EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[nidave]

None of which has anything to do with the Ports Directive.

I was asked to give ONE example where remaining in the EU would be bad for the UK. I have done so. If you choose to give counter examples of where leaving the EU will be bad for the UK (in your opinion), that is your perogative.

So the extra paperwork everyone is having to do to comply with leaving the customs union - the IT meltdown meaning ships are left in dock for longer, lorries are delayed is a good thing in your head? Moving to a paper system is going to be great. Sigh

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting fact if you're going from Monaghan (ROI) to Cavan (ROI) on the N54 you cross the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic 4 times to make a journey of under 30 miles.

 

[Puffing Devil]

What a strange outlook. Something that is universally accepted as being bad for a major industry within the UK but it will not be bad for the economy as a whole.
On that basis, the Remain mantra that leaving the EU will be bad for UK business must be hogwash. The UK economy will be unaffected.

Ignoring the huge leap from a single point to the whole remain "mantra", your assertion that the Ports Directive will be bad for the UK does not hold water (no pun intended). The Ports Directive is asking that some of the port operations be put out to competitive tender, much as happened to the railways. UK ports are privately owned and operated, for profit. Clearly, it is not in the interest of these operators to open up part of their operation to competition. It could be that an in-house bid is favoured over a competitor, though any reduction in costs has to be a good thing. Unless of course, you're in the ports business, where this is a threat to your healthy profit margin. Hence my comment bad for the ports businesses, not the ports nor their operation. As for the contribution to the economy, most of that contribution comes in the form of income tax and NI contribution from the payroll. There may be a small reduction in tax receipts due to improved effiecency, though hardly a massive blow to the economy.

What will be a massive blow to the economy is all the freight that will be avoiding the UK following Brexit and the absence of any customs deal. Other posters have pointed out the hugely increased costs associated with Customs Processings. You may want to have a look at this presentation from the Port of Dublin, who seem to be rubbing their hands together in glee at the frieght and passengers now set to bypass the UK and the increased opportunities afforded to them.

So show me the positive impact of not implementing the ports directive. You wanted to leave, you seem that there will be some positive impact of not implementing the directive. Just show me some evidence that it will be a benefit. One published line. Not much to ask?

I was asked to give ONE example and I gave ONE example. No doubt if I gave TWO I would be asked for THREE ad infinitum.

None of which has anything to do with the Ports Directive.
I was asked to give ONE example where remaining in the EU would be bad for the UK. I have done so. If you choose to give counter examples of where leaving the EU will be bad for the UK (in your opinion), that is your perogative.

@furnessvale you were asked to give us one published line. You have responded with an opinion, said that was "Something that is universally accepted" an opinion that has been refuted. Now, please, just one published line to show that your incorrect opinion is actually universally accepted. If it's universally accepted, it must be published somewhere?

 

[Jonny]

Also, the EU has been deliberately belligerent and is selling itself up the proverbial Swanee [Suwanee River] without a paddle in an attempt to spite Britain. As Jeremy Hunt, now Foreign Secretary, points out,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44918262
Brexit: Jeremy Hunt warns EU of 'no deal by accident'

Jeremy Hunt has warned that without a "change in approach from the EU negotiators", there is now a "very real risk of a Brexit no deal by accident".

The foreign secretary said "many" in the EU believed they just had to "wait long enough and Britain will blink" but "that's not going to happen".

Speaking in Berlin, Mr Hunt, said a no deal would be "challenging" but the UK would still "thrive economically".

Germany's foreign minister says it wants a deal "not a disorderly Brexit".
(article continues)

Which is a good description of what will happen if a hard Brexit arises - which will cause a shed load of damage to the EU even without a EU-USA trade war at the same time.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Also, the EU has been deliberately belligerent and is selling itself up the proverbial Swanee [Suwanee River] without a paddle in an attempt to spite Britain. Which is a good description of what will happen if a hard Brexit arises - which will cause a shed load of damage to the EU even without a EU-USA trade war at the same time.

Or it could equally be read as "The UK has been deliberately unrealistic in its demands selling itself up the proverbial Swanee [Suwanee River] without a paddle in an attempt to cut its nose off to spite its face."

Meanwhile, Germany has just sewn up a nice trade deal with China, something we were told we could not do in the EU.......

A hard Brexit will be no accident and is to the benefit of many of those in government right now..... Just ask which hard-liner has a Brexit fund in Ireland that will do very nicely in the event of a hard Brexit.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Also, the EU has been deliberately belligerent and is selling itself up the proverbial Swanee [Suwanee River] without a paddle in an attempt to spite Britain. As Jeremy Hunt, now Foreign Secretary, points out,

Which is a good description of what will happen if a hard Brexit arises - which will cause a shed load of damage to the EU even without a EU-USA trade war at the same time.

Any actual examples of the EU being "deliberately belligerent", or is it more a case of, as Puffing Devil has said, the UK being incredibly unrealistic and wanting the impossible?

 

[furnessvale]

So the extra paperwork everyone is having to do to comply with leaving the customs union - the IT meltdown meaning ships are left in dock for longer, lorries are delayed is a good thing in your head? Moving to a paper system is going to be great. Sigh

Sigh all you want. The Ports Directive will only apply, and cause problems for UK ports, if we remain within the EU.

Everything you talk about will (in your opinion) only take place when we leave the EU.

They are totally separate issues.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Hardly full of confidence now, is he? Link to a Huffington Post article.

Jacob Rees-Mogg Says It Could Take 50 Years To Reap The Benefits Of Brexit:
A leading Brexiteer has suggested it could take 50 years to judge whether Brexit has been an economic success amid fears quitting the European Union will lead to a downturn.

Then again, I guess its fine to play politics and gamble two generations future if you're independently wealthy enough not to worry about the consequences.

And please note the "judge", not promise of success, judge........

 

[furnessvale]

R=30670]@furnessvale[/USER] you were asked to give us one published line. You have responded with an opinion, said that was "Something that is universally accepted" an opinion that has been refuted. Now, please, just one published line to show that your incorrect opinion is actually universally accepted. If it's universally accepted, it must be published somewhere?

http://container-mag.com/2016/03/09/european-parliament-greenlights-eu-ports-regulation/

 

[Senex]

Any actual examples of the EU being "deliberately belligerent", or is it more a case of, as Puffing Devil has said, the UK being incredibly unrealistic and wanting the impossible?

Hunt apparently also said that if the EU raised too many difficulties in negotiation that would stir up feelings of hostility towards the EU in the UK. Didn't this whole process begin two years ago with a blatant UK demonstration of hostility towards the EU? Yes, incredibly unrealistic and wanting the impossible we are, but that's the sense of entitlement on display from the Brexiteers, who still follow the line of "We won the war. They owe us."

 

[nlogax]

Any actual examples of the EU being "deliberately belligerent", or is it more a case of, as Puffing Devil has said, the UK being incredibly unrealistic and wanting the impossible?

A little from column A, a little from column B. Both sides are at it, though the EU being consistent and crystal clear on the indivisibility of the Four Freedoms does tend to make the UK's demands look like they're being screamed from the mouth of a ranting child with little grasp of reality.

 

[EM2]

Interesting fact if you're going from Monaghan (ROI) to Cavan (ROI) on the N54 you cross the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic 4 times to make a journey of under 30 miles.

Done that journey a few times. The amount of pinging noises from my mobile every time it changes network is really annoying!

 

[northwichcat]

A twist on the Irish issue

Fianna Fáil is planning to organise in the North, contest elections, and may even stand candidates for local councils the following summer.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-ne...eland-37143971.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Domh245]

I was asked to give ONE example where remaining in the EU would be bad for the UK. I have done so. If you choose to give counter examples of where leaving the EU will be bad for the UK (in your opinion), that is your perogative.

Admittedly it wasn't you who was asked to do it, but tracing the comment thread back it was an example of where growth is coming from that was wanted, not where remaining would be bad. "Not being bad for" and "being good for" are not the same thing. Obviously the EU will have some cack-handed and poor laws (case in point, the recently rejected copyright protection one) but that is true of any government, but somehow our cackhanded and poor laws are better because they originated in Westminster?

Where is this growth coming from? Just one concrete example, please?

 

[nidave]

Interesting discussion about aviation and the eu.... https://mobile.twitter.com/brianmlucey/status/1020603084806840320?s=12

"8/ All aviation maintenance worker are certified as qualified by the EASA. No one even so much as changes a light bulb on an airplane without being certified as being qualified to do so by the EASA. Once Brexit happens no British Pilots have a license to fly anymore."

" Without EU membership British access to Eurocontrol goes into a legal quagmire. The UK de-facto no longer has access to Eurocontrol."

" The UK doesn't have an independent certifying authority. Morr to point, no efforts have been made to set one up."

 

[EM2]

Here's a question for the Leave voters. And I don't want opinions when you answer, I want facts.
I work on the railway, my wife is retired. We have no kids, we rent a flat.
How will my life be better once we are longer in the EU? Use whichever model of Brexit you prefer.

 

[nidave]

Here's a question for the Leave voters. And I don't want opinions when you answer, I want facts.
I work on the railway, my wife is retired. We have no kids, we rent a flat.
How will my life be better once we are longer in the EU? Use whichever model of Brexit you prefer.

50 years we will know according to Jacob Rees-Mogg. You are asking too hard a question. You want a simple answer to a complicated question. Wait 50 years then ask.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-economy-brexit_uk_5b54e3b5e4b0de86f48e3566/

 

[Jonny]

Any actual examples of the EU being "deliberately belligerent", or is it more a case of, as Puffing Devil has said, the UK being incredibly unrealistic and wanting the impossible?

If Japan can have free trade without either freedom of movement nor contributions to the EU Budget, why can't Britain?

 

[birchesgreen]

Sure Britain can, after it's negotiated a trade deal. This won't even begin until AFTER we leave and in the case of Japan and China is likely to take nearly a decade to complete.

 

[Puffing Devil]

http://container-mag.com/2016/03/09/european-parliament-greenlights-eu-ports-regulation/

Thank you for posting a link. It is, however, well wide of the mark. You may have misunderstood the meaning of "Universally Accepted". Collins has it as

"if something is universally believed or accepted, it is believed or accepted by everyone with no disagreement."​

Source: https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/universally+accepted
​

What you have posted is not universally accepted by any measure. It is also woefully short of any evidence that the directive would be bad for the UK. It's also over two years old, pre-Brexit vote which puts its currency into context.

Here's the article in full, with my comments in red.

European Parliament greenlights EU ports regulation
The European Parliament has voted in favour of a revised EU Ports Services Regulation (PSR) aiming to make European ports more competitive and increase financial transparency.

Looks like a title and introduction so far

Despite voting against EU ports legislation twice in the past, the European Parliament adopted in plenary the revised PSR on March 8, with 451 MEPs voting in favour and 243 against.

The decision sparked controversy as big players in the UK port industry argued that privately-financed ports would be undermined by the PSR.

Controversy, but no evidence of harm

The revised proposal, which was drawn up by Knut Fleckenstein, a MEP from Hamburg, calls for a transparent and easy access to the market of port services, financial transparency for port authorities through their accounts in order to ensure a transparent and rational use of public funds, and mechanisms to handle disputes and consultations between port stakeholders.

Statement of what it seeks to achieve

According to a statement by the European Commission, the European Parliament gave a mandate to the rapporteur Fleckenstein and his colleagues to “start trilogues [defined as informal tripartite meetings attended by representatives of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission] with the Council in view of reaching an agreement in first reading”.

Action planned by the EC, not seeing any UK damage so far

The UK Major Ports Group (UKMPG) and the British Ports Association (BPA) claimed in a statement that the PSR could lead to more unfair competition and force private ports to put their services out to tender, adding that they may lose freedom over port charges and commercial confidentiality may be threatened.

The UK trade group claim that it could (not would) lead to more unfair competition. Some threat to freedom over charges and commercial confidentiality, but no impact on the UK economy here. No mass port closures cited.

One day before voting on the directive took place, representatives from UK port operator Associated British Ports (ABP) and union Unite travelled to Strasbourg to argue against the proposal and urged MEPs to vote against it.

The lobbyists visited to put their case:

James Cooper, CEO of ABP and chairman of the UKMPG, claimed that the current text is ambiguous, adding that this “ambiguity” is unhelpful as it creates uncertainty and puts future investment, growth and jobs at risk.

Claims that investment, growth and jobs at risk. At last! Unfortunately no substantive measures from our lobby group.

However, the Federation of European Private Port Operators (FEPORT) had called for MEPs to vote in favour of the text “en bloc”.

Violeta Bulc, EU Commissioner for Transport, said in a statement following the MEPs’ decision: “A competitive port sector is critical to the well-functioning of the internal market, and our seaports are gateways from the trans-European network to the rest of the world. Once adopted, the regulation will facilitate private investment in ports and encourage more efficient public investments and port services.”

Unbiased reporting on the EU point of view. Unfortunately, no mention of damage to the UK.

With the UK approaching a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union, some Eurosceptics have taken a political view of the controversy.

Before voting on the PSR took place, Nicholas Finney, former head of the UK Seaports Federation, claimed in a Conservative Party-supporting website that “the PSR is the perfect example of all that can be wrong with both EU principles and process”.

Pro-Brexit spin reported. Unfortunately no prediction of UK economic damage as a result of this.

Lamia Kerdjoudj-Belkaid, FEPORT’s secretary general, commented on the European Parliament’s vote in a tweet: “Important step achieved, looking forward to keeping dialogue during trilogue.”

And the final word goes to the EU.
​

Time and time again we see Brexiteers relying on generalisation and hyperbole to drive the initial decision and now to support the national disaster we seem to walking into to satisfy the "Will of the people", when the people were lied to, the leave campaign cheated and the majority would now change their voting intention.

​

Just like
@EM2 I'm waiting for anyone to post some real evidence about how this whole jingoistic, nostalgia driven bid for a bygone world where the UK used to be a world power will leave us (without a hedge/trust find) any better off.

Here's a question for the Leave voters. And I don't want opinions when you answer, I want facts.
I work on the railway, my wife is retired. We have no kids, we rent a flat.
How will my life be better once we are longer in the EU? Use whichever model of Brexit you prefer.

Brexiters - anyone care to show us some evidence?

 

[AlterEgo]

Christ fellas, have you not figured it out yet that many - though not all - Leavers don’t care about the economy? For the 100th time, loads of Leavers voted to tell you guys to get humped. As they entered the seclusion of the polling booth they picked up their pencils, and crossed the box that would piss YOU off the most.

(I voted Remain but am so fed up of the whole thing I’d abstain if there was another referendum)

It’s like Groundhog Day in here.

 

[EM2]

Christ fellas, have you not figured it out yet that many - though not all - Leavers don’t care about the economy?

Economy has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about quality of life.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Christ fellas, have you not figured it out yet that many - though not all - Leavers don’t care about the economy? For the 100th time, loads of Leavers voted to tell you guys to get humped. As they entered the seclusion of the polling booth they picked up their pencils, and crossed the box that would piss YOU off the most.

(I voted Remain but am so fed up of the whole thing I’d abstain if there was another referendum)

It’s like Groundhog Day in here.

Economy has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about quality of life.

Unfortunately, I'm thinking many don't associate the Economy and Trade with Quality of Life.

I also think many people were "played" and are now in denial.

 

[AlterEgo]

Economy has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about quality of life.

That’s quite subjective for each person though. There are quite a few people who value a strong national identity more than a 2% pay rise.

 

[AlterEgo]

Actually, put it this way. A lot of British people have sympathy towards the ideal of a United Ireland. Correcting a historical mistake and all that. But in fact uniting that country would be very expensive and may see a fall in living standards for a generation.

That wouldn’t mean it wasn’t worth doing.

 

[Jonny]

Apparently, any exclusion of British planes from EU airspace is likely to be reciprocated - such that many transatlantic flights will have to divert onto a longer, more expensive, slower route. More reasons that the EU needs a deal more than Britain.

 

[AM9]

Apparently, any exclusion of British planes from EU airspace is likely to be reciprocated - such that many transatlantic flights will have to divert onto a longer, more expensive, slower route. More reasons that the EU needs a deal more than Britain.

Diverting long-haul flights is of far less time or commercial consequence than having an almost total barrier from 42N 10W to 69N 21E, (and that is assuming that Eire allows us to overfly). A great circle transatlantic flight from Copenhagen or Berlin would hardly need any deviation. The only major airports that would be seriously affected would be Amsterdam and Brussels and even they could get away with less than 30 minutes additional flight time.

 

[nidave]

Actually, put it this way. A lot of British people have sympathy towards the ideal of a United Ireland. Correcting a historical mistake and all that. But in fact uniting that country would be very expensive and may see a fall in living standards for a generation.

That wouldn’t mean it wasn’t worth doing.

Dont have to leave the EU to do that - it may be a consequence of leaving the EU as soon as the DUP are no longer usefull - but will ROI take on NI? Not sure as its got a very high number of benefit clamants and large number of people working for the local counci.

 

[nidave]

Apparently, any exclusion of British planes from EU airspace is likely to be reciprocated - such that many transatlantic flights will have to divert onto a longer, more expensive, slower route. More reasons that the EU needs a deal more than Britain.

Source? I am intrested to see how the whole airspace thing is going to pan out.

 

[AlterEgo]

Dont have to leave the EU to do that - it may be a consequence of leaving the EU as soon as the DUP are no longer usefull - but will ROI take on NI? Not sure as its got a very high number of benefit clamants and large number of people working for the local counci.

It doesn't matter about the EU, I'm just giving an example of a nationalist cause with a significant (and I really do mean very significant) financial cost, which many Remainers have sympathy with.

Many of the costs are outlined briefly here:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/