UK, the EU's first colony?

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.
Now Labour are explicitly proposing to stay permanently in the CU, without offering any explanation as to how UK interests will be represented.
Strange.....and even stranger if anybody votes for it.

Labour are promoting anything that opposes the government for no other reason
than to be obstructive.

Ophelia

2019-10-21 19:49:13 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU
without any representation.
Now Labour are explicitly proposing to stay permanently in the CU, without
offering any explanation as to how UK interests will be represented.
Strange.....and even stranger if anybody votes for it.

Labour are promoting anything that opposes the government for no other
reason
than to be obstructive.

==

Aye and I hope it bounces straight back in their face!!

p***@gmail.com

2019-10-21 16:02:36 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.

Patrick

Roger

2019-10-21 16:11:30 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite happy to be in the CU with no representation?

p***@gmail.com

2019-10-21 17:57:32 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth. I said there were a coalition of differing reasons why people opposed Mrs May's deal and it failed.

Patrick

p***@gmail.com

2019-10-21 21:35:57 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is only a minor problem?

We've been round the houses several times already, the lack of representation would be a result of the UK opting for A50 and I've said before I'd be content with a CU. Others of course would have a problem with it, some indeed think about little else.

Patrick

Roger

2019-10-22 08:45:20 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is only a minor problem?

You always seem to fudge the issue.

When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or being a member of a yet to be defined CU?

BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

Keema's Nan

2019-10-22 09:34:43 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in
the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that
was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite
happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the
point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is
only a minor problem?

We've been round the houses several times already, the lack of
representation would be a result of the UK opting for A50 and I've said
before I'd be content with a CU. Others of course would have a problem with
it, some indeed think about little else.
Patrick

You always seem to fudge the issue.
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or
being a member of a yet to be defined CU?
BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round
of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

Goodness me. All these non-entities endlessly talking EU bollox rather than
actually doing things.

They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Ask the EU to design a
horse and after about 15 years they would come up with a duckbilled platypus.

Roger

2019-10-22 09:45:07 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in
the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that
was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite
happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the
point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is
only a minor problem?

We've been round the houses several times already, the lack of
representation would be a result of the UK opting for A50 and I've said
before I'd be content with a CU. Others of course would have a problem with
it, some indeed think about little else.
Patrick

You always seem to fudge the issue.
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or
being a member of a yet to be defined CU?
BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round
of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

Goodness me. All these non-entities endlessly talking EU bollox rather than
actually doing things.
They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Ask the EU to design a
horse and after about 15 years they would come up with a duckbilled platypus.

Whilst in general terms I would agree with, it should be said that as far as the CU/Single Market is concerned the EU has been quite clear from the outset; No Cherrypicking!

Essentially if you want to stay in the EU customs union you must accept the single market.

And until such time as somebody actually comes up with an 'alternative' CU proposal that is acceptable to the EU then I will assume that any reference to 'staying in the CU' is pretty much synonymous with staying in the Single Market....i.e. being in the EU without representation.

abelard

2019-10-22 11:32:14 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in
the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that
was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite
happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the
point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is
only a minor problem?

We've been round the houses several times already, the lack of
representation would be a result of the UK opting for A50 and I've said
before I'd be content with a CU. Others of course would have a problem with
it, some indeed think about little else.
Patrick

You always seem to fudge the issue.
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or
being a member of a yet to be defined CU?
BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round
of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

Goodness me. All these non-entities endlessly talking EU bollox rather than
actually doing things.
They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Ask the EU to design a
horse and after about 15 years they would come up with a duckbilled platypus.

Whilst in general terms I would agree with, it should be said that as far as the CU/Single Market is concerned the EU has been quite clear from the outset; No Cherrypicking!
Essentially if you want to stay in the EU customs union you must accept the single market.
And until such time as somebody actually comes up with an 'alternative' CU proposal that is acceptable to the EU then I will assume that any reference to 'staying in the CU' is pretty much synonymous with staying in the Single Market....i.e. being in the EU without representation.

yes, i've certainly been wondering about that as your discussion
evolves

just why 'must' you be in 'the single market'?

neither can i see why a customs union benefits any but
the big battalions of unions and other monopolists

as agent cob would put it were he honest and intelligent...

the few rather than the many

--
www.abelard.org

James Hammerton

2019-10-22 18:49:53 UTC

Post by abelard

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in
the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that
was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite
happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the
point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is
only a minor problem?

We've been round the houses several times already, the lack of
representation would be a result of the UK opting for A50 and I've said
before I'd be content with a CU. Others of course would have a problem with
it, some indeed think about little else.
Patrick

You always seem to fudge the issue.
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or
being a member of a yet to be defined CU?
BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round
of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

Goodness me. All these non-entities endlessly talking EU bollox rather than
actually doing things.
They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Ask the EU to design a
horse and after about 15 years they would come up with a duckbilled platypus.

Whilst in general terms I would agree with, it should be said that as far as the CU/Single Market is concerned the EU has been quite clear from the outset; No Cherrypicking!
Essentially if you want to stay in the EU customs union you must accept the single market.
And until such time as somebody actually comes up with an 'alternative' CU proposal that is acceptable to the EU then I will assume that any reference to 'staying in the CU' is pretty much synonymous with staying in the Single Market....i.e. being in the EU without representation.

yes, i've certainly been wondering about that as your discussion
evolves
just why 'must' you be in 'the single market'?

AIUI - the way the EU achieves 'frictionless' trade between its member
states (and close to this with the EEA states) is to (1) enclose all its
member states in a customs union - this doesn't apply to the EEA though
(2) harmonise regulations via making a set of EU wide regulations (3)
ensure those regulations are enforced by member states via those states
adopting those regulations in their laws and having regulatory
authorities perform market surveillance and enforcement.

Ergo little or no need for border checks within EU because the
regulatory checks are enforced within each state and there's no need to
check quotas or tarrifs due to them all applying the same CU to no EU
countries.

With the EEA countries some checks are needed at the borders relating to
the tariffs and quotas but these relatively light because regulatory
compliance can be assumed due to it being enforced by the EEA countries
themselves.

So with Brexit, Britain aims leave both the EU (and its CU) and the
single market and thus even though regulatory compliance will
technically still be there on day 1, Britain is no longer part of the EU
or of the EU's enforcement/compliance systems and intends to diverge
from EU regulations. Therefore the EU will no longer take compliance on
trust to the same degree as it does for EU or EEA members and thus more
checking of goods flowing from the UK into the EU will become necessary
than at present. Of course the UK may do the same for goods going in the
other direction. Ergo trade barriers rise between the UK and EU.

Post by abelard
neither can i see why a customs union benefits any but
the big battalions of unions and other monopolists
as agent cob would put it were he honest and intelligent...
the few rather than the many

Regards,

James

Roger

2019-10-22 19:34:29 UTC

Post by abelard
just why 'must' you be in 'the single market'?

He asked why, not how.

The extreme extent of the European Union single market, which is way superior to equivalent agreements and to the EU's own agreements with Switzerland and Norway, has a very specific scope.

The idea is to create a single nation...a United States of Europe.

Along with the Single Market, the Eurozone is binding fiscal policy as well as the governance of financial institutions and markets. Foreign Policy is WIP, but the EU is trying to tackle international affairs in a joint manner. Shared Diplomatic representations are already common, as is 'EU' representation at events like the G7.

Although I can see this working for central Europe, in particular the area of the Holy Roman Empire, I cannot see it being well received in the UK which has already balked at the Eurozone.

I think the time is right for the UK to 'fix' it's arrangements with the EU, with a deal like that in discussion, and remain good partners as they get on with forming the USE.

So to answer why be in the single market? For no reason, it does not make sense for countries that do not want to be unified.

BTW, I don't think Norway, Switzerland and the UK will be the only countries to keep the EU at an arms length.

James Hammerton

2019-10-22 21:48:42 UTC

Post by abelard
just why 'must' you be in 'the single market'?

He asked why, not how.

And my answer explains why many people don't want to leave - after the
bit you quote I point out the implications many people draw from what I
wrote above, namely that leaving the single market will lead trade
barriers being raised between the UK and EU. This is the basis for the
claims of economic disruption and the UK being worse off as a result of
leaving the EU.

Post by Roger
The extreme extent of the European Union single market, which is way superior to equivalent agreements and to the EU's own agreements with Switzerland and Norway, has a very specific scope.
The idea is to create a single nation...a United States of Europe.

Yes I'm aware of that.

Post by Roger
Along with the Single Market, the Eurozone is binding fiscal policy as well as the governance of financial institutions and markets. Foreign Policy is WIP, but the EU is trying to tackle international affairs in a joint manner. Shared Diplomatic representations are already common, as is 'EU' representation at events like the G7.
Although I can see this working for central Europe, in particular the area of the Holy Roman Empire, I cannot see it being well received in the UK which has already balked at the Eurozone.
I think the time is right for the UK to 'fix' it's arrangements with the EU, with a deal like that in discussion, and remain good partners as they get on with forming the USE.
So to answer why be in the single market? For no reason, it does not make sense for countries that do not want to be unified.

You appear to be conflating the single market with the european
superstate. The EEA countries are all outside of this process in an
arrangement that is a lot closer to the 'common market' we were sold in
the 1970s (albeit with a lot more harmonisation of regulations) than the
EU is.

The ease of trade with our largest trading partner will be affected by
our leaving the EU and it will likely become less easy/more costly to do
so. That is a reason for staying in the single market, the downside
being that you remain wedded to the EU's regulations.

Post by Roger
BTW, I don't think Norway, Switzerland and the UK will be the only countries to keep the EU at an arms length.

Well I don't see the US clamouring to join. :-) But I'll read that as
you don't see them as the only European countries to keep the EU at arms
length and you might be right.

ISTM the EU has serious problems, and I don't see e.g. Norway being at
all keen on getting any closer than they are.

Regards,

James

James Hammerton

2019-10-22 18:36:37 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in
the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that
was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite
happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the
point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is
only a minor problem?

We've been round the houses several times already, the lack of
representation would be a result of the UK opting for A50 and I've said
before I'd be content with a CU. Others of course would have a problem with
it, some indeed think about little else.
Patrick

You always seem to fudge the issue.
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or
being a member of a yet to be defined CU?
BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round
of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

Goodness me. All these non-entities endlessly talking EU bollox rather than
actually doing things.
They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Ask the EU to design a
horse and after about 15 years they would come up with a duckbilled platypus.

I don't believe they've ever insisted that being on the one implies the
other. However to achieve fully 'frictionless' trade with the EU you do
need to be in both. They've also insisted that NI needed to be in both
but have relaxed this somewhat with Boris's deal (and to a different
degree May's deal).

Post by Roger
And until such time as somebody actually comes up with an 'alternative' CU proposal that is acceptable to the EU then I will assume that any reference to 'staying in the CU' is pretty much synonymous with staying in the Single Market....i.e. being in the EU without representation.

Turkey is in a CU without being in the single market.

Regards,

James

Roger

2019-10-22 19:23:31 UTC

Post by James Hammerton
I don't believe they've ever insisted that being on the one implies the
other.

No Cherry picking. THis has been the consistent reply to attempts to make a partial CU. This has persisted right up to the recent negotiations with NI; in fact NI will remain in the single market because the idea of CU just for Agriculture and Industrial was rejected.

However to achieve fully 'frictionless' trade with the EU you do

Post by James Hammerton
need to be in both. They've also insisted that NI needed to be in both
but have relaxed this somewhat with Boris's deal (and to a different
degree May's deal).

Reading the EU's own document provides a great insight to the terms. They refer to the Customs Union as a subset of single market rules:

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_QANDA-19-6122_en.htm

Turkey is in a CU without being in the single market.

There are CU's all round the world that have nothing to do with the European Union as well.

But at the moment the only way the UK can stay in it's present CU with the EU is accepting the (the bulk of) the single market.

James Hammerton

2019-10-22 22:01:38 UTC

Post by James Hammerton
I don't believe they've ever insisted that being on the one implies the
other.

See my reply to one of your other articles in this thread.

Post by Roger
However to achieve fully 'frictionless' trade with the EU you do

Post by James Hammerton
need to be in both. They've also insisted that NI needed to be in both
but have relaxed this somewhat with Boris's deal (and to a different
degree May's deal).

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_QANDA-19-6122_en.htm

I don't see any reference to the CU being a subset of single market
rules there, but perhaps you can highlight the specific phrase(s) you
have in mind. For now I note that the first 2 questions in the "Customs
and regulations" section seem to treat customs and the single market
separately.

Turkey is in a CU without being in the single market.

There are CU's all round the world that have nothing to do with the European Union as well.

Turkey's CU is with the EU!

Post by Roger
But at the moment the only way the UK can stay in it's present CU with the EU is accepting the (the bulk of) the single market.

Actually the only way to be in *that* *specific* CU is to be an EU
member state. The option of staying in the single market was open
without needing a CU with the EU - namely to go for the EEA (aka Norway
option). But we ruled that out.

Regards,

James

p***@gmail.com

2019-10-22 15:54:57 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is only a minor problem?

You always seem to fudge the issue.

You posited May's deal failed because of one issue, I disagreed.

You asked a direct, but different question on what I thought about (inevitably) customs unions. I gave my opinion. End of.

Post by Roger
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or being a member of a yet to be defined CU?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but here goes. I would be content to remain in the single market. I am content to remain in the current CU. I would be content to remain in another CU, subject to what is negotiated. I appreciate you and others would not.

Post by Roger
BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

The 90% is your take on it. I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to be obsessed by it (to paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall).

Patrick

Roger

2019-10-22 16:10:42 UTC

Post by Roger
You always seem to fudge the issue.

You posited May's deal failed because of one issue, I disagreed.
You asked a direct, but different question on what I thought about (inevitably) customs unions. I gave my opinion. End of.

I was supervised you consider just a 'minor' issue; I think it was the biggest one.

Post by Roger
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or being a member of a yet to be defined CU?

So you do acknowledge that no other CU has been negotiated (the EU refuse to consider it) and therefore when we talk about Brexit and staying in the CU we are talking about the EU's CU which is synonymous with the Single Market?

Post by Roger
BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

The 90% is your take on it. I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to be obsessed by it (to paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall).

You say it's my take on it; I think many observers and journalists have noted that the last round of negotiations revolved around the NI problem, which was completely CU related. At a certain stage we did start hearing rumors about a special CU for NI, but in the end they decided that NI would remain in the EU customs union, aka single market.

What part of the last round of negotiations was NOT about the CU?

Roger

2019-10-22 16:16:39 UTC

Post by p***@gmail.com
You posited May's deal failed because of one issue, I disagreed.

Looks like I'm not the only one:

<quote>

Tory MP John Baron - a longstanding Euroscceptic - tells MPs that there are "aspects" of the PM's deal he does not like.

However, he adds: "Although I have qualms, these are manageable."

"For me the elephant in the room was always the backstop - it alone could have trapped the UK indefinitely in the structure of the EU's making."

</quote>

The difference is that his opinion is a bit more relevant than ours :D

Incubus

2019-10-22 16:19:00 UTC

Post by p***@gmail.com
You posited May's deal failed because of one issue, I disagreed.

<quote>
Tory MP John Baron - a longstanding Euroscceptic - tells MPs that there are "aspects" of the PM's deal he does not like.
However, he adds: "Although I have qualms, these are manageable."
"For me the elephant in the room was always the backstop - it alone could have trapped the UK indefinitely in the structure of the EU's making."
</quote>
The difference is that his opinion is a bit more relevant than ours :D

Well, our opinion ought to be relevant because we were asked whether we wish to
leave the EU or remain and we voted to leave.

Roger

2019-10-22 16:26:22 UTC

Post by Incubus

Post by p***@gmail.com
You posited May's deal failed because of one issue, I disagreed.

Well, our opinion ought to be relevant because we were asked whether we wish to
leave the EU or remain and we voted to leave.

Well yes, but our collective opinion. BTW, the quoted MP was announcing his intention to vote in favor of BJ's deal, in passing he mention why he didn't support May's.

p***@gmail.com

2019-10-31 23:18:53 UTC

Post by Roger
You always seem to fudge the issue.

You posited May's deal failed because of one issue, I disagreed.
You asked a direct, but different question on what I thought about (inevitably) customs unions. I gave my opinion. End of.

I was supervised you consider just a 'minor' issue; I think it was the biggest one.

Post by Roger
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or being a member of a yet to be defined CU?

Firstly,apologies for the delay. I dip in and out of here from time t time, I am away and will be for a few days yet.

I see James Hammerton has picked up much of your reply.

I had thought Turkey was in a CU with the EU, but your post prompted me to check. The EU says it is https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/turkey/index_en.htm

"The EU and Turkey are linked by a Customs Union agreement, which came into force on 31 December 1995."

You now seem to be extending your argument from being about a CU to being about a CU and the single market. That's much nearer the mark.

Post by Roger
BTW, you say some people think about nothing else....90% of the latest round of negotiations concerned the CU; why should we not be obsessed with it?

The 90% is your take on it. I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to be obsessed by it (to paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall).

You say it's my take on it; I think many observers and journalists have noted that the last round of negotiations revolved around the NI problem, which was completely CU related. At a certain stage we did start hearing rumors about a special CU for NI, but in the end they decided that NI would remain in the EU customs union, aka single market.
What part of the last round of negotiations was NOT about the CU?

Off the top of my head: access to the single market and the future closeness of environmental and workers rights, the possible extension of the implementation period.

Patrick

James Hammerton

2019-10-22 18:33:22 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is only a minor problem?

You always seem to fudge the issue.
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or being a member of a yet to be defined CU?

The single market is not a CU and a CU is not the single market.

Turkey has a CU with the EU but is not in the single market.

Norway does not have a CU with the EU but is in the single market.

The CU pertains only to quotas and tariffs - the single market pertains
to regulations/regulatory alignment.

Regards,

James

Roger

2019-10-22 19:13:27 UTC

Post by Roger
May's deal failed because there was a risk the UK could be stuck in the CU without any representation.

May's deal failed because of a coalition of differing reasons. If that was one, IMO it wasn't a major one.
Patrick

Oh, so there was no problem with the backstop and the UK would be quite happy to be in the CU with no representation?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I didn't; I asked a question. I'll rephrase it.

That wasn't what you were positing, which is why May's deal failed, and the point to which I replied.

You think that the issue of remaining on the CU without representation is only a minor problem?

You always seem to fudge the issue.
When you talk about the CU do you mean remaining in the Single Market or being a member of a yet to be defined CU?

The single market is not a CU and a CU is not the single market.
Turkey has a CU with the EU but is not in the single market.
Norway does not have a CU with the EU but is in the single market.
The CU pertains only to quotas and tariffs - the single market pertains
to regulations/regulatory alignment.
Regards,
James

Sounds like cherry picking to me.

A customs union is a generic term. It literally means eliminate the borders. This might be for just a few goods, it might be for anything that could cross a border, including services, and require equal conditions.

The EU's single market is a very comprehensive CU.

The EU has a CU with Turkey that just covers manufactured goods. It has little to do with the CU the UK currently has with the EU.

As the EU has consistently ruled out cherry picking, aka a customised CU, then to me staying in the CU and being in the EU single market are synonymous.

James Hammerton

2019-10-22 21:35:46 UTC