrs May's agreement is the only other way to avoid a hard border on Ireland, and it protects the economy to a certain degree too (though still not to a great extent).
Ah right so it isn’t the partisan way politicians haven’t accepted the result?

It isn’t the order of talks agreed?

It isn’t the 2017 election that made them rely on the DUP?

It isn’t the lack of honesty about what the EU will and won’t give on a withdrawal agreement?

All those things are due to politicians

And your solution is to be Norway.


Still paying in, still having free movement, still can’t do trade deals, and the EFTA court takes its files from the ECJ.......

It’s just staying in the EU but losing your voting rights and veto.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by paul514)
Ah right so it isn’t the partisan way politicians haven’t accepted the result?

It isn’t the order of talks agreed?

It isn’t the 2017 election that made them rely on the DUP?

It isn’t the lack of honesty about what the EU will and won’t give on a withdrawal agreement?

All those things are due to politicians
No, it's really not. Even on the 2017 election point, the larger the Conservative majority, the more hard Brexiters there would be sitting in Parliament, who are the ones blocking this Withdrawal Agreement from being ratified. Now, the backstop wouldn't be an issue if Northern Ireland were not part of the UK. But it is, meaning that Northern Ireland needs to stay in the Single Market for goods, and the UK as a whole needs to stay in a customs union or form a customs arrangement with the EU.

If Northern Ireland were not part of the UK, then the backstop wouldn't be an issue. Instead, however, we would seriously damage our economy if we were to simply do a standard free trade agreement with the EU.

You're also misinformed about the EFTA/EEA option. See this excellent piece for more details.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by viddy9)
No, it's really not. Even on the 2017 election point, the larger the Conservative majority, the more hard Brexiters there would be sitting in Parliament, who are the ones blocking this Withdrawal Agreement from being ratified. Now, the backstop wouldn't be an issue if Northern Ireland were not part of the UK. But it is, meaning that Northern Ireland needs to stay in the Single Market for goods, and the UK as a whole needs to stay in a customs union or form a customs arrangement with the EU.

If Northern Ireland were not part of the UK, then the backstop wouldn't be an issue. Instead, however, we would seriously damage our economy if we were to simply do a standard free trade agreement with the EU.

You're also misinformed about the EFTA/EEA option. See this excellent piece for more details.
Everything I said previously was correct and if more hard brexiteers were in the party you would simply have a vote of no deal after hers goes down on Tuesday.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Libtardian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
Boycott all manufacturers that support Britains continued subjugation by the EUSSR.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by paul514)
Everything I said previously was correct and if more hard brexiteers were in the party you would simply have a vote of no deal after hers goes down on Tuesday.
You imagine yourself to be speaking on behalf of the voters, yet no one voted for No Deal in June 2016. There is no mandate for a No Deal Brexit, whilst Mrs May's agreement delivers on the referendum result. As does the EEA option. Brexit voters should stop whining and take responsibility for their actions: they voted to leave the European Union, and virtually every single Brexit campaigner said there would be a deal with the European Union. They should therefore accept Mrs May's agreement, or accept an even softer Brexit. If they expected anything other than these outcomes, they were delusional, because no thinking Parliament would allow a No Deal Brexit to occur. But, as we know from polls around the time of the referendum, they weren't expecting a No Deal Brexit, and most Brexit voters expected and wanted to stay in the Single Market.

Unfortunately, some (though certainly not all) have been led astray by politicians who, before the referendum, were perfectly content with the EEA option. Any talk of compromise gets their blood boiling.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Libtardian)
Boycott all manufacturers that support Britains continued subjugation by the EUSSR.
Such vacuous nonsense, but what can we expect: this site is free for anyone to join, regardless of their intellectual capabilities.
2
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by viddy9)
You imagine yourself to be speaking on behalf of the voters, yet no one voted for No Deal in June 2016. There is no mandate for a No Deal Brexit, whilst Mrs May's agreement delivers on the referendum result. As does the EEA option. Brexit voters should stop whining and take responsibility for their actions: they voted to leave the European Union, and virtually every single Brexit campaigner said there would be a deal with the European Union. They should therefore accept Mrs May's agreement, or accept an even softer Brexit. If they expected anything other than these outcomes, they were delusional, because no thinking Parliament would allow a No Deal Brexit to occur. But, as we know from polls around the time of the referendum, they weren't expecting a No Deal Brexit, and most Brexit voters expected and wanted to stay in the Single Market.

Unfortunately, some (though certainly not all) have been led astray by politicians who, before the referendum, were perfectly content with the EEA option. Any talk of compromise gets their blood boiling.
There wasn’t a deal attached to the referendum it was simply do you want to stay or leave. No deal is leaving.

As a second part to that you then look at the reasons why people voted leave.

Make your own laws
Stop sending them yearly payments
Trade deals
Stop free movement

Those are the four main reasons

EEA does not allow that to happen
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by paul514)
There wasn’t a deal attached to the referendum it was simply do you want to stay or leave. No deal is leaving.

As a second part to that you then look at the reasons why people voted leave.

Make your own laws
Stop sending them yearly payments
Trade deals
Stop free movement

Those are the four main reasons

EEA does not allow that to happen
The EEA option gives us back control of our laws; nothing can be passed before being ratified in the British Parliament. On the ECJ, Adrian Yalland notes:

the EFTA court is only obliged to “have regard to” ECJ case law and is not in any way obliged to “follow” those decisions, thus maintaining absolutely its independence in the same way as Scottish courts are independent of English courts even when considering UK-wide legislation (such as human rights law).
On the notion that we would be a "rule-taker":

When an EFTA state or EU member state recognises the need for new single market rules, the Commission is obliged to bring forward legislation in consultation with all the contracting parties. This is not a paper exercise but a proper, genuine consultation where the UK would (as the second or third biggest economy in Europe) be able to give huge input into the proposed law which the Commission and European Parliament are obliged to consider and respond to. This is in effect, even if not in law, a process of legislation by mutual consent. This is not passive observance, but active participation in shaping EU legislation...

After the proposal has passed through the EU legislative process, it must then be approved by the EFTA/EU joint committee, on which the UK will, if it chooses this route, have representatives. The committee may approve, reject or send back the proposal to the EU for amendments. UK participation on the joint committee will give significant legal powers over EU legislation before it comes into force via the EEA.

...the EEA has different impacts upon EU signatory states compared to EFTA signatory states. While new EU law will have automatic or “direct” effect on EU member states, it cannot have direct effect on the EFTA states because the EFTA states have preserved their own domestic legal supremacy. In order for a new single market law to have effect on the EFTA states, it must first be placed into the EFTA state’s own domestic law by that state’s own Parliament. It cannot be imposed through the EEA.

...whilst there is certainly an obligation arising under the EEA treaty to place new rules into domestic law, there is still a right for the EFTA states to refuse to do so, as Norway has previously done with the EU’s Postal Services Directive. Whilst this causes “ructions” and creates satellite problems, this does not in any way impinge on the sovereignty of the EFTA state in question.
We would have an independent trade policy if and when a sustainable solution to the Irish border problem becomes available, after which point a customs union or customs arrangement won't be necessary. Alternatively, you could endorse the reunification of Ireland, at which point we would not need to be part of a customs union with the EU. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are able to sign their own free trade deals.

On freedom of movement, we can apply existing Single Market rules that allow us to deport people after three months if they are not in work, not in study, or are unable to support themselves. We would also have an emergency brake on freedom of movement as part of the EEA, which Liechtenstein has successfully invoked. We could also apply the rules currently in place in Switzerland, which the EU has accepted, which allow for “new roles in industries with a high unemployment rate to be advertised in local job centres for five working days before they can be promoted outside those offices.”

On budget payments, we would likely be able to halve our net budgetary contributions. Again:

Once outside the EU, the UK’s obligations to make net contributions to the EU’s budget end. However, remaining a signatory to the EEA would require the UK to cover its own costs arising from its participation in joint UK/EU schemes and pay a “market access fee” (essentially a “Single Market licence” or “permit”).

Like covering those costs arising from our participation in joint projects, this “licence” isn’t a net contribution to the EU budget either. It is in effect a charitable donation to fund economic regeneration in Europe, but not via the EU. It would, as the Norway Grants Scheme shows, be UK money spent on UK-run and managed projects (not money given to the EU which it then spends for us).

As Professor George Yarrow recently pointed out, given the disparity between the per capita GDP of Norway ($76,000) and of the UK ($39,000) we would pay considerably less than Norway pays (currently about £110) as the access fee. Furthermore, as many of the joint schemes we’d want to participate in will be covered by the “divorce bill”, it is possible our per capita payment could fall to below £50 per person, less than half of that paid by Norway.

Given none of this equates to a net contribution to the EU budget, it is wholly compliant with May’s red line. It is also a proportionate sum to pay for the considerable benefits arising from being signatories of the EEA Agreement and being able to influence from within, rather than being outside the EEA but obliged to follow the rules anyway in order to trade within it.
This last point is important. The notion of absolute sovereignty that some Brexiters appear to have in their mind is a fantasy. All trade deals, for instance, require some pooling of sovereignty. We are subject to international law, too, as every country (except for a few rogue states) is. As Sir Ivan Rogers points out:

...all trade deals inevitably erode and trammel one’s sovereignty to some degree – often to a significant degree. Binding international commitments to opening each other’s markets – on goods, services, government procurement, whatever – seriously limit one’s capacity to regulate sectors of the economy as one might ideally see fit. Genuinely free global trade actually seriously trammels national sovereignty. Hold the front page.

Indeed, the greatest reason to be a passionate free trader – which I am – is surely precisely that: it curtails the ability of myopic politicians to erect barriers to commerce in the name of sovereignty and national preference against non-national producers.

This is why our current debate on sovereignty and “taking back control” is often frankly so bizarre. It is just comical listening to Right wing populist politicians claiming they are avid free traders and simultaneously saying that one of the purposes of taking back control is to be able to rig domestic markets / competitions in favour of British suppliers / producers. Protectionism is always someone else’s sin, of course.
What the EEA option does, though, is free the UK of 79% of EU law, including the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, the Justice and Home Affairs policies, the Common Defence Policy, the VAT policy and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The remaining 21% are Single Market rules - which we have control over, as shown above - and most of these Single Market rules are actually global rules.

Finally, there is a democratic mandate for the EEA option. 42% of Leave voters, in a July 2016 poll, favoured maintaining access to the Single Market above ending freedom of movement. 61% of Leave voters either supported staying in the Single Market with no extra controls on freedom of movement, or staying in the Single Market with some controls on freedom of movement. As demonstrated above, we would be able to implement controls on freedom of movement whilst remaining in the Single Market.
Last edited by viddy9; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (129)
17.94%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (73)
10.15%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (124)
17.25%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (104)
14.46%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (70)
9.74%
How can I be the best version of myself? (219)
30.46%

Watched Threads

View All