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

Dave0301

A succinct description of the British negotiation position. Very difficult to see how there can be a resolution in the next few months.

https://twitter.com/agoodfireburns/status/1280197246949175297

ancapailldorcha

Hard to disagree with that. Recent governments including this one have resorted to playing games and bad faith tactics since day one. They seem to think that the most important thing is posturing for their base while gambling with the future of the country. They've agreed to conditions that they proposed then immediately tried to wriggle out of seeming to think that Brussels will blink and yet they've had to beg for extensions multiple times. The government just tries to blame other parties as evidenced by their disastrous handling of the Covid-19 crisis while diverting blame to care homes and teachers' unions.

They need to realise that the EU cannot compromise on the four principles of the single market and that asking them to is just wasting time that businesses and people need to prepare for the disaster ahead that they've decided to inflict on the country. In the process, they are rubbishing the UK's previously excellent soft power and diplomatic reputation.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They need to realise that the EU cannot compromise on the four principles of the single market and that asking them to is just wasting time that businesses and people need to prepare for the disaster ahead that they've decided to inflict on the country. In the process, they are rubbishing the UK's previously excellent soft power and diplomatic reputation.

This is stated here as a form of unquestionable dogma, but signing a comprehensive free trade agreement is not compromising on the four principles of the single market.

Was CETA compromising on the four principles of the single market?

If not, why is this FTA compromising on the four principles of the single market?

Leroy42

CETA is not a FTA. It, for a start, has nothing to do with services. It is not comparing like with like.

Added to that is that the geographic closeness and the stated aim that the UK wants to be a direct competitor to the EU. Canada is looking to increase the relationship, UK is trying to actively distance itself and wants the EU to give it concessions to make the changeover easier for it.

The four pillars are the price of a FTA, the UK want the FTA without those conditions.

declanflynn

fash wrote: »

I would first note your rather nauseating tone .
I secondly note the rather silly emotive nonsense words like "fatcat" "foreign" corporations - sounds like someone has been soaking in the Express rather more than is good for one's grasp on reality. Should we expect you to begin referring to "filthy Frogs" "damn Krauts" next? Sounds like a lot of Brexit kool-aid is being drunk.

As regards the statement that one must be "squeaky clean" to comment - where did that nonsense idea come from? Not even Jesus was squeaky clean - and (let's assume he was real etc.) you would tell him to shut the hell up? Pope Francis who I'm sure told lies as a child shouldn't express disappointment to China about the forced sterilisation and concentration camps for Uighurs? Your argument is ludicrous nonsense. Seriously though, it is actually embarrassing.


Turning to the topic of tax evasion/tax avoidance, I am sure you can agree that the tax evasion promoting behaviour of the UK is on a several orders of magnitude greater scale than that engaged by Ireland - and in particular assists and is designed to assist some of the most corrupt and despicable people on earth - various corrupt Brits, Middle Eastern despots, shady Russian oligarchs etc. as well as "fatcat foreign" (and even not foreign!) corporations. Ireland's small scale and rather pathetic attempts to emulate the UK in relation to the most respectable of those categories certainly does not stop me from condemning the UK's history of genocide, racism, slavery, corruption, murder, war and enforcing misery on the world.

hammer nail head

briany

The UK has placed a lot of stock in the idea of a big trade deal with the US, but as Trump's re-election looks decidedly in jeopardy, there's this chance that the U.S. will pivot back to a centrist direction (or at least away from the current silliness).

Donald Trump

Dave0301 wrote: »

A succinct description of the British negotiation position. Very difficult to see how there can be a resolution in the next few months.

https://twitter.com/agoodfireburns/status/1280197246949175297

That is an old video is it not?


Sadly, it could have been from yesterday because nothing has changed at all

Donald Trump

RobMc59 wrote: »

I realise the thread title but when the pot is calling the kettle black what do you expect?-An echo chamber?And by the way I can`t stand johnson or his cronies but offering to help Hong Kong citizens is the right thing to do imo.Britain does`nt have the clout it once had but at least it`s trying to do the right thing.

Well I suppose they'll need new bogeymen in a decade or so. They won't be able to blame the Polish people for the decline of their great nation then.......might be handy to have a few Hong Kong people around to scapegoat


Edit: BTW, technically the UK didn't have to hand back Hong Kong island. They did have to hand back other lands due to expired lease, but could have kept the island....they decided to give that back to China for reasons of practicality

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

CETA is not a FTA. It, for a start, has nothing to do with services. It is not comparing like with like.

Added to that is that the geographic closeness and the stated aim that the UK wants to be a direct competitor to the EU. Canada is looking to increase the relationship, UK is trying to actively distance itself and wants the EU to give it concessions to make the changeover easier for it.

The four pillars are the price of a FTA, the UK want the FTA without those conditions.

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) (unofficially, Canada-Europe Trade Agreement) is a free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.[3][4][5] It has been provisionally applied,[6] thus removing 98% of the preexisting tariffs between the two parts.

It is a free trade agreement. Heck, the EU itself refers to it as a free trade agreement.

Therefore if this isn't "compromising the four principles of the single market" a FTA with the UK wouldn't be either. It just sounds like meaningless dogma when repeated.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Courtesy of Wikipedia:


It is a free trade agreement. Heck, the EU itself refers to it as a free trade agreement.

Therefore if this isn't "compromising the four principles of the single market" a FTA with the UK wouldn't be either. It just sounds like meaningless dogma when repeated.

Theo, you need to learn to respect the sovereignty of the EU.


The UK is not part of the club. They have no say in it's rules or decisions. They are not entitled to anything, whether they think it's fair or not. They need to learn to take it or leave it and stop whinging.



The UK leaving the EU reminds me of a teenager getting the huff and deciding to pack their bags and run away, believing that all their problems are due to their parents because their parents decided a few ground rules for them.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

Theo, you need to learn to respect the sovereignty of the EU.

The UK is not part of the club. They have no say in it's rules or decisions. They are not entitled to anything, whether they think it's fair or not. They need to learn to take it or leave it and stop whinging.

The UK leaving the EU reminds me of a teenager getting the huff and deciding to pack their bags and run away, believing that all their problems are due to their parents because their parents decided a few ground rules for them.

Thanks, this doesn't address my point. I was referring to ancapailldorcha referring to the EU not "compromising on the four principles of the single market".

I noted that agreeing a FTA doesn't do this. Leroy42 claimed that CETA wasn't a FTA despite the EU itself claiming it was.

Parroting on about the EU not compromising on its principles with an FTA when the EU has already agreed FTAs is just meaningless dogma.

First Up

theological wrote: »

Thanks, this doesn't address my point. I was referring to ancapailldorcha referring to the EU not "compromising on the four principles of the single market".

I noted that agreeing a FTA doesn't do this. Leroy42 claimed that CETA wasn't a FTA despite the EU itself claiming it was.

Parroting on about the EU not compromising on its principles with an FTA when the EU has already agreed FTAs is just meaningless dogma.

You should learn the differences between a Free Trade Agreement and membership of the Single Market.

theological

First Up wrote: »

You should learn the differences between a Free Trade Agreement and membership of the Single Market.

I know the differences thanks. The UK isn't asking for membership of the single market.

I don't know why you output these random statements to things I've not said. It's pretty curious.

First Up

theological wrote: »

I know the differences thanks. The UK isn't asking for membership of the single market.

I don't know why you output these random statements to things I've not said. It's pretty curious.

Because the EU principles that matter here are the fundamentals of the Single Market, not an FTA.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Thanks, this doesn't address my point. I was referring to ancapailldorcha referring to the EU not "compromising on the four principles of the single market".

I noted that agreeing a FTA doesn't do this. Leroy42 claimed that CETA wasn't a FTA despite the EU itself claiming it was.

Parroting on about the EU not compromising on its principles with an FTA when the EU has already agreed FTAs is just meaningless dogma.

Doesn't matter what you think to be honest.


EU has sovereignty to do deals with whom it pleases and it can agree of whatever conditions it likes.


It could do a deal with Russia to give them full access and freedom of movement if it likes. And, in the absence of any deal with the UK it could decide to impose a 1000 Euro visa fee on any visitor from the UK. The UK citizen will have no more entitlement to anything than a Russian one would.



UK just need to accept that and move on.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

Doesn't matter what you think to be honest.


EU has sovereignty to do deals with whom it pleases and it can agree of whatever conditions it likes.


It could do a deal with Russia to give them full access and freedom of movement if it likes. And, in the absence of any deal with the UK it could decide to impose a 1000 Euro visa fee on any visitor from the UK. The UK citizen will have no more entitlement to anything than a Russian one would.



UK just need to accept that and move on.

You're not responding to my rather simple point. I never said anything about the EU's sovereignty. Just to the illogical statement that FTAs compromise the single market when they don't. The agreement with Canada didn't, and the agreement with South Korea didn't.

joeguevara

theological wrote: »

I know the differences thanks. The UK isn't asking for membership of the single market.

I don't know why you output these random statements to things I've not said. It's pretty curious.

What is it that the UK want and what is it that you want?

What obligations are on the EU to give what the UK and indeed what you want?

What benefits will the EU receive in giving the UK what they want?

theological

joeguevara wrote: »

What is it that the UK want and what is it that you want?

What obligations are on the EU to give what the UK and indeed what you want?

What benefits will the EU receive in giving the UK what they want?

You can read the negotiating positions on both sides rather freely online. They are freely available. You don't need me to elucidate these to you.

I've never said that any side are obligated to agree anything. There is a reason why both parties are still negotiating however. This is because both parties know an agreement is preferable to none.

I'd just like someone to actually engage with the point I actually made about FTAs and the dogma that they violate the principles of the single market.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

You're not responding to my rather simple point. I never said anything about the EU's sovereignty. Just to the illogical statement that FTAs compromise the single market when they don't. The agreement with Canada didn't, and the agreement with South Korea didn't.

At the end of the day who cares? What difference does it make? The EU has sovereignty to make its own decisions about trade deals and it does not have to explain them to the UK or anyone else.



In the absence of a trade deal, it should of course treat all such nations equally. That is not what we are talking about here.





UK needs to grow up and get used to the real world

I'm getting really bored of this comparison to CETA. The UK wants services as part of an agreement. That is one of the four, and you can only have one of the four if you accept them all.

And this disregard for geography, quantity of trade, and the desires and ambitions of CETA vs. a UK-EU deal is purposefully disingenuous at best and plain stupid at worst.

That the UK and its supporters clamour for equality in deals while demanding an unlevel playing field in a new deal is yet another aspect of this shltshow that I thoroughly enjoy. The same people who think the closeness and history of the two should grant them a favourable deal choose to ignore those very things in said deal and deem the EU's focus on them as unfair and plain bullying.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

You're not responding to my rather simple point. I never said anything about the EU's sovereignty. Just to the illogical statement that FTAs compromise the single market when they don't. The agreement with Canada didn't, and the agreement with South Korea didn't.

My understanding is that a Canada style deal was offered to the UK but it was rejected. The UK want more than a simple trade deal, they want access for trucks, they want professional qualifications recognition, they want on checks at the border (Canada still ahs a border with the EU which is a massive difference between the two).

And those differences create the issues. Coupled with the idea that the EU is projecting on increasing relationship with Canada over time whilst the UK have stated that they want to continue to reduce the relationship with the EU.

It is not comparing like with like, apart from them having FTA contained within their descriptions.

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

At the end of the day who cares? What difference does it make? The EU has sovereignty to make its own decisions about trade deals and it does not have to explain them to the UK or anyone else.

If you don't care about my point, or the original points of posters that I am replying to then I would ask you to stop replying to my posts if you're not interested in the conversation.

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding is that a Canada style deal was offered to the UK but it was rejected. The UK want more than a simple trade deal, they want access for trucks, they want professional qualifications recognition, they want on checks at the border (Canada still ahs a border with the EU which is a massive difference between the two).

And those differences create the issues. Coupled with the idea that the EU is projecting on increasing relationship with Canada over time whilst the UK have stated that they want to continue to reduce the relationship with the EU.

It is not comparing like with like, apart from them having FTA contained within their descriptions.

The UK will have a border with the EU also. I fail to see the significance of this point.

CETA also allows for professional qualification recognition. Courtesy of a BBC article earlier in the year.

Ceta also allows professional qualifications to be recognised both in Canada and the EU, making it easier, for example, for architects or accountants to work in both places.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not comparing like with like, apart from them having FTA contained within their descriptions.

This is the bit that Theo (and many in the UK) don't seem to grasp. An FTA is a transactional arrangement between two parties. The Single Market is shared values as well as a shared market.

The EU conducts trade agreements with countries outside the Union/Single Market. It doesn't need a free trade agreement with itself.

joeguevara

theological wrote: »

You can read the negotiating positions on both sides rather freely online. They are freely available. You don't need me to elucidate these to you.

I've never said that any side are obligated to agree anything. There is a reason why both parties are still negotiating however. This is because both parties know an agreement is preferable to none.

I'd just like someone to actually engage with the point I actually made about FTAs and the dogma that they violate the principles of the single market.

Negotiating positions are not the redline of what each party wants. And you are the one who is going round in circles about Trade Agreements that have nothing to do with the UK.

But again, what is it that you want? Give it a go instead of deliberately trying to discuss what has nothing to do with the UK. Hows running away to the tree house working out anyway? Will you be home for your tea or did you bring jam sandwiches?

theological

joeguevara wrote: »

Negotiating positions are not the redline of what each party wants. And you are the one who is going round in circles about Trade Agreements that have nothing to do with the UK.

But again, what is it that you want? Give it a go instead of deliberately trying to discuss what has nothing to do with the UK. Hows running away to the tree house working out anyway? Will you be home for your tea or did you bring jam sandwiches?

I'm not going around in circles. I originally replied to a poster who stated that an FTA would be a violation of the principles of the single market. That is a linear conversation. That is just meaningless dogma because the EU has already done these.

The conversation has become circular because people are trying to shoehorn things I never said into the conversation.

First Up

theological wrote: »

The conversation has become circular because people are trying to shoehorn things I never said into the conversation.

That's because the UK is trying to shoehorn things they took for granted as EU members into the future relationship without it seems, understanding either what they were in or what they have left.

ambro25

theological wrote: »

(...)

CETA also allows for professional qualification recognition. Courtesy of a BBC article earlier in the year.

CETA allows for it indeed, with CA and EU professionals starting from a position of no mutual recognition.

Have you checked beyond that simplistic BBC piece, where that 'allowance' is at, currently?

You can start from CETA's Chapter 11 and go from there.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

If you don't care about my point, or the original points of posters that I am replying to then I would ask you to stop replying to my posts if you're not interested in the conversation.

You have no real point. You have been listening to too many Brexiteers, all the way from David "easiest deal in history" through to "German car manufacturers will force the EU to capitulate" blah blah.


Whatever point you think you have is predicated on some notion that the UK is entitled to any kind of deal. It's not. The UK can beg for a carbon copy of a Norway or Canada deal and the EU can say "no". They don't need to justify that "no".



The UK not entitled to anything. So your posts are merely fluff and distraction.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Negotiating positions are not the redline of what each party wants. And you are the one who is going round in circles about Trade Agreements that have nothing to do with the UK.

But again, what is it that you want? Give it a go instead of deliberately trying to discuss what has nothing to do with the UK. Hows running away to the tree house working out anyway? Will you be home for your tea or did you bring jam sandwiches?

Maybe respond to this question about what do you want?

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

The UK will have a border with the EU also. I fail to see the significance of this point.

A physical border, yes, but the UK essentially want there to be no actual (ie customs checks & paperwork). They want mutual recognition of standards.

Isn't that the big difference? Canada shipments are still subject to custom checks and review. And that has been stated numerous times that tariffs aren't actually the main cost, it is the delays in port, the lack of simple roll-on-roll off.

Have the UK looked for any arrangements for truck drivers for example? If so then it would be different that the Canada deal.

But as stated, the EU is under no obligation to offer anything. UK mentions precedence, without taking into context why previous deals may have been done.

If TM had taken a more conciliatory tone to her initial dealings, rather than the arrogant and bombastic 'Red, White and Blue Brexit' and 'No deal is better than a Bad Deal', then things may well have been very different.

But the UK decided that the best approach was one of confrontation, to paint themselves are the winners, that the EU was a failure and the UK would help save the EU by granting them a deal.

Now they are so far down that track they are finding it hard to row back. It is difficult to constantly belittle the other side and then ask them to be concillitory.

Diplomacy was needed, instead the UK decided on a mega-phone. Remeber the outrage that they were being 'forced' to pay their financial liabilities? How dare the EU demand payment from the UK. We had MP's claiming they should never pay.

It is that context that you need to consider the position of the EU. They are facing, even now in the negotiations where the WD is being route are merely a suggestion, a hostile opponent.