Woodchopper wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:07 pm
[quote=Woodchopper post_id=51809 time=<a href="tel:1603118963">1603118963</a> user_id=58]
Frost and Barnier have spoken on the phone.
Gove now talking tough in the Commons, reiterates that there will need to be a fundamental change from the EU and that the UK will prepare to trade on WTO terms.
But the door remains ajar.
Give on areas of disagreement:
we cannot accept proposals that would require us to: Provide full permanent access to our fishing waters with quotas substantially unchanged to those imposed by EU membership; Operate a state aid system essentially the same as the EU’s, with great discretion given to the EU to retaliate against us if it thought we were deviating from it; And more broadly, stay in step with laws proposed and adopted by the EU across areas of critical national importance.
Some wiggle room in the vague terms: ‘substantially unchanged’, ‘essentially the same’, ‘ stay in step’.
But still, it looks like Gove expects tariff free access to the single market along with weak or nonexistent level playing field rules regarding state aid and regulations on things like environmental protection. Which I doubt will happen.
[/quote]
I actually wonder if Gove is a bit more modern and useful on things like the environment than he’s given credit for, although I do also expect realpolitik to see his principles go up in a bonfire....
Thanks. I still don't fully understand how these things can be the subject of trade negotiations if they are all in private hands. If the right to fish in area X gets given "to the UK", who exactly in the UK gets it, and what happens to the Dutch company that bought it in good faith? Or is that not what's being discussed?
Something something hammer something something nail
plodder wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:57 pm
I actually wonder if Gove is a bit more modern and useful on things like the environment than he’s given credit for, although I do also expect realpolitik to see his principles go up in a bonfire....
Anecdotally, that was what several people I know at conservation orgs said following meetings with him when he was at DEFRA - that he seemed to be fairly on top of the issues and want to make useful changes. The CAP, for example, is an absolute disaster for the environment and involves government giving handouts to dying industries, so there were certainly areas where Tory instincts and environmental objectives overlapped in the proposed reforms to rural payments.
We'll see how it goes, but the EU Parliament is currently absolutely sh.tting on plans for CAP reform so there's a reasonable chance post-Brexit UK could end up with a more environmentally-friendly agriculture policy than the EU purely by dint of promoting mass scale agricultural abandonment. (To be clear, that's not what I want to see happen - rural communities ought to be supported in transitioning to more sustainable practices, and there's plenty of opportunity for developing stuff like ecotourism instead of unprofitable farming)
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
plodder wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:57 pm
I actually wonder if Gove is a bit more modern and useful on things like the environment than he’s given credit for, although I do also expect realpolitik to see his principles go up in a bonfire....
Anecdotally, that was what several people I know at conservation orgs said following meetings with him when he was at DEFRA - that he seemed to be fairly on top of the issues and want to make useful changes. The CAP, for example, is an absolute disaster for the environment and involves government giving handouts to dying industries, so there were certainly areas where Tory instincts and environmental objectives overlapped in the proposed reforms to rural payments.
We'll see how it goes, but the EU Parliament is currently absolutely sh.tting on plans for CAP reform so there's a reasonable chance post-Brexit UK could end up with a more environmentally-friendly agriculture policy than the EU purely by dint of promoting mass scale agricultural abandonment. (To be clear, that's not what I want to see happen - rural communities ought to be supported in transitioning to more sustainable practices, and there's plenty of opportunity for developing stuff like ecotourism instead of unprofitable farming)
He wasn't awful as justice secretary either (although he did follow Grayling and mostly had to undo his many, many mistakes), it's all very confusing.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:09 pm
Thanks. I still don't fully understand how these things can be the subject of trade negotiations if they are all in private hands. If the right to fish in area X gets given "to the UK", who exactly in the UK gets it, and what happens to the Dutch company that bought it in good faith? Or is that not what's being discussed?
Yeah, I don't see a Tory government expropriating property rights from private hands. They'd have to buy the quotas back to avoid accusations of Chavismo, though I suppose a concurrent ban on foreign fishing could help prevent deliberate inflation of the market value by current quota-holders.
The fact that there are few if any serious, detailed proposals in the public realm suggest to me that this isn't so easy as 'tAkE bAcK cOnTrOl' makes it sound.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
discovolante wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:25 pm
He wasn't awful as justice secretary either (although he did follow Grayling and mostly had to undo his many, many mistakes), it's all very confusing.
Heh. Current UK environmental policy in a lot of areas is basically the ecological equivalent of Chris Grayling. It is easier to look good coming after sh.t.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:39 pm
The fact that there are few if any serious, detailed proposals in the public realm suggest to me that this isn't so easy as 'tAkE bAcK cOnTrOl' makes it sound.
I'm deeply shocked to learn that.
Something something hammer something something nail
plodder wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:47 pm
The policy is often pretty good. The implementation, regulation / enforcement is underfunded and moribund though.
I'd argue that stuff like regulation falls squarely under the bracket of policy, in that the regulators are public bodies. There's no point passing legislation without an enforcement mechanism, as an Brexit negotiator will tell you.
But yes, some areas are very good, evidence-lead and even progressive. Agriculture is not one of them.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
plodder wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:47 pm
The policy is often pretty good. The implementation, regulation / enforcement is underfunded and moribund though.
I'd argue that stuff like regulation falls squarely under the bracket of policy, in that the regulators are public bodies.
N terms of how words are used, ‘policy’ is usually the goal set by politicians whereas the actual regulations are part of implementation (for something like agriculture they’d be drafted by civil servants).
Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:02 am
Yeah. Defunding regulators has been a Tory goal since 2010the Industrial Revolution.
FTFY
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Basically, I'd argue that when designing a policy you need to give specific thought to how and by whom it'll be regulated, because there's a big difference in enforcement between stuff with well-funded government oversight (e.g. the benefits system) or stuff that relies on self-regulation (e.g. building regulations, gamekeeping) or on under-resourced public regulators (e.g. water quality).
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
1. Enforcement of level-playing field
State aid, but also the UK not being out of step with future EU regulations in particular on the environment. For example if the EU brings in new climate change regulations it doesn't want the UK to be a low cost environment for polluters with free access to the single market.
2. Fish, and the need for the EU members to accept loss of current access.
3. The UK removes parts of the Internal Market Bill.
4. They are running out of time. There's about three and a half weeks left. Even there is agreement on the above it might not be possible to negotiate all the details in time.
Woodchopper wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:10 pm
They are running out of time. There's about three and a half weeks left. Even there is agreement on the above it might not be possible to negotiate all the details in time.
If a genuine breakthrough is reached but it comes too late for, say, the Parliament of Wallonia to ratify the deal, I imagine that emergency measures will be taken to ensure that there isn't two weeks of border chaos solely because of a scheduling problem.
Something something hammer something something nail
Woodchopper wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:10 pm
They are running out of time. There's about three and a half weeks left. Even there is agreement on the above it might not be possible to negotiate all the details in time.
If a genuine breakthrough is reached but it comes too late for, say, the Parliament of Wallonia to ratify the deal, I imagine that emergency measures will be taken to ensure that there isn't two weeks of border chaos solely because of a scheduling problem.
I hope so. I have no idea to what extent chaos can be avoided.
discovolante wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:25 pm
He wasn't awful as justice secretary either (although he did follow Grayling and mostly had to undo his many, many mistakes), it's all very confusing.
Gove is in intelligent, diligent chap with some awful idée fixes on certain subjects: eg. education, brexit.
The less enthusiastic and interested he is in something, the better.
And thats the one use he has. A counterexample for the nitwits who want passionate politicians who really care.
