TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
The EU are making zero effort to sweeten any pill or present things in a sellable way. Today has been a PR huge own goal for them. They can’t help themselves.
Why should the EU care about UK public opinion?
Does the EU care much about public opinion in the other 27 member states? Voters are an inconvenience as they can't be trusted to vote the right way - a threat to the project.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Officially we were shadowing the Mark from 1987. Unofficially probably a little while before that.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
The EU are making zero effort to sweeten any pill or present things in a sellable way. Today has been a PR huge own goal for them. They can’t help themselves.
Why should the EU care about UK public opinion?
Does the EU care much about public opinion in the other 27 member states? Voters are an inconvenience as they can't be trusted to vote the right way - a threat to the project.
The point is more that voters in one country should not think they can impose obligations on voters in the other 27.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Officially we were shadowing the Mark from 1987. Unofficially probably a little while before that.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
When rates go back up to anything like historical rates, there are going to be a lot of very squeezed consumers.
Will that ever happen. There is now just too much debt - far more than when the entire system nearly collapsed in 2008.
A quarter percent here and there - but I would be amazed if the base rate rose above 3 per cent for years if not decades.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
The EU are making zero effort to sweeten any pill or present things in a sellable way. Today has been a PR huge own goal for them. They can’t help themselves.
Why should the EU care about UK public opinion?
Does the EU care much about public opinion in the other 27 member states? Voters are an inconvenience as they can't be trusted to vote the right way - a threat to the project.
The point is more that voters in one country should not think they can impose obligations on voters in the other 27.
Our voters will be satisfied if the other 27 stop imposing obligations on us. That was the point of Brexit.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Yes, but that was at a time when interest rates were fully under political control.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
The EU are making zero effort to sweeten any pill or present things in a sellable way. Today has been a PR huge own goal for them. They can’t help themselves.
Why should the EU care about UK public opinion?
Does the EU care much about public opinion in the other 27 member states? Voters are an inconvenience as they can't be trusted to vote the right way - a threat to the project.
The point is more that voters in one country should not think they can impose obligations on voters in the other 27.
Our voters will be satisfied if the other 27 stop imposing obligations on us. That was the point of Brexit.
They didn't. What you want is to be unconstrained by the world around you. That is something quite different and something that is undeliverable.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Yes, but that was at a time when interest rates were fully under political control.
And?
And so you can blame Nigel Lawson, but you can't blame the ERM.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
When rates go back up to anything like historical rates, there are going to be a lot of very squeezed consumers.
Will that ever happen. There is now just too much debt - far more than when the entire system nearly collapsed in 2008.
A quarter percent here and there - but I would be amazed if the base rate rose above 3 per cent for years if not decades.
Lots of debt; and lots of money looking for a return sloshing around the system.
I agree, but I suspect 2% is probably the ceiling for the new normal.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
When rates go back up to anything like historical rates, there are going to be a lot of very squeezed consumers.
Will that ever happen. There is now just too much debt - far more than when the entire system nearly collapsed in 2008.
A quarter percent here and there - but I would be amazed if the base rate rose above 3 per cent for years if not decades.
Savers and those in defined contribution pensions are screwed then.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
The EU are making zero effort to sweeten any pill or present things in a sellable way. Today has been a PR huge own goal for them. They can’t help themselves.
Why should the EU care about UK public opinion?
Does the EU care much about public opinion in the other 27 member states? Voters are an inconvenience as they can't be trusted to vote the right way - a threat to the project.
The point is more that voters in one country should not think they can impose obligations on voters in the other 27.
Aren't refugees being imposed on other countries because of the madness of one country's leader ?
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
To be fair interest rates didn't increase because of Black Wednesday as we left the ERM.
But Major was clearly willing to increase interest rates if that had managed to maintain ERM membership. That after all had been the reason why interest rates were increased first to 12% and then to 15% in a single day.
After leaving the ERM interest rates fell by 4% within a few months IIRC.
So the alternatives were:
ERM membership, 12%+ interest rates and an over valued currency - Major's prefered choice
Leaving the ERM, 6% interest rates and a competitive currency - the imposed reality
Needless to say that the Conservative party's economic reputation went down the toilet because Major tried to follow the wrong option.
Europe is clearly a blind spot; luckily the current Tory leadership is more in tune with public opinion.
So much so that she managed to throw away a reasonable working majority..........
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
At entirely the wrong rate for our economy, as a short-term fix for tensions in the Conservative Party. Sound familiar?
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
The EU are making zero effort to sweeten any pill or present things in a sellable way. Today has been a PR huge own goal for them. They can’t help themselves.
Why should the EU care about UK public opinion?
Does the EU care much about public opinion in the other 27 member states? Voters are an inconvenience as they can't be trusted to vote the right way - a threat to the project.
The point is more that voters in one country should not think they can impose obligations on voters in the other 27.
So when Merkel opened her borders in one country to all and sundry in her brain fart Summer and then decided she wanted to impose quotas on the other 24 Schengen EU countries that was fine? Think the Poles and Hungarians at the least were somewhat shy in showing their unbridled enthusiasm.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Interest rates fell throughout the time we were in the ERM.
No where near as much as they should have. They were kept artificially high and damaged the economy specifically to keep us in the ERM.
We successfully brought inflation under control and laid the ground for the golden legacy that Labour inherited in 1997 with a balanced, low-debt economy.
Only by leaving the ERM and regaining control of our economic policy. It was membership of the ERM that caused much of the damage in the first place.
Well sort of, but the damage the ERM did was fairly small beer compared to the massive hit we had ten years earlier when the government took a big chunk of demand out of the economy and saddled us with 3M unemployed. So even accepting the premise that it was the ERM that was the problem you could still argue that a national government could do more damage.
But the ERM might have been a good idea in principle but badly implemented. That was certainly the opinion of someone I was friendly with at the time who predicted the events around Black Wednesday with some accuracy several months before they happened. He was only wrong in suggesting that the high interest rates would last a week, rather than an afternoon. I also remember that as soon as he resigned after the 1992 election Neil Kinnock got a letter into the Times pointing out that the level of the pound that was being used was too high.
Was the collapse of the ERM inevitable? I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either. But I am pretty sure it doesn't make any difference to whether or not we should leave or remain in the EU 25 years later.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Yes, but that was at a time when interest rates were fully under political control.
And that political control was dedicated to shadowing the DM.
There is little dispute that we had interest rates higher than sensible economic management would have otherwise required, for a period of several years. The damage was real - and the widely acknowledged mismanagement of that period led to both our opt out from the euro, and the independent management of interest rates by the Bank of England.
Off topic - football betting. Don’t know whether you punt on the footie but if so the bookies don’t yet seem to have realised how much we have disintegrated. Saturday, Corals in the ground had Huddersfield correct score win odds ranging from 12/1 for 2-1, 33/1 for 3-1 and 50/1 for 3-2. They were three and a half to one on BF just to win the game!
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Yes, but that was at a time when interest rates were fully under political control.
And that political control was dedicated to shadowing the DM.
There is little dispute that we had interest rates higher than sensible economic management would have otherwise required, for a period of several years. The damage was real - and the widely acknowledged mismanagement of that period led to both our opt out from the euro, and the independent management of interest rates by the Bank of England.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Yes, but that was at a time when interest rates were fully under political control.
And that political control was dedicated to shadowing the DM.
There is little dispute that we had interest rates higher than sensible economic management would have otherwise required, for a period of several years. The damage was real - and the widely acknowledged mismanagement of that period led to both our opt out from the euro, and the independent management of interest rates by the Bank of England.
This is an argument you're not going to win.
It’s just more evidence that we should have joined the Euro!
Off topic - football betting. Don’t know whether you punt on the footie but if so the bookies don’t yet seem to have realised how much we have disintegrated. Saturday, Corals in the ground had Huddersfield correct score win odds ranging from 12/1 for 2-1, 33/1 for 3-1 and 50/1 for 3-2. They were three and a half to one on BF just to win the game!
I know it’s painful and all that but still.
It is appalling isn't it - not quite sure what has happened; has losing the Chairman/Chief Exec hurt us that much?
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage...
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Interest rates fell throughout the time we were in the ERM.
No where near as much as they should have. They were kept artificially high and damaged the economy specifically to keep us in the ERM.
We successfully brought inflation under control and laid the ground for the golden legacy that Labour inherited in 1997 with a balanced, low-debt economy.
Only by leaving the ERM and regaining control of our economic policy. It was membership of the ERM that caused much of the damage in the first place.
Well sort of, but the damage the ERM did was fairly small beer compared to the massive hit we had ten years earlier when the government took a big chunk of demand out of the economy and saddled us with 3M unemployed. So even accepting the premise that it was the ERM that was the problem you could still argue that a national government could do more damage.
But the ERM might have been a good idea in principle but badly implemented. That was certainly the opinion of someone I was friendly with at the time who predicted the events around Black Wednesday with some accuracy several months before they happened. He was only wrong in suggesting that the high interest rates would last a week, rather than an afternoon. I also remember that as soon as he resigned after the 1992 election Neil Kinnock got a letter into the Times pointing out that the level of the pound that was being used was too high.
Was the collapse of the ERM inevitable? I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either. But I am pretty sure it doesn't make any difference to whether or not we should leave or remain in the EU 25 years later.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
The EU are making zero effort to sweeten any pill or present things in a sellable way. Today has been a PR huge own goal for them. They can’t help themselves.
Why should the EU care about UK public opinion?
Does the EU care much about public opinion in the other 27 member states? Voters are an inconvenience as they can't be trusted to vote the right way - a threat to the project.
The point is more that voters in one country should not think they can impose obligations on voters in the other 27.
Aren't refugees being imposed on other countries because of the madness of one country's leader ?
Considering that any increase in population will boost GDP, even if the extra people do nothing but eat, sleep and shit, I wonder how much of a boost Germany's GDP has had from Merkel's refugees.
While at the same time reducing Germany's GDP per capita.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
The EU are making zero effort to sweeten any pill or present things in a sellable way. Today has been a PR huge own goal for them. They can’t help themselves.
Why should the EU care about UK public opinion?
Does the EU care much about public opinion in the other 27 member states? Voters are an inconvenience as they can't be trusted to vote the right way - a threat to the project.
The point is more that voters in one country should not think they can impose obligations on voters in the other 27.
Our voters will be satisfied if the other 27 stop imposing obligations on us. That was the point of Brexit.
They didn't. What you want is to be unconstrained by the world around you. That is something quite different and something that is undeliverable.
Well sort of, but the damage the ERM did was fairly small beer compared to the massive hit we had ten years earlier when the government took a big chunk of demand out of the economy and saddled us with 3M unemployed. So even accepting the premise that it was the ERM that was the problem you could still argue that a national government could do more damage.
But the ERM might have been a good idea in principle but badly implemented. That was certainly the opinion of someone I was friendly with at the time who predicted the events around Black Wednesday with some accuracy several months before they happened. He was only wrong in suggesting that the high interest rates would last a week, rather than an afternoon. I also remember that as soon as he resigned after the 1992 election Neil Kinnock got a letter into the Times pointing out that the level of the pound that was being used was too high.
Was the collapse of the ERM inevitable? I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either. But I am pretty sure it doesn't make any difference to whether or not we should leave or remain in the EU 25 years later.
It was inevitable because of the exposure of the UK housing market to short term changes in interest rates.
But I agree it has little to do with the current situation beyond revealing just how far John Major was willing to damage the UK economy to maintain the UKs convergence with the EU project. It exposes why his current comments should not be taken seriously
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Yes, but that was at a time when interest rates were fully under political control.
And?
And so you can blame Nigel Lawson, but you can't blame the ERM.
You can because the political decision was to keep interest rates high to try and keep us in the ERM.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Well sort of, but the damage the ERM did was fairly small beer compared to the massive hit we had ten years earlier when the government took a big chunk of demand out of the economy and saddled us with 3M unemployed. So even accepting the premise that it was the ERM that was the problem you could still argue that a national government could do more damage.
But the ERM might have been a good idea in principle but badly implemented. That was certainly the opinion of someone I was friendly with at the time who predicted the events around Black Wednesday with some accuracy several months before they happened. He was only wrong in suggesting that the high interest rates would last a week, rather than an afternoon. I also remember that as soon as he resigned after the 1992 election Neil Kinnock got a letter into the Times pointing out that the level of the pound that was being used was too high.
Was the collapse of the ERM inevitable? I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either. But I am pretty sure it doesn't make any difference to whether or not we should leave or remain in the EU 25 years later.
It was inevitable because of the exposure of the UK housing market to short term changes in interest rates.
But I agree it has little to do with the current situation beyond revealing just how far John Major was willing to damage the UK economy to maintain the UKs convergence with the EU project. It exposes why his current comments should not be taken seriously
When we joined the ERM house prices had already crashed to around the long run average.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Do I recall that lots of ordinary people saw their mortgage rates rocket upward as Major tried to keep Britain in the ERM?
You might recall it, but it didn't happen.
Yes, there was a huge spike from 1987 onwards. Rapid rises like that should never happen if you are focusing on maintaining a healthy national economy, but the altar of European integration demanded we enter recession to shadow the Mark.
We entered the ERM in October 1990.
I’m sure we were shadowing the DM before the official entry though.
Yes, but that was at a time when interest rates were fully under political control.
And?
And so you can blame Nigel Lawson, but you can't blame the ERM.
You can because the political decision was to keep interest rates high to try and keep us in the ERM.
You're talking about decisions made and unmade in the same afternoon.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Interest rates fell throughout the time we were in the ERM.
No where near as much as they should have. They were kept artificially high and damaged the economy specifically to keep us in the ERM.
We successfully brought inflation under control and laid the ground for the golden legacy that Labour inherited in 1997 with a balanced, low-debt economy.
Only by leaving the ERM and regaining control of our economic policy. It was membership of the ERM that caused much of the damage in the first place.
Not true. The peak of interest rates was 89-90 before we joined the ERM. That was also the peak in real terms house prices. The boom-bust cycle that people remember was before the ERM period. Unfortunately because a lot of the subsequent economic pain coincided with being in the ERM, people blame the wrong target.
Not true. We were shadowing the DM as part of our entry into the ERM from 1988 onwards. Major then made the choice to enter the ERM at the wrong rate. Trying to pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
By what mechanism do you think the ERM damaged millions of ordinary people?
Presumably the record high interest rates set not for the regulation of employment or inflation but to shadow the German Mark. That failed effort cost UK PLC billions.
Interest rates fell throughout the time we were in the ERM.
No where near as much as they should have. They were kept artificially high and damaged the economy specifically to keep us in the ERM.
We successfully brought inflation under control and laid the ground for the golden legacy that Labour inherited in 1997 with a balanced, low-debt economy.
Only by leaving the ERM and regaining control of our economic policy. It was membership of the ERM that caused much of the damage in the first place.
Not true. The peak of interest rates was 89-90 before we joined the ERM. That was also the peak in real terms house prices. The boom-bust cycle that people remember was before the ERM period. Unfortunately because a lot of the subsequent economic pain coincided with being in the ERM, people blame the wrong target.
Not true. We were shadowing the DM as part of our entry into the ERM from 1988 onwards. Major then made the choice to enter the ERM at the wrong rate. Trying to pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.
I agree that we entered at the wrong rate, but that's not the point. Lawson carries far more blame than ever John Major does.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Err, because they're totally different concepts?
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
And that political control was dedicated to shadowing the DM.
There is little dispute that we had interest rates higher than sensible economic management would have otherwise required, for a period of several years. The damage was real - and the widely acknowledged mismanagement of that period led to both our opt out from the euro, and the independent management of interest rates by the Bank of England.
Present wisdom may well be that the high interest rate policy by Lawson/Major/Lamont was "higher than sensible economic management would have otherwise required", but it certainly wasn't like that at the time. The rationale behind it was to bring inflation under control and in that sense it genuinely worked: it achieved what it set out to do.
However the problems inherent to fixed exchange rates (sooner or later you have to change the rate) and the Major administration (a tendency to ignore/delay changing a policy, and a belief that failing-and-blaming is an adequate substitute for success[1]) meant that the cure became a problem in itself. Raising interest rates from 10 to 12 to 15% in a single day is not a sane way to behave.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Err, because they're totally different concepts?
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
Yeah, the rules might be slightly different, but are just as good.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Err, because they're totally different concepts?
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
So if the EU do not recognise our standards, NI has to follow the EU's.
Which is what Barnier has set out, for the period before an FTA is agreed, if it ever is.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Err, because they're totally different concepts?
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, to wind back later. But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Err, because they're totally different concepts?
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
So if the EU do not recognise our standards, NI has to follow the EU's.
Which is what Barnier has set out, for the period before an FTA is agreed, if it ever is.
No; the EU would recognise our standards, and we would recognise theirs, to prevent political problems in a volatile area.
Instead, the EU have tried to weaponise the Irish border. Dangerous and foolish.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Err, because they're totally different concepts?
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
Nah, he’s being provocative as a tactic for sure, No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
Would that regulatory equivalence apply to all of the UK? or would it differ between islands?
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
I think that returns us to the diagram in the header.
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Err, because they're totally different concepts?
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
So if the EU do not recognise our standards, NI has to follow the EU's.
Which is what Barnier has set out, for the period before an FTA is agreed, if it ever is.
No; the EU would recognise our standards, and we would recognise theirs, to prevent political problems in a volatile area.
Instead, the EU have tried to weaponise the Irish border. Dangerous and foolish.
So that restricts our sovereignty to vary regulations as all would need to be approved by the EU.
So that restricts our sovereignty to vary regulations as all would need to be approved by the EU.
No, all FTAs are based on mutual recognition of standards together with impartial dispute resolution processes if they cannot agree or standards change. If standards change on either side to the extent that mutual recognition can no longer be agreed, that part of the FTA is adjusted or removed. There is no loss of sovereignty. The EU don't get a veto on UK regulations any more than we get a veto on theirs. Read CETA - the process is already in use.
It was the then equivalent of Project Fear used by the Major government that if the UK left the ERM then interest rates would rise and sterling would become worthless.
"As worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon" was the catchphrase if I remember correctly.
Its difficult to get any credit for subsequently cutting interest rates after leaving the ERM when that was the exact opposite of what you claimed would happen.
So that restricts our sovereignty to vary regulations as all would need to be approved by the EU.
No, all FTAs are based on mutual recognition of standards together with impartial dispute resolution processes if they cannot agree or standards change. If standards change on either side to the extent that mutual recognition can no longer be agreed, that part of the FTA is adjusted or removed. There is no loss of sovereignty. The EU don't get a veto on UK regulations any more than we get a veto on theirs. Read CETA - the process is already in use.
Yes, but this is about regulation before an FTA is agreed.
TM rejecting Barnier on Ireland is headlining the news media and they are showing her comments at PMQ's and they will be well received in the Country
May is rejecting what she agreed to just 2 months ago. Barnier's exasperation is fairly comprehensible.
No price.
Yes but how is that different to what was agreed in December?
Did May not understand what she agreed then? or has she just reneged on the agreement?
May agreed to regulatory equivalence in select areas covered by the GFA, not Northern Ireland staying in the customs union.
How would that regulatory equivalence be managed? Would the ECJ have a role?
Yes, no, to be agreed in negotiations, not outside of secondary effects in a few select areas.
The UK is willing to accept regulatory equivalence for EU products. If the EU wants to be uncompromising and not accept it from the UK, and put up a hard border to check such goods, that is on them.
How does "regulatory equivalence" not mean "abiding by the regulations of the CU and SM" ?
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Err, because they're totally different concepts?
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
So if the EU do not recognise our standards, NI has to follow the EU's.
Which is what Barnier has set out, for the period before an FTA is agreed, if it ever is.
No; the EU would recognise our standards, and we would recognise theirs, to prevent political problems in a volatile area.
Instead, the EU have tried to weaponise the Irish border. Dangerous and foolish.
Can you give me an example of where we would have different standards but recognise each others? So say the permitted level of benzyl alcohol in shampoo is 1% in the EU, but we change it to 1.5% because we want to have our own standard. How would that work? It would be illegal to make a shampoo with 1.5% in Europe, but they'd recognise our standard so they could buy British shampoo with a higher level. Is that what you mean?
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
This is interesting. DD says he will not 'finalise' payments to the EU until all issues effecting the UK are settled. What does this mean? Does it mean that the UK will hold back payments until the FTA is actually signed (eg after Brexit), or just that we will not sign the A50 agreement unless we are happy with it?
If the former, it would go a VERY long way to keeping the Brexiteers onside.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
to quote from Mortimer's article :
Equivalence can be withdrawn unilaterally by the EU. In 2015, the ECJ found data equivalence with the US to be invalid following a challenge by an Austrian citizen through the Irish High Court. A new - more restricted - equivalence decision was put in place by the EU shortly after this.
EU legislation provides for equivalence, and the equivalence decisions themselves do not establish a procedure for maintaining this equivalence. But as with the procedure for approving equivalence, the Commission is likely to play an important role.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
This is a backstop solution, anyway, the third option of the December agreement - the first of which, IIRC, was a full blown trade deal, which given we start off from identical standards, should be relatively straightforward.
This is interesting. DD says he will not 'finalise' payments to the EU until all issues effecting the UK are settled. What does this mean? Does it mean that the UK will hold back payments until the FTA is actually signed (eg after Brexit), or just that we will not sign the A50 agreement unless we are happy with it?
If the former, it would go a VERY long way to keeping the Brexiteers onside.
Sure, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but as the payments are in the draft agreement, they cannot be withheld, short of No Deal Brexit in 13 months time.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
to quote from Mortimer's article :
Equivalence can be withdrawn unilaterally by the EU. In 2015, the ECJ found data equivalence with the US to be invalid following a challenge by an Austrian citizen through the Irish High Court. A new - more restricted - equivalence decision was put in place by the EU shortly after this.
EU legislation provides for equivalence, and the equivalence decisions themselves do not establish a procedure for maintaining this equivalence. But as with the procedure for approving equivalence, the Commission is likely to play an important role.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
to quote from Mortimer's article :
Equivalence can be withdrawn unilaterally by the EU. In 2015, the ECJ found data equivalence with the US to be invalid following a challenge by an Austrian citizen through the Irish High Court. A new - more restricted - equivalence decision was put in place by the EU shortly after this.
EU legislation provides for equivalence, and the equivalence decisions themselves do not establish a procedure for maintaining this equivalence. But as with the procedure for approving equivalence, the Commission is likely to play an important role.
Well of course they can change their mind.
I'm not quite sure of the 'gotcha' Foxy has in mind here.
Equivalence of course cuts both ways, but in the unlikely event of us not having a proper trade deal, and relying upon the backstop, why would, for example, the EU challenge something to do with agricultural standards across the Irish border when we're the biggest importer of Irish produce?
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
This is a backstop solution, anyway, the third option of the December agreement - the first of which, IIRC, was a full blown trade deal, which given we start off from identical standards, should be relatively straightforward.
assuming we do not have a No Deal Brexit, SM rules will apply to NI until the end of transition (31/12/2020). What the EU is proposing is that at that point EU rules apply in NI until an FTA with rules on regulatory equivalence is implemented. That period may be a nanosecond, or decades long, but in the meantime EU rules apply, as per the December agreement.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
This is a backstop solution, anyway, the third option of the December agreement - the first of which, IIRC, was a full blown trade deal, which given we start off from identical standards, should be relatively straightforward.
assuming we do not have a No Deal Brexit, SM rules will apply to NI until the end of transition (31/12/2020). What the EU is proposing is that at that point EU rules apply in NI until an FTA with rules on regulatory equivalence is implemented. That period may be a nanosecond, or decades long, but in the meantime EU rules apply, as per the December agreement.
Gah. I thought we were making progress.
The December agreement was 'regulatory equivalence', not 'EU rules apply'. So no, in the meantime EU rules wouldn't apply, a mutual acceptance of regulations would apply. And it wouldn't be in Irish interests for the regulations not to be accepted....
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
This is a backstop solution, anyway, the third option of the December agreement - the first of which, IIRC, was a full blown trade deal, which given we start off from identical standards, should be relatively straightforward.
assuming we do not have a No Deal Brexit, SM rules will apply to NI until the end of transition (31/12/2020). What the EU is proposing is that at that point EU rules apply in NI until an FTA with rules on regulatory equivalence is implemented. That period may be a nanosecond, or decades long, but in the meantime EU rules apply, as per the December agreement.
Gah. I thought we were making progress.
The December agreement was 'regulatory equivalence', not 'EU rules apply'. So no, in the meantime EU rules wouldn't apply, a mutual acceptance of regulations would apply. And it wouldn't be in Irish interests for the regulations not to be accepted....
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
There is an element of truth in what @wiliamglenn says. Lawson's decision to shadow the German Mark, meant that the UK government did not put the breaks on inflation early enough. To Lawson, that the Pound was steady against the DM meant that there was no need to raise interest rates.
The consequence of this is that the economy boomed and UK inflation spiraled out of Lawson's control. He then argued that the problem was that we weren't in the ERM (despite the fact that he'd essentially put us in the ERM, without mentioning it).
There was a great deal that Lawson did that was good as Chancellor.
Deciding that shadowing the German Mark was the best monetary policy was, however, not a good decision.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
This is a backstop solution, anyway, the third option of the December agreement - the first of which, IIRC, was a full blown trade deal, which given we start off from identical standards, should be relatively straightforward.
assuming we do not have a No Deal Brexit, SM rules will apply to NI until the end of transition (31/12/2020). What the EU is proposing is that at that point EU rules apply in NI until an FTA with rules on regulatory equivalence is implemented. That period may be a nanosecond, or decades long, but in the meantime EU rules apply, as per the December agreement.
Whatever the discussion, EU rules CANNOT apply in NI, period. They either apply in the whole UK or not at all. This was the whole point of the December fiasco when Arlene told May she would not agree.
Therefore all the EU Commission are saying is that the UK must remain in the CU. Suspicious timing methinks...
So that restricts our sovereignty to vary regulations as all would need to be approved by the EU.
No, all FTAs are based on mutual recognition of standards together with impartial dispute resolution processes if they cannot agree or standards change. If standards change on either side to the extent that mutual recognition can no longer be agreed, that part of the FTA is adjusted or removed. There is no loss of sovereignty. The EU don't get a veto on UK regulations any more than we get a veto on theirs. Read CETA - the process is already in use.
I think that's naive.
NAFTA - like most FTAs - contains strong rules to prevent members from creating laws that act as NTBs.
So, when the Province of Quebec passed a law requiring that foods that contained GM ingredients be labelled as such, Monsanto took the Government of Canada to an ISDS tribunal arguing that this constituted an NTB.
The ISDS found in favour of Monsanto and the law was repealed.
Edit to add: what this means in practice is that regulatory divergence is essentially eliminated in North America. Canada and Mexico are essentially obliged to follow US product standards.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
The more serious we look about No Deal, the more leverage we have.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
This is a backstop solution, anyway, the third option of the December agreement - the first of which, IIRC, was a full blown trade deal, which given we start off from identical standards, should be relatively straightforward.
assuming we do not have a No Deal Brexit, SM rules will apply to NI until the end of transition (31/12/2020). What the EU is proposing is that at that point EU rules apply in NI until an FTA with rules on regulatory equivalence is implemented. That period may be a nanosecond, or decades long, but in the meantime EU rules apply, as per the December agreement.
Whatever the discussion, EU rules CANNOT apply in NI, period. They either apply in the whole UK or not at all. This was the whole point of the December fiasco when Arlene told May she would not agree.
Therefore all the EU Commission are saying is that the UK must remain in the CU. Suspicious timing methinks...
There are - of course - bits of Switzerland that are in the EU customs union, and not the Swiss one. And bits of the EU that are in the Swiss customs area and not the EU one.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
The more serious we look about No Deal, the more leverage we have.
The border posts will be needed in exactly 12 months time.....talk about Brinkmanship! on a serious note I have yet to see a clear proposal of the arrangements proposed by the UK govt with regard to Northern Ireland, until we see some then the Commission will inevitably take the initiative - cos TM and DD aint....
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
Remainia would go berserk......
This isn't about Remain Vs Leave, it's about what gives us maximum leverage. No preparations for No Deal makes us look like we'll accept Any Deal. The more prepared we are, the more likely we are to get a good deal.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
Remainia would go berserk......
This isn't about Remain Vs Leave, it's about what gives us maximum leverage. No preparations for No Deal makes us look like we'll accept Any Deal. The more prepared we are, the more likely we are to get a good deal.
Its about the Conservative government staying in power and seeing through the negotiations.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
The more serious we look about No Deal, the more leverage we have.
The border posts will be needed in exactly 12 months time.....talk about Brinkmanship! on a serious note I have yet to see a clear proposal of the arrangements proposed by the UK govt with regard to Northern Ireland, until we see some then the Commission will inevitably take the initiative - cos TM and DD aint....
We should have started two years, before we even served Article 50. Indeed, we should have done everything ahead of time so that a unilateral repeal of the European Communities Act was possible. (Even if that were not the route we chose to go down.)
Instead, we talked tough while doing absolutely nothing to make us look serious. Staggeringly poor negotiating.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
The more serious we look about No Deal, the more leverage we have.
The border posts will be needed in exactly 12 months time.....talk about Brinkmanship! on a serious note I have yet to see a clear proposal of the arrangements proposed by the UK govt with regard to Northern Ireland, until we see some then the Commission will inevitably take the initiative - cos TM and DD aint....
We should have started two years, before we even served Article 50. Indeed, we should have done everything ahead of time so that a unilateral repeal of the European Communities Act was possible. (Even if that were not the route we chose to go down.)
You are right about 'negotiating' but ignore 'politics' - the government would have been assailed from all sides (unfairly, but that's politics) for 'bad faith', for 'planning to fail' for 'wasting money' - Labour would have draped themselves in the NHS demanding 'nurses not customs posts'.....and so forth.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
The more serious we look about No Deal, the more leverage we have.
The border posts will be needed in exactly 12 months time.....talk about Brinkmanship! on a serious note I have yet to see a clear proposal of the arrangements proposed by the UK govt with regard to Northern Ireland, until we see some then the Commission will inevitably take the initiative - cos TM and DD aint....
We should have started two years, before we even served Article 50. Indeed, we should have done everything ahead of time so that a unilateral repeal of the European Communities Act was possible. (Even if that were not the route we chose to go down.)
You are right about 'negotiating' but ignore 'politics' - the government would have been assailed from all sides (unfairly, but that's politics) for 'bad faith', for 'planning to fail' for 'wasting money' - Labour would have draped themselves in the NHS demanding 'nurses not customs posts'.....and so forth.
That's true.
Nevertheless, I think the more prepared for war you are, the more likely you are to get peace.
Instead, we talked tough while doing absolutely nothing to make us look serious. Staggeringly poor negotiating.
What were your expectations for the competence level with which the UK government would conduct itself during this process before it started?
There are, believe it or not, a good many talented Conservative MPs.
Unfortunately, Mrs May is (a) incredibly cautious, and (b) regards balancing the factions out as more important than promoting talent.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the MP for Spelthorne, is a former Fulbright scholar, who worked at Odey Asset Management, and understands finance well. As a Brit of Ghanian origin, he would be a perfect person to play a key role in the Department for International Trade. (And, while this shouldn't be relevant, he was a Leaver.)
But there is no role for him at DfIT. Why? Because Dr Fox is immovable (and sadly incompetent), and he chooses his Junior Ministers. There's a famous saying that A Players hire other A Players, while B Players hire C Players. Dr Fox is a B Player.
I might mention Lucy Frazer and Rory Stewart as other talents currently rotting on the back benches.
Instead, we talked tough while doing absolutely nothing to make us look serious. Staggeringly poor negotiating.
What were your expectations for the competence level with which the UK government would conduct itself during this process before it started?
There are, believe it or not, a good many talented Conservative MPs.
Unfortunately, Mrs May is (a) incredibly cautious, and (b) regards balancing the factions out as more important than promoting talent.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the MP for Spelthorne, is a former Fulbright scholar, who worked at Odey Asset Management, and understands finance well. As a Brit of Ghanian origin, he would be a perfect person to play a key role in the Department for International Trade. (And, while this shouldn't be relevant, he was a Leaver.)
But there is no role for him at DfIT. Why? Because Dr Fox is immovable (and sadly incompetent), and he chooses his Junior Ministers. There's a famous saying that A Players hire other A Players, while B Players hire C Players. Dr Fox is a B Player.
I might mention Lucy Frazer and Rory Stewart as other talents currently rotting on the back benches.
I realize that Rory Stewart does actually have a minor government job.
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
Equivalence doesn't necessarily mean mutual recognition of standards. It just means you have standards that you suggest are just as good as the other party. What matters is COMPLIANCE with the other party's standards. That decision is up to the other party. If your rules are identical, compliance can easily and objectively be demonstrated. If they diverge, compliance is difficult, but maybe not impossible, to establish. In practice the UK will need to conform to EU regulation, to be compliant. The EU is not going to change the way it does things to accommodate the UK as a non member.
Oooh, this is a good point. When this was first floated, I took "regulatory equivalence" to mean running the rules in lockstep: two systems but each mirroring the other. If you're defining it as "mutual recognition, not the same rules" then that is not close enough.
The EU use of the term equivalence is not lock step; it is recognition of standards of other jurisdictions for the purposes of cross border dealings:
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
Ah, I see. But that same article points out the EU would be the treaty arbiter of whether systems are equivalent and can declare in-equivalence if not . To do the same we'd have to leave the putative new treaty. That makes me think "lockstep", to be honest.
And we'd be the arbiter if the EU changed their standards not to our liking...
How treaties work....
So the arbitration process would have to be set out in the new treaty (aka the "UK/EU Association Agreement" as my headcanon insists). And we've got just under thirteen months to do it in.
So, no pressure then...
to quote from Mortimer's article :
Equivalence can be withdrawn unilaterally by the EU. In 2015, the ECJ found data equivalence with the US to be invalid following a challenge by an Austrian citizen through the Irish High Court. A new - more restricted - equivalence decision was put in place by the EU shortly after this.
EU legislation provides for equivalence, and the equivalence decisions themselves do not establish a procedure for maintaining this equivalence. But as with the procedure for approving equivalence, the Commission is likely to play an important role.
I think what is being overlooked is our regulatory standards actually have to be equivalent in some real world this actually achieves the same outcome kind of way. So our freedom to diverge in practice is going to be heavily limited.
Now I am sure there will be some areas where we could find a cheaper/better way of achieving the same outcome through differing regulation - but the bonfire of EU regulations many are hoping for doesn’t seem likely.
Shame he didn't consider the damage he was going to cause to millions of ordinary people when he enthusiastically signed us up to ERM then fought tooth and nail to keep us in.
It was the Lawsom boom-bust cycle that damaged ordinary people. Blaming the ERM was just a nice propaganda trick.
Garbage. I do love the way you prostitute yourself with any old lie to defend the EU. It is a stunning example of fanaticism.
There is an element of truth in what @wiliamglenn says. Lawson's decision to shadow the German Mark, meant that the UK government did not put the breaks on inflation early enough. To Lawson, that the Pound was steady against the DM meant that there was no need to raise interest rates.
The consequence of this is that the economy boomed and UK inflation spiraled out of Lawson's control. He then argued that the problem was that we weren't in the ERM (despite the fact that he'd essentially put us in the ERM, without mentioning it).
There was a great deal that Lawson did that was good as Chancellor.
Deciding that shadowing the German Mark was the best monetary policy was, however, not a good decision.
And was based on the idea that we would subsequently enter the ERM. So William is once again wrong in arguing that the ERM was not the root cause of the high interest rates.
Instead, we talked tough while doing absolutely nothing to make us look serious. Staggeringly poor negotiating.
What were your expectations for the competence level with which the UK government would conduct itself during this process before it started?
There are, believe it or not, a good many talented Conservative MPs.
Unfortunately, Mrs May is (a) incredibly cautious, and (b) regards balancing the factions out as more important than promoting talent.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the MP for Spelthorne, is a former Fulbright scholar, who worked at Odey Asset Management, and understands finance well. As a Brit of Ghanian origin, he would be a perfect person to play a key role in the Department for International Trade. (And, while this shouldn't be relevant, he was a Leaver.)
But there is no role for him at DfIT. Why? Because Dr Fox is immovable (and sadly incompetent), and he chooses his Junior Ministers. There's a famous saying that A Players hire other A Players, while B Players hire C Players. Dr Fox is a B Player.
I might mention Lucy Frazer and Rory Stewart as other talents currently rotting on the back benches.
The B seems extraordinarily generous. Fox is surely further down the alphabet.
But in the absence of agreement on mutual recognition, EU rules apply in NI.
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
It'd probably be much easier if the EU would actually negotiate what the future trading relationship will be. It might just be relevant to the current row over NI.
As has been obvious from the beginning......the EU devoting a lot of effort to what it claims is its non-favoured option - while refusing to discuss its allegedly favoured one.....
We should be devoting all our efforts to the least preferred option. That is, we should be building customs posts on the border in Northern Ireland, and at Calais.
The more serious we look about No Deal, the more leverage we have.
Sounds more like Noel Edmunds' "Deal or No Deal", plenty of empty red boxes to choose from....
So when Merkel opened her borders in one country to all and sundry in her brain fart Summer and then decided she wanted to impose quotas on the other 24 Schengen EU countries that was fine? Think the Poles and Hungarians at the least were somewhat shy in showing their unbridled enthusiasm.
What Merkel did that the British press reported as "opening the borders" was to say that although Germany technically had the right to make refugees arriving there via another EU country return to that country, they would allow them to stay in Germany. So no, this didn't particularly upset the Poles and Hungarians.
But let’s get this clear, a foreign power has today actually proposed in writing economically annexing part of our country. There are no words.
No price is too high to remove ourselves from this web, our politicians have woven us into over decades, without referring to the people for four decades.
No price.
Umm, let's get this clear.
Annexing part of our Country is the price Brexiteers are willing to pay for their fevered dream.
Bastards.
No.
I for one don't see what the big deal is with potentially having customs checks as required on an international border. There are hundreds of international land borders across the world.
We should try and minimise and avoid them if possible but we have no reason to compromise our own nation to do so.
Apparently the Irish don’t like queuing so will start shooting and blowing each other up if we have them
It’s a rubbish claim from people who didn’t know where Northern Ireland was until they read it in a briefing pack
Comments
It looks as if each side disagrees on what was agreed in December. Not a good omen for continuing negotiations. Perhaps our DExEU should publish their draft, then we could compare the two.
A quarter percent here and there - but I would be amazed if the base rate rose above 3 per cent for years if not decades.
I agree, but I suspect 2% is probably the ceiling for the new normal.
But the ERM might have been a good idea in principle but badly implemented. That was certainly the opinion of someone I was friendly with at the time who predicted the events around Black Wednesday with some accuracy several months before they happened. He was only wrong in suggesting that the high interest rates would last a week, rather than an afternoon. I also remember that as soon as he resigned after the 1992 election Neil Kinnock got a letter into the Times pointing out that the level of the pound that was being used was too high.
Was the collapse of the ERM inevitable? I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either. But I am pretty sure it doesn't make any difference to whether or not we should leave or remain in the EU 25 years later.
There is little dispute that we had interest rates higher than sensible economic management would have otherwise required, for a period of several years. The damage was real - and the widely acknowledged mismanagement of that period led to both our opt out from the euro, and the independent management of interest rates by the Bank of England.
This is an argument you're not going to win.
Off topic - football betting. Don’t know whether you punt on the footie but if so the bookies don’t yet seem to have realised how much we have disintegrated. Saturday, Corals in the ground had Huddersfield correct score win odds ranging from 12/1 for 2-1, 33/1 for 3-1 and 50/1 for 3-2. They were three and a half to one on BF just to win the game!
I know it’s painful and all that but still.
While at the same time reducing Germany's GDP per capita.
But I agree it has little to do with the current situation beyond revealing just how far John Major was willing to damage the UK economy to maintain the UKs convergence with the EU project. It exposes why his current comments should not be taken seriously
If we deviate from those rules then there needs to be a customs border.
Equivalence means mutual recognition of standards, not the same rules.
However the problems inherent to fixed exchange rates (sooner or later you have to change the rate) and the Major administration (a tendency to ignore/delay changing a policy, and a belief that failing-and-blaming is an adequate substitute for success[1]) meant that the cure became a problem in itself. Raising interest rates from 10 to 12 to 15% in a single day is not a sane way to behave.
[1] plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
Which is what Barnier has set out, for the period before an FTA is agreed, if it ever is.
Instead, the EU have tried to weaponise the Irish border. Dangerous and foolish.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/uk-eu-regulation-after-brexit-options-equivalence
'The EU recognises standards or regulatory regimes of non-EU or EEA countries as equivalent in several areas: data adequacy, financial services and airline security to name a few.'
It was the then equivalent of Project Fear used by the Major government that if the UK left the ERM then interest rates would rise and sterling would become worthless.
"As worthless as the Ukrainian Coupon" was the catchphrase if I remember correctly.
Its difficult to get any credit for subsequently cutting interest rates after leaving the ERM when that was the exact opposite of what you claimed would happen.
https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/968993809106432000
How treaties work....
If the former, it would go a VERY long way to keeping the Brexiteers onside.
So, no pressure then...
Equivalence can be withdrawn unilaterally by the EU. In 2015, the ECJ found data equivalence with the US to be invalid following a challenge by an Austrian citizen through the Irish High Court. A new - more restricted - equivalence decision was put in place by the EU shortly after this.
EU legislation provides for equivalence, and the equivalence decisions themselves do not establish a procedure for maintaining this equivalence. But as with the procedure for approving equivalence, the Commission is likely to play an important role.
Equivalence of course cuts both ways, but in the unlikely event of us not having a proper trade deal, and relying upon the backstop, why would, for example, the EU challenge something to do with agricultural standards across the Irish border when we're the biggest importer of Irish produce?
The December agreement was 'regulatory equivalence', not 'EU rules apply'. So no, in the meantime EU rules wouldn't apply, a mutual acceptance of regulations would apply. And it wouldn't be in Irish interests for the regulations not to be accepted....
https://twitter.com/TomDRogers1/status/969000373141766144
If you are so confident that mutual recognition will be in place by end of transition then it is not worth arguing about. If however agreement on mutual recognition becomes prolonged, there needs either to be a default position, or a customs border.
The consequence of this is that the economy boomed and UK inflation spiraled out of Lawson's control. He then argued that the problem was that we weren't in the ERM (despite the fact that he'd essentially put us in the ERM, without mentioning it).
There was a great deal that Lawson did that was good as Chancellor.
Deciding that shadowing the German Mark was the best monetary policy was, however, not a good decision.
Therefore all the EU Commission are saying is that the UK must remain in the CU. Suspicious timing methinks...
NAFTA - like most FTAs - contains strong rules to prevent members from creating laws that act as NTBs.
So, when the Province of Quebec passed a law requiring that foods that contained GM ingredients be labelled as such, Monsanto took the Government of Canada to an ISDS tribunal arguing that this constituted an NTB.
The ISDS found in favour of Monsanto and the law was repealed.
Edit to add: what this means in practice is that regulatory divergence is essentially eliminated in North America. Canada and Mexico are essentially obliged to follow US product standards.
The more serious we look about No Deal, the more leverage we have.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/968979124227276807
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/968995338672660480
And whats being said today of Major is naught to what Labour MPs have been saying for years about Blair......
https://order-order.com/2018/03/01/mays-best-gags-from-westminster-correspondents-dinner/
Instead, we talked tough while doing absolutely nothing to make us look serious. Staggeringly poor negotiating.
Nevertheless, I think the more prepared for war you are, the more likely you are to get peace.
http://bruxelles.blogs.liberation.fr/2018/02/27/martin-selmayr-operation-nuit-et-brouillard/
Unfortunately, Mrs May is (a) incredibly cautious, and (b) regards balancing the factions out as more important than promoting talent.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the MP for Spelthorne, is a former Fulbright scholar, who worked at Odey Asset Management, and understands finance well. As a Brit of Ghanian origin, he would be a perfect person to play a key role in the Department for International Trade. (And, while this shouldn't be relevant, he was a Leaver.)
But there is no role for him at DfIT. Why? Because Dr Fox is immovable (and sadly incompetent), and he chooses his Junior Ministers. There's a famous saying that A Players hire other A Players, while B Players hire C Players. Dr Fox is a B Player.
I might mention Lucy Frazer and Rory Stewart as other talents currently rotting on the back benches.
Now I am sure there will be some areas where we could find a cheaper/better way of achieving the same outcome through differing regulation - but the bonfire of EU regulations many are hoping for doesn’t seem likely.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-hicks/in-blow-to-trump-top-aide-hope-hicks-to-leave-white-house-idUSKCN1GC36J
https://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/969075620725641217
"Ulster Border Checks - U Can't Touch This"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo
Fox is surely further down the alphabet.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/28/trump-hope-hicks-217209
It’s a rubbish claim from people who didn’t know where Northern Ireland was until they read it in a briefing pack