Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

CKhalvashi

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

£1 Billion?
Where?
Ah, you're still rambling on about the DUP (*yawn*) in which case blame Jezza and the millions of voters who put the country in this position. Hardly surprising with the level of bribes being promised though.
But that's democracy for ya.

So, it's the peoples fault for the Cons not having a majority government rather than the Cons fault for putting a deeply flawed manifesto in before partnering with the DUP?

Can I just make clear I have no problem with the DUP governing NI as they see fit, however I don't think they're the sort of party we want in our British government. I, of course, have no problem with them raising issues relating to NI however, which is what they're there for.

Can I just point out to you once again that I didn't vote Labour. I got to the polling station with the intention of doing so and then didn't, having taken a moment with the paper in front of me to think about it.

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

Has anyone seen the latest EU position paper which demands that they can fine UK companies for alleged infractions before, during and after the UK leaving the EU.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential_principles_ongoing_union_judicial_and_administrative_procedures.pdf

The only possible answer is the one given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram. They should be told very clearly that this is not even open to discussion. Next item, move on.

Even the most rabid Europhiles must surely start to realise the nature of this !!!!!-like organisation.

The link seams to be broken.
Could you post it again.

cogito

ilovehouses wrote: »

It only covers cases that are either ongoing at the point of leaving or the potential for future cases where the alleged infraction took place before leaving. It's something that needs dealing with.

I mentioned earlier the UK should stick to their agreements - the potential for legal action is one reason. Another is that reneging on agreements when they don't suit signals an untrustworthy partner. Not the best way to seek agreements with potential new partners.

It would grant the ECJ jurisdiction over such matters and that in itself is unacceptable. The ECJ is essentially a political tool to help ensure ever closer union and if you don't believe me, you should start boning up on the Lisbon Treaty. There is no way that body is impartial as a look at its past decisions makes clear.

The position paper covers cases where the alleged infraction took place before leaving and that alone gives the EU the possibility of making spurious allegations designed to cripple UK companies. There are indeed issues which need dealing with but not in the way that the EU propses.

Of course we should stick to agreements and so should the EU.

We seem to agree on more than we differ.

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

The link seams to be broken.
Could you post it again.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential_principles_ongoing_union_judicial_and_administrative_procedures.pdf

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

The link seams to be broken.
Could you post it again.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential_principles_ongoing_union_judicial_and_administrative_procedures.pdf

Hmm. Still not working which is odd as I just opened it elsewhere. You'll have to google it, I'm afraid.

gfplux

Finally found it. I had not updated my position paper link.
In fact 6 (six) papers were published.
Here
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications_en

One thing is now clear. The EU are being very transparent. We should assume (should we) the the UK side are talking with the EU about the SAME TOPICS.
Perhaps by tracking the EU publications we can better understand the topics of conversation going on in the various rooms in Brussels between both sides.

gfplux

Here they are discussed by a journalist who lives in Brussels and might claim to cover the EU regularly so pinch of salt required.
https://www.marketnews.com/content/brexit-eu-publishes-new-position-papers-law-goods
"The papers represent a flurry of activity on the Union's side of the talks, covering judicial cooperation in criminal and civil matters; the functioning of EU bodies; governance; goods on the market under union law, and ongoing judicial and administrative procedures.
The British government has, by contrast, only presented its proposal on citizens' rights, which was met with little enthusiasm in Brussels."

While the British Government continues to keep us in the dark we can only speculate in the UK position.
Without dought they have or will given the EU their position papers on these subjects (you can not negotiate if you don't tell the other side what you want) it is strange they won't publish for us to see.

I suppose by publishing your paper, like Citizens rights two weeks later, it becomes a COUNTER OFFER rather than a starting position.
That's a clever ploy as the British voter can not see if any compromises have already been made between the time of the secret position and the counter offer paper.

gfplux

Better late than never.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/u-k-sets-up-advisory-group-to-give-business-a-voice-on-brexit?cmpid=BBBXT062817_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=170628&utm_campaign=brexit

"The U.K. government is setting up an advisory group to ensure that business is given a say over Britain’s approach to Brexit.
The new body was confirmed in Parliament on Tuesday by Business Secretary Greg Clark, who told lawmakers he’s met with workers, businesses and local leaders around the country and investors around the world since last year’s referendum decision to leave the European Union.
“These will continue over the coming months, including my weekly meetings with the directors general of the five main business organizations,” Clark said in London. “The government is creating a new EU exit business advisory group to ensure that business is not only heard but is influential throughout the negotiations.”
The new forum should provide business with some solace that its voice is being listened to. Companies have largely pushed for a softer Brexit that preserves as much as possible current trade ties with the other 27 EU members.
Brexit Secretary David Davis and other ministers are likely to attend fortnightly meetings of the new group, an official familiar with the plans said, asking not to be named discussing government business. Also invited will be the five groups that Clark alluded to in Parliament: the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, and the EEF, which lobbies for the country’s manufacturers."

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mayonnaise wrote: »

Is the Wilbur Ross from December a different one from the current Wilbur Ross then? (*yawn*)

*yawn* indeed.
From your link:

He made the remarks before the U.S. election and his selection by the Trump.

Now just as time and circumstance have indeed moved on since then, perhaps you can too?

But talking of Wilbur Ross:

He demanded that Germany buy raw materials from the United States instead of from Russia, lower tariffs on automobile imports from the U.S. and ensure that America "obtain a larger share" of the European market. Otherwise, he added, the government in Washington, D.C., would have no alternative but to "engage in self-help."

Ross had been allotted a speaking time of 10 minutes, but when he still hadn't finished after 30 minutes, the event participants had heard enough. They turned down the sound and switched off the video link. The U.S. commerce secretary disappeared from the screen, silenced like a political gadfly. Some in the audience laughed.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eu-us-trade-conflict-threatens-to-escalate-ahead-of-g-20-a-1155342.html

Now we all (or at least, most of us) can accept that it ain't over 'till the proverbial fat lady sings but it does increasingly look like EU/US relationships are not (shall we say politely) at their best at the moment and in fact a trade war of sorts at least is possible.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

Better late than never.

" by Business Secretary Greg Clark, who told lawmakers he’s met with workers, businesses and local leaders around the country and investors around the world since last year’s referendum "

Not as if people have been doing nothing in the interim period. There's only so many hours in a day........