Reply to: The future trade deal with the EU

[meridian]

The future trade deal with the EU

If anyone isn’t yet bored with the tedium of trade policy and the constitution, this is a neat synopsis of how and why the Executive will have complete control over future trade deals, unless the U.K. makes significant reforms.

The problem with CRAG: why Parliament’s processes for approving trade deals need reform – UK Trade Forum

[Bean]

SNIP
Instead of speaking for everyone, how about just yourself. Did you know / understand exactly what Brexit meant?
Ah, and you started off so well with some reasoned thoughts, but then had to end it like a 10 year old. Well done.

I was right to doubt it though... Merely saying I doubt my post has helped you, doesn't automatically mean I 'ended it like a 10 year old' - or do you think that of everyone that has ever posted 'HTH BIDI'?

The reason I posted about 52% knowing about the CU rather than purely myself, is because YOU are asserting the 52% voted for the possibility of Diane becoming Trade Minister.

So which is it, cake or eat it?

again, HTH BIDI

[meridian]

The policy will be drafted by a team, negotiated by a team (yes, albeit headed by the secretary) - similar to the negotiating team of the EC, that you state above are authorised to negotiate by the EC.
(Brexit for example, you know it's not just Barnier negotiating on his own, right?)

Civil servants enact the executive decisions of government ministers. “Headed by” is understating what ministers do and are responsible for.

Civil servants do provide expert advice, but ultimately are not responsible for the direction or signing off.

Besides, there are plenty of good committee recommendations, to alleviate the issue of the few deciding trade deals, as you put it...
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../1043/1043.pdf

Yes. Recommendations. Because of the current situation. Glad you agree, finally.

Yep, that's generally what China, USA, etc. do - and what's more, they certainly don't have to have open borders for people with their trade partners, in order to trade with them.

Neither do we, in order to trade with them. You’re wrong to imply that we do.

PS. Those thousands of democrats scrutinising the EU directed trade deals aren't scrutinising EU deals with the UK interest at heart.....only the British ones will be, so if the Gov implements some of the recommendations from the committee, we will have just as much scrutiny/oversight (~650 MPs +HoL maybe?).

Recommendations. See above. Glad you agree, etc.

PPS. Apparently nobody knew what Brexit meant, so how could 52% know it didn't mean a CU and/or SM access, meaning no control over trade? Come-on you can't have your cake & eat it......
Either;
<=52% knew Brexit meant out of the CU and trade policy decided by a few, or
<=52% didn't know Brexit meant coming out of the CU

Instead of speaking for everyone, how about just yourself. Did you know / understand exactly what Brexit meant?

HTH BIDI

Ah, and you started off so well with some reasoned thoughts, but then had to end it like a 10 year old. Well done.

[Bean]

You're missing the point, but let me lay it out for you. The point is that 52% of the country voted for our trade policy to be determined by a small handful of people, and quite often a single person. Whether Diane Abbott is ACTUALLY in charge of our future relationship is up to the voters and the Labour selectors; whether Diane Abbott COULD BE in charge of it is due solely to Brexit.

The thesis (tl;dr if you like):
Current Trade State:
750+ trade and trade facilitation agreements, plus the Single Market.

These agreements have been negotiated organically over 40 years. Democratically, the Council (heads of all states) authorise the Commission to negotiate. Once the negotiations are completed, the agreement comes back to the Council to agree the final form, and to the European Parliament for the representatives from every country to consent. For larger agreements (eg Japan) the agreement comes back to the HoC for review and agreement.

As this has taken place over 40 years, both Tories and Labour have contributed through the Council, and as the EP is Proportional Representation even smaller parties such as the Greens and UKIP get a say.

The Commission itself is nominated by the Council (heads of states), with the Trade Commissioner rotating. UK Trade Commissioners have held the post 4 times out of 12 since 1973. We promoted the Single Market. The current EU trade policy is shaped indelibly by the UK, and within the UK has been shaped by both main parties and influenced by the smaller ones.

In other words, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of democratically elected representatives that have scrutinised our current state of trade over the years, providing checks and balances.


Future Trade State:
Under No Deal, those 750+ agreements plus membership of the Single Market cease to exist, as per Article 50. The entire organic growth of the UK's trade policy is wiped out, to be replaced by:

The Department of International Trade defining what the UK's trade future agreements should be.

You might agree with this - the UK solely responsible for it's own trade policy. But it's not the UK, is it - it's the International Trade Secretary (currently the disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox).


Is it just me that recognises this? No. So do:
The Commons Select Committee

The Scottish Parliament

Brexit has taken power from the many, and handed it to the few.

The policy will be drafted by a team, negotiated by a team (yes, albeit headed by the secretary) - similar to the negotiating team of the EC, that you state above are authorised to negotiate by the EC.
(Brexit for example, you know it's not just Barnier negotiating on his own, right?)

Besides, there are plenty of good committee recommendations, to alleviate the issue of the few deciding trade deals, as you put it...
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../1043/1043.pdf

You might agree with this - the UK solely responsible for it's own trade policy

Yep, that's generally what China, USA, etc. do - and what's more, they certainly don't have to have open borders for people with their trade partners, in order to trade with them.

PS. Those thousands of democrats scrutinising the EU directed trade deals aren't scrutinising EU deals with the UK interest at heart.....only the British ones will be, so if the Gov implements some of the recommendations from the committee, we will have just as much scrutiny/oversight (~650 MPs +HoL maybe?).

PPS. Apparently nobody knew what Brexit meant, so how could 52% know it didn't mean a CU and/or SM access, meaning no control over trade? Come-on you can't have your cake & eat it......
Either;
<=52% knew Brexit meant out of the CU and trade policy decided by a few, or
<=52% didn't know Brexit meant coming out of the CU

HTH BIDI

[meridian]

Worst case scenario, D Abbott COULD be in charge of what our future relationship is.

And 52% or the country voted for that.

Yeah, sure they did.

There are quite a few more hoops to jump through before THAT doomsday scenario is enacted. And even if it is, it will not have come about based on how the 52% voted 3 years ago.

It will be due to the more recent voters in a general election, that results in DA becoming the next trade minister, rather than the prior referendum voters.

meridian, you (for example) could have voted Remain in the Ref, but Tory in the next GE - how would you be to blame exactly for Diane becoming the minister, in this scenario?

Which is why others have called your post ridiculous, which to be fair, is very restrained

HTH BIDI

You're missing the point, but let me lay it out for you. The point is that 52% of the country voted for our trade policy to be determined by a small handful of people, and quite often a single person. Whether Diane Abbott is ACTUALLY in charge of our future relationship is up to the voters and the Labour selectors; whether Diane Abbott COULD BE in charge of it is due solely to Brexit.

The thesis (tl;dr if you like):
Current Trade State:
750+ trade and trade facilitation agreements, plus the Single Market.

These agreements have been negotiated organically over 40 years. Democratically, the Council (heads of all states) authorise the Commission to negotiate. Once the negotiations are completed, the agreement comes back to the Council to agree the final form, and to the European Parliament for the representatives from every country to consent. For larger agreements (eg Japan) the agreement comes back to the HoC for review and agreement.

As this has taken place over 40 years, both Tories and Labour have contributed through the Council, and as the EP is Proportional Representation even smaller parties such as the Greens and UKIP get a say.

The Commission itself is nominated by the Council (heads of states), with the Trade Commissioner rotating. UK Trade Commissioners have held the post 4 times out of 12 since 1973. We promoted the Single Market. The current EU trade policy is shaped indelibly by the UK, and within the UK has been shaped by both main parties and influenced by the smaller ones.

In other words, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of democratically elected representatives that have scrutinised our current state of trade over the years, providing checks and balances.


Future Trade State:
Under No Deal, those 750+ agreements plus membership of the Single Market cease to exist, as per Article 50. The entire organic growth of the UK's trade policy is wiped out, to be replaced by:

The Department of International Trade defining what the UK's trade future agreements should be.

You might agree with this - the UK solely responsible for it's own trade policy. But it's not the UK, is it - it's the International Trade Secretary (currently the disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox).


Is it just me that recognises this? No. So do:
The Commons Select Committee

The Scottish Parliament

Brexit has taken power from the many, and handed it to the few.

[Bean]

Yeah, sure they did.

There are quite a few more hoops to jump through before THAT doomsday scenario is enacted. And even if it is, it will not have come about based on how the 52% voted 3 years ago.

But please feel free to draw ridiculous conclusions....it is no more that we've come to expect from the irrational bedwetter types on here.

I can’t help it if Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber don’t understand what they voted for or how things now work.

SNIP

It will be due to the more recent voters in a general election, that results in DA becoming the next trade minister, rather than the prior referendum voters.

meridian, you (for example) could have voted Remain in the Ref, but Tory in the next GE - how would you be to blame exactly for Diane becoming the minister, in this scenario?

Which is why others have called your post ridiculous, which to be fair, is very restrained

HTH BIDI

[shaunbhoy]

More irrelevant abstract speculation deleted

Love the way you seamlessly toggle between common or garden stupidity and willful pig-ignorance.

[meridian]

Yeah, sure they did.

There are quite a few more hoops to jump through before THAT doomsday scenario is enacted. And even if it is, it will not have come about based on how the 52% voted 3 years ago.

But please feel free to draw ridiculous conclusions....it is no more that we've come to expect from the irrational bedwetter types on here.
All the suggestion now needs is to be rubber-stamped by dimwits like Whorty, OG, and Eirikur to reach full cretin status.

indeed sometimes you miss the intellectual cut & thrust we got from AssGoo or a pile of dog doings.

I can’t help it if Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber don’t understand what they voted for or how things now work.

Simple example for the dunces at the back: the U.K. needs to decide what tariffs to apply on imports. Do you think there are industry-wide consultations and a Parliamentary decision on long-term strategy and consequences?

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

Theresa May has decided to protect sensitive agricultural and manufacturing sectors if Britain leaves the EU without a deal — but to slash duties on all other goods imports in a no-deal Brexit.

The prime minister’s decision follows a bitter clash between Philip Hammond, chancellor, and Michael Gove, environment secretary, over import duties, an issue of huge significance to both producers and consumers.

[Old Greg]

The UK will split before the EU will. Scots will go first, followed by the NI once they realise that Westminster have shafted them good and proper.

The UK split 100 years ago.

[Mordac]

The UK will split before the EU will. Scots will go first, followed by the NI once they realise that Westminster have shafted them good and proper.

They can't leave England, or "the Bank of Mum & Dad" as the kids would call us...

[Whorty]

Iiii cos those who walk the halls of power in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg will completely have the best interests of the Irish and the Scottish at heart....

Actually no way that is utter utter bollocks.

Fook me you are delusional today - i'll put it down to being early on a monday.

Do you seriously think the way the Tories are dealing with Brexit, and how they lied to the Scots going into their original ref, that they won't vote differently next time? Stick your head back in the sand fella, you won't have to face reality that way

[original PM]

The UK will split before the EU will. Scots will go first, followed by the NI once they realise that Westminster have shafted them good and proper.

Iiii cos those who walk the halls of power in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg will completely have the best interests of the Irish and the Scottish at heart....

Actually no way that is utter utter bollocks.

Fook me you are delusional today - i'll put it down to being early on a monday.

[Whorty]

If the EU hasn't imploded in a puff of its own pomposity by then...

The UK will split before the EU will. Scots will go first, followed by the NI once they realise that Westminster have shafted them good and proper.

[vetran]

It's either that or seppuku

don't let us stop you!

[AtW]

Wow, can you imagine a trade minister with intelligence and a level of integrity?

It's either that or seppuku