Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Experience_day

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

If I had my way I would give them what they really really want!!!! Goodbye and make a statement as the whole EU. Lets see how they cope alone with Covid recovery, closed borders........

You really want our biggest partners with huge access to waters and one of the only credible militaries against Russian aggression to just walk away with closed borders?

I get standing behind the EU, but Ireland is far more likely to suffer rather strongly if it goes pear shaped. Doubly so if they turn even more jingoistic and start boycotting Irish produce....

Professor Moriarty

Experience_day wrote: »

You really want our biggest partners with huge access to waters and one of the only credible militaries against Russian aggression to just walk away with closed borders?

I get standing behind the EU, but Ireland is far more likely to suffer rather strongly if it goes pear shaped. Doubly so if they turn even more jingoistic and start boycotting Irish produce....

Boycotts can cut both ways.

declanflynn

RobMc59 wrote: »

Over the last day there have been multiple posts about the extension deadline day passing and the UK has stuck to it`s guns and not asked for one.
I`m disappointed it`s come to this as I passionately wanted to at least retain a close relationship with the EU but it appears that ship has truly finally sailed.What does confuse me though is the suspicion many posters here seem shell shocked the UK appears to be going ahead with no deal unless the EU is more flexible.I now feel the UK should get on with no deal although do wonder if the EU are leaning towards compromise?

I feel the same they should get on with no deal, since they voted to go it's been like waiting for a present that never arrives.

declanflynn

Experience_day wrote: »

You really want our biggest partners with huge access to waters and one of the only credible militaries against Russian aggression to just walk away with closed borders?

I get standing behind the EU, but Ireland is far more likely to suffer rather strongly if it goes pear shaped. Doubly so if they turn even more jingoistic and start boycotting Irish produce....

boycotting is a two way street.

Donald Trump

Experience_day wrote: »

You really want our biggest partners with huge access to waters and one of the only credible militaries against Russian aggression to just walk away with closed borders?

Teresa May wasn't too slow about running to Brussels for support when a few fellas went to visit Salisbury Cathedral.

Experience_day wrote: »

I get standing behind the EU, but Ireland is far more likely to suffer rather strongly if it goes pear shaped. Doubly so if they turn even more jingoistic and start boycotting Irish produce....

UK can't feed itself. It can of course try to import food from further afield. However "no-deal" and the fabulous "WTO-deal" are not one-way streets. If the UK goes WTO and has zero tariff on something, then they cannot apply a tariff to that good from the EU or Ireland.


I assume, but am open to correction, that the EU could also dump into the UK market too? I know that that kind of behaviour was frowned upon against developing countries...but I assume that those concerns would not be present for the UK



For example, suppose that in order to keep its food supply coming, after going WTO, the UK puts a zero tariff on butter. And in the EU there is a glut of butter production so they introduce price supports in the form of intervention. And then they later decide to dump that intervention stock on the global market for 1c per kilo........well the UK producers would need to compete with that!

85603

speaking of trade issues, the uk offer to take in HK'ers isn't likely to please china.

so dont suppose we'll be seeing a china-uk trade deal in the future.

another bridge burned.

separately, august will see the vietnam-eu fta enter into effect. uk can wave bye bye to that in december too.

Peregrinus

Donald Trump wrote: »

. . . I assume, but am open to correction, that the EU could also dump into the UK market too? I know that that kind of behaviour was frowned upon against developing countries...but I assume that those concerns would not be present for the UK

For example, suppose that in order to keep its food supply coming, after going WTO, the UK puts a zero tariff on butter. And in the EU there is a glut of butter production so they introduce price supports in the form of intervention. And then they later decide to dump that intervention stock on the global market for 1c per kilo........well the UK producers would need to compete with that!

WTO rules don't stop a country from applying anti-dumpig measures, provided they apply them equally to all countries thate are engaged in dumping into their market.

IF EU governments were buying up butter to maintain domestic prices, and then selling it into the UK below cost, the UK could certainly slap a tariff on it.

Is there really any chance the British will accept the WTO telling them what they can do? I always thought you could just break WTO and deal with a court case seven years later after a bunch of delays.

Personally, I don't see it stopping at the EU. Any being told what to do will be seen as infringement of sovereignty.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there really any chance the British will accept the WTO telling them what they can do? I always thought you could just break WTO and deal with a court case seven years later after a bunch of delays.

Personally, I don't see it stopping at the EU. Any being told what to do will be seen as infringement of sovereignty.

In the particular instance that Donald Trump suggests, what the British would wish to do is something that WTO rules would allow them to do, so there'll be no conflict.

More generally, if you flout WTO rules the risk is not just enforcement proceedings; it's retaliation by other WTO members who may then decline to apply WTO rules with respect to you. This kind of tit-for-tat escalation of sanctions can rapidly escalate, and tends to end up beggaring everybody.

The point of the WTO was to avoid this, by providing an alternative mechanism for resolving disputes. The ability to refer disputes to the WTO court enables countries to climb down, suspending their tariffs and sanctions and retaliation and so forth, without either of them having to admit that they were in the wrong.

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not sure what posters you're referring to as I don't recall any posts which wondered if the EU should be more flexible.
What exactly in your view should the EU compromise towards?

You misunderstand me,I'm not suggesting there are many posters saying the EU should be more flexible.After all there aren't many pro British posters here-period.
I believe Britain are leaving in December with or without a deal,preferably with a deal but if not then so be it.There will undoubtedly be hardship for a period although I believe the UK will get through this stronger.
There is still room for compromise by all parties,this is illustrated by financial considerations taking priority in regards to allowing travel between countries in the covid crisis. EU holiday destinations are desperate for the British to return with their spending power and I don't see Brussels trying to stop this.

davedanon

RobMc59 wrote: »

There will undoubtedly be hardship for a period although I believe the UK will get through this stronger.

You, and others of your opinion keep saying this, or a variant of it, without ever offering any proof or evidence, that I can remember. It's odd, because you go into detail on most other issues, yet you sort of skate over this, despite the rest of us constantly detailing how the opposite will be the case

RobMc59 wrote: »

EU holiday destinations are desperate for the British to return with their spending power and I don't see Brussels trying to stop this.

Hmmm. 'Desperate', eh? This sounds a bit like the German carmakers who were supposed to be banging down Merkel's door about British customers. What is it about the Brits, that their 'spending power' is so much greater than the other 440 million EU citizens?

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

You misunderstand me,I'm not suggesting there are many posters saying the EU should be more flexible.After all there aren't many pro British posters here-period.
I believe Britain are leaving in December with or without a deal,preferably with a deal but if not then so be it.There will undoubtedly be hardship for a period although I believe the UK will get through this stronger.
There is still room for compromise by all parties,this is illustrated by financial considerations taking priority in regards to allowing travel between countries in the covid crisis. EU holiday destinations are desperate for the British to return with their spending power and I don't see Brussels trying to stop this.

No Deal or a deal won't make much difference to whether the Uk continue to go the Spain for their hols. THey are not going to opt for Skegness instead because of a bit of queing or the need for paperwork.

A No deal is a total and complete failure of the Brexit project. That it is being described as simply 'so be it' is astonishing. No Deal was never, ever the intention. It was never sold as such, the vote never touched on it.

Johnson should be, if things were working, be being hounded every day as to why No Deal even became an issue. They will of course blame the EU, but what is the plan once No Deal happens as obviously it was never the idea.

What hardships will it create? WHo is going to pay the price? Come back stronger? When? What do they do in the meantime? Are they looking at yet another lost decade? And what does that even mean? They were 5th largest economy in the world. Will they overtake China, or the US in the next few years?

It is this laizzez faire attitude to simply throwing out these meaningless soundbites that really gets my goat. Blythly discussing serious economic impacts as if they are simply one of those things that happens from time to time. This is a self determined infliction, sold on an entirely false basis and now being pursued, despite being shown to be completely unworkable as it was sold, on the basis that 'sure we've voted now, no going back'

Donald Trump

Peregrinus wrote: »

WTO rules don't stop a country from applying anti-dumpig measures, provided they apply them equally to all countries thate are engaged in dumping into their market.

IF EU governments were buying up butter to maintain domestic prices, and then selling it into the UK below cost, the UK could certainly slap a tariff on it.

Question for you then as you seem to know. Suppose that, continuing on the butter example, EU offers some kind of export subsidy so that a EU exporter can compete with global prices.

EU price at 1 Euro a kg. Global markets at 50c a kilo.EU gives a 50c subsidy. Under that scenario, can the UK slap a tariff on only EU butter? Assume cost of production in the EU is greater than rest of world

theological

Experience_day wrote: »

You really want our biggest partners with huge access to waters and one of the only credible militaries against Russian aggression to just walk away with closed borders?

I get standing behind the EU, but Ireland is far more likely to suffer rather strongly if it goes pear shaped. Doubly so if they turn even more jingoistic and start boycotting Irish produce....

I don't think the UK do want to boycott any "produce" from the EU. All the UK "want" to refer to the previous poster is a reasonable free trade arrangement. I'm still pretty hopeful that something will be agreed by the year end. As for how wide ranging it will be will remain to be seen.

Also, I don't feel the exit from the EU is "jingoistic". It is a political decision about how the UK wants to manage its own affairs. It is a reasonable one. The UK wants to decide its own affairs in parliament in the same way that Canada or Australia do.

I don't have a nationalist or a patriotic bone in my body in any direction. I don't think the EU is this all benevolent institution that other posters on this thread seem to think it is when they fawn over it.

davedanon

theological wrote: »

The UK wants to decide its own affairs in parliament in the same way that Canada or Australia do.

I don't have a nationalist or a patriotic bone in my body in any direction. I don't think the EU is this all benevolent institution that other posters on this thread seem to think it is when they fawn over it.

The UK was able to decide its own affairs as a member of the EU, as are all other EU members.

Also, I would to see evidence of this assertion that posters here are 'fawning' over a benevolent EU.

You always do this. Always argue in bad faith, and constantly slipping in unsupported assertions and allegations.

theological

davedanon wrote: »

The UK was able to decide its own affairs as a member of the EU, as are all other EU members.

Also, I would to see evidence of this assertion that posters here are 'fawning' over a benevolent EU.

You always do this. Always argue in bad faith, and constantly slipping in unsupported assertions and allegations.

Not really. You know that the EU has exclusive competence over a lot of areas when a member state joins. You also know that the EU has shared competence over a lot of areas when a member state joins. It is in the treaty documents.

It isn't honest to claim otherwise.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

I don't think the EU is this all benevolent institution that other posters on this thread seem to think it is when they fawn over it.

Why do you keep attacking statements nobody made? Have you nothing constructive to add?

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why do you keep attacking statements nobody made? Have you nothing constructive to add?

I'm interpreting the extolling of the EU's unquestionable virtues by the vast majority of people on this thread. I think fawning over the EU is an appropriate phrase to use to describe this.

Let me ask you, what are the negatives of joining the EU from your perspective?

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

I'm interpreting the extolling of the EU's unquestionable virtues by the vast majority of people on this thread.


Let me ask you, what are the negatives of joining the EU from your perspective?

I'll answer your question once you substantiate your allegation that people are "fawning over" the EU.

Leroy42

And we are back to what what change do you want that the EU have previously forced upon the UK.

Give is constantly saying that standards will remain, or possibly increase. So they have no issue with standards.

We want to make our own laws if oft trotted out, without any examples of that this actually means.

Of course there are negatives to jooingin the EU. A government, for example, now is answerable to a larger group. But there are massive benefits, which far outweigh the negatives.

Fundamentally the EU has ensured peace in a continent previously riven with war. It has created a block large enough that we can compete as equals with the US, and given the way Trump has acted this is a massive plus.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

You misunderstand me,I'm not suggesting there are many posters saying the EU should be more flexible.After all there aren't many pro British posters here-period.

Well your actual words were...

RobMc59 wrote: »

Over the last day there have been multiple posts about the extension deadline day passing and the UK has stuck to it`s guns and not asked for one.
I`m disappointed it`s come to this as I passionately wanted to at least retain a close relationship with the EU but it appears that ship has truly finally sailed.What does confuse me though is the suspicion many posters here seem shell shocked the UK appears to be going ahead with no deal unless the EU is more flexible.I now feel the UK should get on with no deal although do wonder if the EU are leaning towards compromise?

Maybe you were just posting to get a reaction?

As for your snide comment "After all there aren't many pro British posters here-period" - I think to suggest that most people here are not "pro British" is doing your best to imply that they are anti-British which is untrue.
Most people here are anti-Brexit purely because it is without any shadow of a doubt a stupid idea which is currently being led by a bunch of morons. That, however, is not anti-British.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I believe Britain are leaving in December with or without a deal,preferably with a deal but if not then so be it.There will undoubtedly be hardship for a period although I believe the UK will get through this stronger.

Remind me again how long Mogg believes that it will take to come out of it?

RobMc59 wrote: »

There is still room for compromise by all parties,this is illustrated by financial considerations taking priority in regards to allowing travel between countries in the covid crisis. EU holiday destinations are desperate for the British to return with their spending power and I don't see Brussels trying to stop this.

The EU cannot stop the UK holidaymakers (covid aside) as the UK still is in the transition period.
Once the transition period ends, the UK holidaymakers are free to travel once they have the appropriate documentation. However, the current negotiations are I guess trying to establish how people can travel as freely as possible when the UK does not want an FTA with the EU.
The EU have been fully transparent in the negotiations. It is the UK side that are not.
In terms of the covid crisis, the EU offered multiple olive branches to the UK to help overcome the pandemic - it was the UK that spurned all of these advances!
So I'll ask you again, in what way exactly should the EU compromise?

Leroy42

And just to be clear, FoM is not the same as freedom to travel. Regradless of Deal or No Deal, UK citizens will not be stopped from going to Spain for holidays.

What will possibly change if the need to documentation (like the US VIsa Waiver for 90 days that we currently have). It is not overly onerous, but it a hassle from time to time.

An area that most definitely will change is the ability to live and work in Spain. Two week holiday, no problem, but buying an apartment, retiring, health care costs. You may have instances where one partner has a EU passport and thus stay, but the other person has only UK passport and can only stay 90 days (or whatever the time is decided upon).

You get the normal reply that its only a form and easy, but that goes against the call that the EU was a bureaucratic mess they wanted freedom from.

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well your actual words were...

Maybe you were just posting to get a reaction?

As for your snide comment "After all there aren't many pro British posters here-period" - I think to suggest that most people here are not "pro British" is doing your best to imply that they are anti-British which is untrue.
Most people here are anti-Brexit purely because it is without any shadow of a doubt a stupid idea which is currently being led by a bunch of morons. That, however, is not anti-British.


Remind me again how long Mogg believes that it will take to come out of it?


The EU cannot stop the UK holidaymakers (covid aside) as the UK still is in the transition period.
Once the transition period ends, the UK holidaymakers are free to travel once they have the appropriate documentation. However, the current negotiations are I guess trying to establish how people can travel as freely as possible when the UK does not want an FTA with the EU.
The EU have been fully transparent in the negotiations. It is the UK side that are not.
In terms of the covid crisis, the EU offered multiple olive branches to the UK to help overcome the pandemic - it was the UK that spurned all of these advances!
So I'll ask you again, in what way exactly should the EU compromise?

Whether you like it or not there is room for further negotiations by all parties-the 'Britain will do as its told'mantra you seem to live by probably won't happen in the real world.
So you continue to 'guess'whats going to happen in regards to travel etc.(your words,not mine).
Your snide comment about me posting to get a reaction has been levelled at me before by others and subsequently dismissed upon investigation.
I do believe the EU will compromise in the long run when it realises the UK is willing to strike out without a deal but is still currently trying to control the UK by unfair measures imo.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whether you like it or not there is room for further negotiations by all parties-the 'Britain will do as its told'mantra you seem to live by probably won't happen in the real world.

I never said that!
However, if Britain wants to trade and interact with the EU, then it must abide by any agreements made with the EU.
As yet, the UK appears disinterested in this because it cannot get everything it demands.

RobMc59 wrote: »

So you continue to 'guess'whats going to happen in regards to travel etc.(your words,not mine).

Does anyone know what's going to happen?

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your snide comment about me posting to get a reaction has been levelled at me before by others and subsequently dismissed upon investigation.

That wasn't snide.
I merely questioned what was the purpose of you saying you believed people thought that the EU should be more flexible and then when challenged, you corrected yourself?

RobMc59 wrote: »

I do believe the EU will compromise in the long run when it realises the UK is willing to strike out without a deal but is still currently trying to control the UK by unfair measures imo.

So you've no ideas on how exactly the EU should compromise despite saying that they should?

Although now you've introduced another vague allegation that the EU is trying to control the UK by unfair measures - what are these unfair measures exactly?

Leroy42

Britain is not being told what to do, although that is a favorite line of the Brexiteers. The EU has laid out it positions, and offered different options to the UK.

The UK don't want these options they want something else, and now the EU has spent the last 4 years trying to work out a way that they maintain their core ideals whilst trying to facilitate the wants of the UK.

There will of course be compromises, there has to be, but the pressure is mainly on the UK to compromise more as the EU has more of what the UK wants (access to bigger market for example).

But the UK have very much been all about not compromising (at least in their public statements). Frost has been at pains to state that they will not accept areas like oversight from ECJ for example.

In terms of fisheries, I think a compromise will be something like instead of annual negotiations (which clearly the Uk want to use as a constant stick to beat the EU with) they will agree to maybe 5 years, or 7 years rolling agreements. But even in that, the UK have given more way that then EU. But it is a win-win.

As brought up before, fundamentally the real issue is that the UK are not really looking for closer ties with the EU. This is simply the first stage in their plan. Gove and Frost have made it very clear that not only to they want the UK out of the EU, but a breakup of the EU itself is the best outcome for the UK.

Knowing that it is very difficult for the EU to see any compromise as anything other than a stop gap to increasing the risk to itself form the UK.

davedanon

I freely admit to not knowing a lot about EU 'competences' and I'm currently not inclined to start researching the topic, but I do know that over the last few years I have heard and read a ton of evidence that the supposedly onerous rules and restrictions imposed on the UK by the EU nearly always turned out to be A) Not actually an EU rule at all, but internal to the UK, just made up, ie a flat-out lie.

timetogo1

davedanon wrote: »

I freely admit to not knowing a lot about EU 'competences' and I'm currently not inclined to start researching the topic, but I do know that over the last few years I have heard and read a ton of evidence that the supposedly onerous rules and restrictions imposed on the UK by the EU nearly always turned out to be A) Not actually an EU rule at all, but internal to the UK, just made up, ie a flat-out lie.

+ the majority of times that it was an EU rule, the UK voted for it.

davedanon

timetogo1 wrote: »

+ the majority of times that it was an EU rule, the UK voted for it.

Or else were the actual originators of it, back in the day. Britain had loads of negotiators and specialists in that area at the time (they did use to run an Empire, after all), and took a major role in framing the EEC/EU's regulatory frameworks. So when the likes of Francois, JRM and co were doing the gammon dance about some EU treachery or other, it's probably the work of some British civil servant/technocrat whose boots they weren't fit to polish.

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I never said that!
However, if Britain wants to trade and interact with the EU, then it must abide by any agreements made with the EU.
As yet, the UK appears disinterested in this because it cannot get everything it demands.


Does anyone know what's going to happen?


That wasn't snide.
I merely questioned what was the purpose of you saying you believed people thought that the EU should be more flexible and then when challenged, you corrected yourself?


So you've no ideas on how exactly the EU should compromise despite saying that they should?

Although now you've introduced another vague allegation that the EU is trying to control the UK by unfair measures - what are these unfair measures exactly?

Fishing is one area where the EU needs to get real and it's not unreasonable to want to make your own rules and laws ,not be told what to do by some faceless panel in Brussels.

"Donald

"Donald wrote:

UK can't feed itself.

Yes it can. Because it imports a lot of food produce (and exports a lot as well) that doesn’t mean it can’t feed itself, only that it chooses not to.