Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

First Up

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You are so brainwashed with the EU you refuse to accept anything.

Would you ever cop yourself on.

Today you show that you don't understand what Barnier is saying; yesterday you displayed ignorance of how Brexit will affect distribution across these islands. Meanwhile your fellow travellers boredstiff and boring accountant think the EU is just trying to stop Brexit and that companies in the Single Market can't import from outside it. And the Kid doesn't know what game he is watching.

Most of my posts here are correcting factual errors in the Brexiteer arguments but you accuse me and others of "not accepting" anything. The only thing we are not accepting are the easily disproven fallacies, myths and illusions you lift from the Daily Express.

Please cop on to yourself; you are just making yourself look sillier.

davedanon

cryptocurrency wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS_4JXfDxaU

Again? Really? Did you watch the full version? I'd say a good few of us did. Barnier was talking about the UK's actions and responses. Can you comprehend that? He is not conspiring on a secret camera. He is openly discussing the UK's approach with his staff, on a BBC documentary


The more you argue in bad faith, the more your vanishing credibility dwindles.

ancapailldorcha

cryptocurrency wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS_4JXfDxaU

You are so brainwashed with the EU you refuse to accept anything.

You are hysterical as all those people who are now claiming today that because of an incident in Iraq over an Iranian military leader that this is WW3, the same who alos said brexit would have medicine shortages in the UK and the EU would stop supplies.

Why not make an argument in your own words instead of continually resorting to lazy soundbites and spamming links?

Kidchameleon

If Crypto shared a video of Barnier raping a child you people would probably still be fawning over him

ancapailldorcha

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If Crypto shared a video of Barnier raping a child you people would probably still be fawning over him

Perhaps you could make an arugment detailing how horrible he is. When you're ready.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If Crypto shared a video of Barnier raping a child you people would probably still be fawning over him

We've had a few days of chaos in this thread but you've gone way too far on this one.

FrancieBrady

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If Crypto shared a video of Barnier raping a child you people would probably still be fawning over him

Who is fawning. The reality is he was an astute and experienced negotiator who got the best he could out of the deal for us.
How can we prove that? Look at the deal.

fly_agaric

So the slurry is still being spread.

Crypto posts a top quality article from Spiked Online (without telling us all where it is from, curiously enough).

Follows up with re-tread of kidchameleon's video from yet another "right-o-sphere" youtube channel called "The Brexiteers".

https://twitter.com/thebrexiteers52
http://brexiteers.org/home/4593919626

Feel a bit queasy, might be coming down with a case of cryptosporidium.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is fawning. The reality is he was an astute and experienced negotiator who got the best he could out of the deal for us.
How can we prove that? Look at the deal.

That's the thing though. The Brexiters know that Brexit is a doomed project. It will fail. The UK will be leaving. This is fact but it won't be to the benefit of anyone save for a few dodgy money men. This is why they're getting the excuses and myths out as it's all they have.

woohoo!!!

It's all posturing. Johnson would like a close-ish trade deal but he built his political capital on EU bashing. He will continue with EU bashing, it's great political cover for his own failings.

The EU of course would like a close trade deal, less disruption for its members. But there is little good will left for the UK, their antics of the last few years have used it up. It'll be just business and the EU will protect their members interests, which will be spun as punishing the UK. But increasingly few care what a neurotic UK think anymore, they've left so not our problem anymore.

Nate--IRL--

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If Crypto shared a video of Barnier raping a child you people would probably still be fawning over him

Despicable.


Nate

fly_agaric

J Mysterio wrote: »

His most recent article on those who no.10 are looking to hire... it's so... confused. It's beyond laughable. Almost upsetting. It's the worst type of recruiter blurb/ job spec I think I have ever seen. It's at once attempting to be cutting edge and... Grunge? Student chic? They are looking for 'weirdo's', but 'from the best universities'. The project manager bit in particular is just so poorly written I can't quite beleive it. This lad may well be on heroin.

Yes, whatever about looking for "weirdos" specifically the whole thing is rather odd so maybe that is the point (athníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile and all that)!
I assume it is a publicity seeking, getting our "message" out there exercise rather than a real recruitment effort.
Saw there is a news article about it on bbc so it probably is doing what it is supposed to on that level. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50978329

edit: In that article they have a "union" comment on it:

But a civil servants' union said currently staff were recruited on merit and "because of what you can do, not what you believe".

The union also said recruiting world-class experts is hampered by the "government's failure to pay a market rate".

Very offtopic but alot of the kinds of people he appears to want to get far more of into the civil service/working on problems for government can be very well paid for their time in the private sector (science, technology, IT, engineering or other "knowledge economy" type work).
Some of them might be in academia, or students & researchers so money would be less of an issue there.

Now it is possible to attract such people I think if you have the lure of interesting things to work on + what they do will make a real difference and be put into practice. However they still won't be doing it for free or prepared to take crippling pay cuts to give up the day job for good and go work for the government full time.

woohoo!!!

woohoo!!! wrote: »

It's all posturing. Johnson would like a close-ish trade deal but he built his political capital on EU bashing. He will continue with EU bashing, it's great political cover for his own failings.

The EU of course would like a close trade deal, less disruption for its members. But there is little good will left for the UK, their antics of the last few years have used it up. It'll be just business and the EU will protect their members interests, which will be spun as punishing the UK. But increasingly few care what a neurotic UK think anymore, they've left so not our problem anymore.

The problem is that Brexit supporters think they're only negotiating with Brussels, and they post about Barnier and Guy as if it's them they need to get past, like it was with the Withdrawal Agreement.

Yes, they're negotiating with Brussels, but they utterly fail to understand that whatever the EU team negotiates must be passed by all of Europe. They think putting pressure on Ireland will force a country like Italy to agree to something they don't like.

It's absurd. Any country not reliant on UK trade will just vote against a deal not in their interests. The time limit of 2020 and sculpting a deal that every parliament will pass first time works heavily against the UK in 2020. I foresee no trade deal but the UK living up to its promise of a sea border with renegotiations in a few years.

I feel like I'm pissing in the wind with the point but I strongly believe that the limit of one chance through all national and regional parliaments is the biggest own goal the UK could score.

fly_agaric

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What should Ireland do now, having been instrumental in getting a deal that protects our interests as best as we can?

Do we sit back and allow what 'is about to happen' as it was put by one poster or is there proactive things we can do to mitigate the damage?

I am not really interested in what the UK wants us to do, more interested in what posters think we should do ourselves, for ourselves.

On the UK side, I suppose all the government here can do is try & convince them they should really agree "something" with the EU. That if the negotiations are still far from being complete towards end of the year (as is likely) they should seek to extend the transitition & continue talking instead of starting a new period of chaos and uncertainty.

On the EU side, for all the boards.ie pro-Brexit shills' anger and insults towards Varadkar, Irish govt. could well switch to being the ones arguing for the UK's "cherry picking" positions inside the EU to get a good (for us), not too disruptive trade relationship that keeps alot of what is there now in areas we care about. That is provided UK will show good faith on what they have already agreed to for NI.

IMO I don't think we should do that. It is not in our longer term interests as giving the UK what it (seems to - they never really have said) want ("de facto" EU membership with freedom to break each rule/regulation case by case in areas it decides when it is advantageous to do so) would pretty much doom the EU in the end (that's probably the idea!).
Big stragetic thinking about such things is not a priority for politicians here though so they will leave that up to other member states.

However Irish govt. decides to proceed/position itself in the EU they should (continue) trying to get all sectors of the economy here to diversify away from the UK as much as possible even if it costs alot in the short term. That is the best way to mitigate potential damage later on.

theological

fly_agaric wrote: »

On the UK side, I suppose all the government here can do is try & convince them they should really agree "something" with the EU. That if the negotiations are still far from being complete towards end of the year (as is likely) they should seek to extend the transtition & continue talking instead of starting a new period of chaos and uncertainty.

In the UK side there is a desire for a good free trade agreement with the EU. The reasoning for a time limit in law is to ensure that we don't have the same endless extensions like what happened in the last parliament.

The reality is that without the shenanigans caused by hard-remainer MPs in the last parliament the UK could have been already out of the EU with an FTA.

This is the reason why Johnson is legislatively limiting the length of the negotiations.

fly_agaric wrote: »

On the EU side, for all the boards.ie pro-Brexit shills' anger and insults towards Varadkar, Irish govt. could well switch to being the ones arguing for the UK's "cherry picking" positions inside the EU to get a good (for us), not too disruptive trade relationship that keeps alot of what is there now in areas we care about. That is provided UK will show good faith on what they have already agreed to for NI.

There's no need for silly name calling. Let's set a better tone.

I don't agree with the allegation that the UK is cherrypicking. The UK wants a free trade deal similar to what other countries have with the EU. There's no reason why this isn't possible.

The British people have been clear that they want a looser relationship with the EU with leverage to chart a different course in some areas. That's entirely reasonable.

fly_agaric wrote: »

IMO I don't think we should do that. It is not in our longer term interests as giving the UK what it (seems to - they never really have said) want ("de facto" EU membership with freedom to break each rule/regulation case by case in areas it decides when it is advantageous to do so) would pretty much doom the EU in the end (that's probably the idea!).
Big stragetic thinking about such things is not a priority for politicians here though so they will leave that up to other member states.

The reality is that the UK isn't going anywhere and neither is Northern Ireland. The question is what's the best approach to dealing with that reality? Contributing heavily to ensuring that the EU gets a good deal with the UK I would have thought.

fly_agaric wrote: »

However Irish govt. decide to proceed/position itself in the EU they should (continue) trying to get all sectors of the economy here to diversify away from the UK as much as possible even if it costs alot in the short term. That is the best way to mitigate potential damage later on.

How do you propose to do that in the area of agrifood?

Ireland also benefits from a lot of business from the UK. Are we suggesting that we shouldn't do this business anymore?

As I said before it is a geographical reality that the UK is Ireland's nearest neighbour. It is also the best way for exporting Ireland's goods to Europe without wasting additional days of travel time. That won't change irrespective of attempts to diversify.

Again - the best strategy is to ensure the best trade relationship possible given Brexit.

First Up

fly_agaric wrote:

On the UK side, I suppose all the government here can do is try & convince them they should really agree "something" with the EU. That if the negotiations are still far from being complete towards end of the year (as is likely) they should seek to extend the transtition & continue talking instead of starting a new period of chaos and uncertainty.

Best outcome for Ireland is obviously for the UK to enter a customs union with the EU and folliw EU rules. May couldn't get that through Westminster and Boris has a few more gyrations and contortions to perform before he tries again. He has enough MPs to do it so we'll see if he can get emough of them to accept reality.

It might run for a while yet.

theological

First Up wrote: »

Best outcome for Ireland is obviously for the UK to enter a customs union with the EU and folliw EU rules. May couldn't get that through Westminster and Boris has a few more gyrations and contortions to perform before he tries again. He has enough MPs to do it so we'll see if he can get emough of them to accept reality.

It might run for a while yet.

I think it is obvious why staying in the customs union and single market is opposed.

Staying in the customs union would mean the UK would lose the advantage of having its own trade policy and tariff schedule. That's an obvious no goer.

Staying in the single market would mean that the UK wouldn't have freedom to decide it's own standards. There are areas where I think the UK should conform to European standards e.g in financial services to ensure equivalence. That said one of the strongest reasons for Brexit was about control over laws.

That isn't to say that the UK should be a rule giver for other countries. It is to say that the UK should be able to decide its own standards, where to align with the EU and where to deviate.

FrancieBrady

theological wrote: »

I think it is obvious why staying in the customs union and single market is opposed.

Staying in the customs union would mean the UK would lose the advantage of having its own trade policy and tariff schedule. That's an obvious no goer.

Staying in the single market would mean that the UK wouldn't have freedom to decide it's own standards. There are areas where I think the UK should conform to European standards e.g in financial services to ensure equivalence. That said one of the strongest reasons for Brexit was about control over laws.

That isn't to say that the UK should be a rule giver for other countries. It is to say that the UK should be able to decide its own standards, where to align with the EU and where to deviate.

Why should we worry about that?
The UK is clearly not willing to leave without a deal of some sort...they have been given one and know the terms of that. Take it or leave it...literally?

theological

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why should we worry about that?
The UK is clearly not willing to leave without a deal of some sort...they have been given one and know the terms of that. Take it or leave it...literally?

Yes but then it is more like Ireland chopping it's hand off also. The UK would probably go on WTO terms than stay in customs union and single market particularly given Johnson's majority.

A better path would be exploring a Canada option which the UK would probably agree to.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

In the UK side there is a desire for a good free trade agreement with the EU. The reasoning for a time limit in law is to ensure that we don't have the same endless extensions like what happened in the last parliament.

The reality is that without the shenanigans caused by hard-remainer MPs in the last parliament the UK could have been already out of the EU with an FTA.

This is the reason why Johnson is legislatively limiting the length of the negotiations.

I actually (somewhat) agree with you about the behaviour of the whole "remain" side over past few years. I think the law is more of a stunt by Johnson.

There was no danger at all of Boris Johnson being stymied by anyone, he has a big majority & is the Conservative's "golden boy" now. While he can't let it run on indefinitely without arising ire against him in the party he could (probably) have gotten through half his term of government without any serious trouble once "Brexit" goes off the news agenda.

theological wrote: »

There's no need for silly name calling. Let's set a better tone.

Ha - go look at this.

After all the manure and literal disinformation/"news" posted from dodgy sources, you pull me up over a pretty mild insult...

theological wrote: »

The UK wants a free trade deal similar to what other countries have with the EU. There's no reason why this isn't possible.
The British people have been clear that they want a looser relationship with the EU with leverage to chart a different course in some areas. That's entirely reasonable.

Suppose we'll have to see what the UKs position will be.

theological wrote: »

The reality is that the UK isn't going anywhere and neither is Northern Ireland. The question is what's the best approach to dealing with that reality? Contributing heavily to ensuring that the EU gets a good deal with the UK I would have thought.

Not if the cost of the good deal (for us and the UK) is holing the EU under the waterline. As above we'll just have to wait & see what emerges in the new (now current) year & how the UK approaches negotiations.

theological wrote: »

How do you propose to do that in the area of agrifood?

I am not any kind of expert (apart from an armchair/barstool one) to make specific proposals but very broadly try not to be completely reliant on UK only "inputs" or UK only market for a product if at all possible. I'm sure that is not easy.

If you are looking at a brand new business in this area/changing what you produce etc. consider what the non UK markets want to buy (even if totally different to what we've traditionally done in the sector). If you can find a non-UK market for what you produce now sell there in preference to UK.

At the end of the day it is "food" that is being produced...very high quality agri-food products can be produced here that have potential markets (probably even the UK) whatever deal is agreed.

theological wrote: »

Ireland also benefits from a lot of business from the UK. Are we suggesting that we shouldn't do this business anymore?

It should be minimised. Has to be seen as a big risk. We don't know what is going to happen.
I'm not a business-person, but I would not see this as the opportune time to commence anything new that depends on UK customers or imports of goods or services obtained solely from the UK.

theological wrote: »

As I said before it is a geographical reality that the UK is Ireland's nearest neighbour. It is also the best way for exporting Ireland's goods to Europe without wasting additional days of travel time. That won't change irrespective of attempts to diversify.

Again - the best strategy is to ensure the best trade relationship possible given Brexit.

That's all true. We want the best relationship possible but our own independence & our membership of the EU should not be the price for that.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

A better path would be exploring a Canada option which the UK would probably agree to.

Again the details go beyond my expertise but I think the fact it would not cover financial sector was a big problem for the UK?

e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45633592

It was one of the "future relationship" possibilities outlined by the EU negotiators during the withdrawal agreement so might be easier to agree more quickly (?)

It is a bad outcome for us, but if that's what ends up happening it is still better than the transition period ending abruptly under an acrimonious cloud with nothing agreed at all.

theological

fly_agaric wrote: »

I actually (somewhat) agree with you about the behaviour of the whole "remain" side over past few years. I think the law is more of a stunt by Johnson.

It could be a stunt but I'm arguing that the context has led him to need to do this politically even if it is only for optics.

What is clear is that there can't be another repeat of the shenanigans of the last parliament. That isn't good for the UK or the EU. Something needs to be agreed in the short term.

fly_agaric wrote: »

There was no danger at all of Boris Johnson being stymied by anyone, he has a big majority & is the Conservative's "golden boy" now. While he can't let it run on indefinitely without arising ire against him in the party he could (probably) have gotten through half his term of government without any serious trouble once "Brexit" goes off the news agenda.

We may disagree here but I don't think signalling intentions here is a bad idea. I'm personally open to an extension singular if there is a genuine outcome that can be fulfilled but repeat extensions like last time would be unacceptable.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Ha - go look at this.

After all the manure and literal disinformation/"news" posted from dodgy sources, you pull me up over a pretty mild insult...

I think everyone should avoid these sorts of comments. The red card is there and rightly so.

Nonetheless let's improve the tone. We can discuss respectfully.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Suppose we'll have to see what the UKs position will be.

The Government has been pretty clear on the direction of travel - towards a free trade agreement.

fly_agaric wrote: »

Not if the cost of the good deal (for us and the UK) is holing the EU under the waterline. As above we'll just have to wait & see what emerges in the new (now current) year & how the UK approaches negotiations.

This language is pretty dramatic. Even in the worst case scenario on WTO terms (which I don't want) there would be a reduction in trade rather than a nullification of trade with the EU.

fly_agaric wrote: »

I am not any kind of expert (apart from an armchair/barstool one) to make specific proposals but very broadly try not to be completely reliant on UK only "inputs" or UK only market for a product if at all possible. I'm sure that is not easy.

What about goods that straddle the border for processing?

You know that the UK is a big consumer of Irish beef and dairy also?

One thing I've seen repeated by remain posters here is that trade is often determined by geography. The nature of trade with geographical neighbours is different to trade with countries further afield. I agree with this. That's why I'm arguing for a good FTA between the EU and the UK. This principle also applies to Ireland and Britain however.

fly_agaric wrote: »

If you are looking at a brand new business in this area/changing what you produce etc. consider what the non UK markets want to buy (even if totally different to what we've traditionally done in the sector). If you can find a non-UK market for what you produce now sell there in preference to UK.

So you would refuse buyers rather than present the case for keeping them? That's pretty odd. I would be more in favour of keeping a strong trading relationship with the UK. But perhaps I'm biased given that I live in the UK.

I just don't get why you think Ireland cutting off its nose is better in this scenario.

fly_agaric wrote: »

At the end of the day it is "food" that is being produced...very high quality agri-food products can be produced here that have potential markets (probably even the UK) whatever deal is agreed.

It depends on the deal that is agreed and what quotas would exist for agricultural goods in a no deal scenario.

It's better avoided.

fly_agaric wrote: »

That's all true. We want the best relationship possible but our own independence & our membership of the EU should not be the price for that.

I find this an odd statement. How does negotiating a free trade agreement threaten Ireland's independence? Or indeed it's EU membership?

The FTA with Canada didn't threaten these so why would they FTA with the UK?

theological

fly_agaric wrote: »

Again the details go beyond my expertise but I think the fact it would not cover financial sector was a big problem for the UK?

e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45633592

It was one of the "future relationship" possibilities outlined by the EU negotiators during the withdrawal agreement so might be easier to agree more quickly (?)

It is a bad outcome for us, but if that's what ends up happening it is still better than the transition period ending abruptly under an acrimonious cloud with nothing agreed at all.

MiFiD II equivalence status can be granted.

There are already non-EU markets with this. For example Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

I've argued already that the EU also needs London as a financial centre because of its infrastructure for derivatives clearing and issuing sovereign / corporate debt and equities.

That won't go away overnight. London and Zurich are the only European cities in the top 10 in terms of financial centres.

Also most Brexit moves and changes in banks have already been done.

jimmycrackcorm

cryptocurrency wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/01/united-britain-will-have-upper-hand-divided-declining-european/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Liam Haligan is right about the declining EU and the UK now with this majority is primed to secure a good deal. They gave canada a free trade deal. If they declined one for the UK then they are neither good nighbours, friends or allies.

I read the article and laughed. It's like being on the Titanic rearranging the deckchairs.
With Brexit we are witnessing the beginning of the final breakup of the UK. It's only a matter of time before Scotland gets to vote itself out.

Nate--IRL--

theological wrote: »

MiFiD II equivalence status can be granted.

It was always going to be granted. However it can also be revoked at will by the EU, which was the City's major concern about using equivalence as the underpinning of their business in the EU.

..... it is the sole discretion of the EU Commission to declare a third-country regulatory regime equivalent. Neither the UK nor any other third country has a right to demand it. A Commission decision on equivalence is not only a political decision, but also a favour. The conditions under which the UK maintains its access to the EU is part of the overall Brexit negotiations, with the EU holding a strong card. Also, note that the Commission may revoke its decision at any time. This will require the UK to keep updating their UK rulebook to any new EU financial rules, while not having a say in the EU legislative process.

https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/brexit-will-third-country-regimes-in-eu-financial-services-legislation-save


Nate

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

It could be a stunt but I'm arguing that the context has led him to need to do this politically even if it is only for optics.

What is clear is that there can't be another repeat of the shenanigans of the last parliament. That isn't good for the UK or the EU. Something needs to be agreed in the short term.

We may disagree here but I don't think signalling intentions here is a bad idea. I'm personally open to an extension singular if there is a genuine outcome that can be fulfilled but repeat extensions like last time would be unacceptable.

Okay. I think that was more difficult when Johnson specifically put the timescale on the agenda. He's now made a commitment to sort something out with the EU by end of the year. I know he's a politician who could go back on his word if it suits and all that but it still means something. It is a political cost for him now to ask to extend the talks for a year or so more if they are running into the sand. That was not necessary IMO.

theological wrote: »

I think everyone should avoid these sorts of comments. The red card is there and rightly so.

Nonetheless let's improve the tone. We can discuss respectfully.

Fair enough. The head in the sand stuff and posting/reposting of disinformation from bad sources upset me more.

theological wrote: »

The Government has been pretty clear on the direction of travel - towards a free trade agreement.

I didn't think it was clear under last government. I suppose that could have been a function of the more fundamental "remain"/"leave" political battle still going on in the UK (that should be over) and no Conservative majority so maybe there will be more clarity now.

theological wrote: »

This language is pretty dramatic. Even in the worst case scenario on WTO terms (which I don't want) there would be a reduction in trade rather than a nullification of trade with the EU.

What I meant there was the danger that the UK does so well for itself out of negotiation (i.e. cherry picking fear you already dismissed) that it makes some other members question afterwards, "well what is the point now of being a member of the EU"? I don't think a "Canada" type free trade agreement with the UK would be that situation.

theological wrote: »

What about goods that straddle the border for processing?

You know that the UK is a big consumer of Irish beef and dairy also?

One thing I've seen repeated by remain posters here is that trade is often determined by geography. The nature of trade with geographical neighbours is different to trade with countries further afield. I agree with this. That's why I'm arguing for a good FTA between the EU and the UK. This principle also applies to Ireland and Britain however.

I did not mean to argue "against" an EU FTA with the UK, as above just meant that our own EU membership and the continued existance & good functioning of the EU is more important I think long term for Ireland than said FTA.

With just your limited "Canada" type trade deal I think that could be quite messy to administer (goods straddling the border).

In theory the withdrawal agreement solves the problem of keeping the NI border open, but how exactly it is going to work in practice in that situation I'm unsure of.

theological wrote: »

So you would refuse buyers rather than present the case for keeping them? That's pretty odd. I would be more in favour of keeping a strong trading relationship with the UK. But perhaps I'm biased given that I live in the UK.

I just don't get why you think Ireland cutting off its nose is better in this scenario.

Maybe I phrased that poorly. You seem to have taken it up wrong anyway. If I were such a businessperson I would be concentrating my efforts on non UK markets where possible (not "turning customers away"...just not chasing them/growing share when it comes to the UK) until some more clarity comes (maybe at the end of the year?). That just seems like common sense for now?

It is the UK that is the actor & causing all of this, the UK is leaving the EU. You say the "ideal for the UK" is this "Canada" type deal, which from point of view of the ease of our trade with the UK must of course be much worse than the UK actually being in the EU with us & a very bad final outcome for agri-food area.

theological wrote: »

I find this an odd statement. How does negotiating a free trade agreement threaten Ireland's independence? Or indeed it's EU membership?

The FTA with Canada didn't threaten these so why would they FTA with the UK?

What was going on during the withdrawal phase (arguments over backstop) could have been a threat to our membership later if no special arrangements were made for NI.
As you say it is geography. We don't have a border and an intimate relationship with Canada. We were not trying to unpick the close relationship with Canada and replace it with this new FTA.
The wider the UK diverges from the EU, the more strain our relationship with the UK comes under while we also remain an EU member.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

I find this an odd statement. How does negotiating a free trade agreement threaten Ireland's independence? Or indeed it's EU membership?

The FTA with Canada didn't threaten these so why would they FTA with the UK?

On the "independence" issue I had to think a bit and consider before replying.

I suppose what the UK is doing [in leaving EU single market and customs union in a "hard" Brexit] (which of course it has a right to do) had basically trapped us & constrained choices. That is the loss of independence I was thinking of.

Before NI border/trade issue was settled (as it appears to be), there was a chance we were going to have to choose in future between our full EU membership (no one here wants to leave the EU or downgrade our membership at all by having some sort of new trade borders with the rest of the EU - well almost no one!) and having a "hard" (before semantics - not the "open" situation of today) border with NI (no one in Ireland wants that either).

Not a pleasant situation at all to find oneself in because of the choices of others.

cryptocurrency

woohoo!!! wrote: »

It's all posturing. Johnson would like a close-ish trade deal but he built his political capital on EU bashing. He will continue with EU bashing, it's great political cover for his own failings.

The EU of course would like a close trade deal, less disruption for its members. But there is little good will left for the UK, their antics of the last few years have used it up. It'll be just business and the EU will protect their members interests, which will be spun as punishing the UK. But increasingly few care what a neurotic UK think anymore, they've left so not our problem anymore.

No it won't. To punish you need to be in a postion to punish. The EU is a tin pot club who couldn't punish Malta.

J Mysterio

cryptocurrency wrote: »

No it won't. To punish you need to be in a postion to punish. The EU is a tin pot club who couldn't punish Malta.

Did they punish the Greeks?

Are they seeking to punish the UK for leaving?

SantaCruz

theological wrote: »

MiFiD II equivalence status can be granted.

There are already non-EU markets with this. For example Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

I've argued already that the EU also needs London as a financial centre because of its infrastructure for derivatives clearing and issuing sovereign / corporate debt and equities.

That won't go away overnight. London and Zurich are the only European cities in the top 10 in terms of financial centres.

Also most Brexit moves and changes in banks have already been done.

The money markets will move to where the money is. Far from the EU being cut off from the financial markets, the London market will lose importance.

I find the notion that the financial markets will wave bye bye to EU business for some reason to be absolutely absurd.