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

Seth Brundle

mick087 wrote: »

I mean both sides should stop playing hardball and actually come up with an agreement both can lie with. negotiations big or small are always the same people playing hardball.

The UK side is the only side that is not properly engaging. They are quick to make their demands with no recipriocal offer.

mick087 wrote: »

No it would not be a good idea to cancel brexit

There is no cancelling of Brexit - it has already happened.
The UK would need to reapply for membership, in which case the existing EU27 would consider the application. Presumably the Uk would need to become full members with none of the UK specific nonsense they held over the years e.g. remaining outside of the Euro.
Anyhow, why do you think the UK would be better off not undoing the damage caused by Brexit? There are absolutely no positive outcomes from Brexit. The cost of Brexit is reckoned to have hit GBP£130 billion so far and the transition period is still in place until the end of the year. Once 2021 comes, expect the cost to skyrocket with or without a deal.
Brexit was a white elephant sold on nationalistic lies. Even JRM who pushed for Brext admitted that it would be at least 50 years before the UK would see any benefits - if there's a UK left given that Scotland, Northern Ireland and possibly Wales want to leave the Uk and re-join the EU.

mick087 wrote: »

No the EU should not give the UK want it wants both sides want is best both sides must compromise.

From what the Eu team have been saying, the Uk do not want to compromise. They want all of the good bits and none of the tough bits. It does not work that way.

mick087 wrote: »

Absolutely not we should allow no country competitive advantage.

I'm getting the impression that your understanding of the UK's position is quite limited.

mick087

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is the middle ground?

The most logical outcome is no deal. the UK leaves and becomes like any other 3rd country and then starts the process of closer trade.

It was assumed, due to the relationship, that this could be avoided and that a deal could be made based on the current situation. But the UK seems to want to be treated as a member, except for the bits it doesn't like.

So the question basically boils down to what areas should the Uk compromise and what areas should the EU compromise, as I agree that both sides need to compromise.

But even at this late stage the UK have shown no willingness to compromise, and are even discussing getting rid of the legally binding WA. How can the EU compromise based on that?

This is what the negotiators have to decide what the middle ground is.
Both sides want to report back they got the better deal.

I hope you are wrong but i feel you are right no deal is the most logical outcome.

Only the foolish go into a negotiator believing it will be grand.
The problem is the UK government now have a overwhelming majority in there house of commons this makes it different to dealing with Theresa May government.

This deal is to important so have finished at the last minute.

If its a no deal both will blame each other and neither will accept any responsibility or blame.

CelticRambler

mick087 wrote: »

I mean both sides should stop playing hardball and actually come up with an agreement both can lie with. negotiations big or small are always the same people playing hardball.

Ages ago, the EU set out a very clear description of the various deal models that were available to the UK, the now infamous "Barnier Staircase". Back then, Michel Barnier said to the UK - under May's premiership at the time - "tell us which option you want."

We're still waiting for the UK to say what it wants; they're still only saying what they don't want. The EU is not playing hardball - we're waiting for the Brits to bring the ball back onto the pitch.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ages ago, the EU set out a very clear description of the various deal models that were available to the UK, the now infamous "Barnier Staircase". Back then, Michel Barnier said to the UK - under May's premiership at the time - "tell us which option you want."

We're still waiting for the UK to say what it wants; they're still only saying what they don't want. The EU is not playing hardball - we're waiting for the Brits to bring the ball back onto the pitch.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The UK side is the only side that is not properly engaging. They are quick to make their demands with no recipriocal offer.

That isn't true. The UK even produced a draft treaty with their desired outcome for the negotiations.

If the UK can't get a reasonable agreement by December 31st it should simply fall onto WTO terms.

The UK definitely shouldn't accept anything that requires huge swathes of domestic policy to be controlled from Brussels. Or in short: If Canada wouldn't do it, the UK definitely shouldn't.

mick087

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The UK side is the only side that is not properly engaging. They are quick to make their demands with no recipriocal offer.


There is no cancelling of Brexit - it has already happened.
The UK would need to reapply for membership, in which case the existing EU27 would consider the application. Presumably the Uk would need to become full members with none of the UK specific nonsense they held over the years e.g. remaining outside of the Euro.
Anyhow, why do you think the UK would be better off not undoing the damage caused by Brexit? There are absolutely no positive outcomes from Brexit. The cost of Brexit is reckoned to have hit GBP£130 billion so far and the transition period is still in place until the end of the year. Once 2021 comes, expect the cost to skyrocket with or without a deal.
Brexit was a white elephant sold on nationalistic lies. Even JRM who pushed for Brext admitted that it would be at least 50 years before the UK would see any benefits - if there's a UK left given that Scotland, Northern Ireland and possibly Wales want to leave the Uk and re-join the EU.


From what the Eu team have been saying, the Uk do not want to compromise. They want all of the good bits and none of the tough bits. It does not work that way

I'm getting the impression that your understanding of the UK's position is quite limited.

Yes i know you cannot cancel brexit i was replying to a question not making a comment.

I say your right maybe brexit has done much damage but its what the Brits wanted.

Yes the break up of the union is a possibility .

I think your getting the impression my understanding of the UK's position is not restricted rarther than limited to what your understanding would be? Would you agree that may be the case?

First Up

theological wrote: »

That isn't true. The UK even produced a draft treaty with their desired outcome for the negotiations.

If the UK can't get a reasonable agreement by December 31st it should simply fall onto WTO terms.

The UK definitely shouldn't accept anything that requires huge swathes of domestic policy to be controlled from Brussels. Or in short: If Canada wouldn't do it, the UK definitely shouldn't.

Which bits of UK domestic policy were controlled by Brussels?

fash

theological wrote: »

That isn't true. The UK even produced a draft treaty with their desired outcome for the negotiations.

If the UK can't get a reasonable agreement by December 31st it should simply fall onto WTO terms.

The UK definitely shouldn't accept anything that requires huge swathes of domestic policy to be controlled from Brussels. Or in short: If Canada wouldn't do it, the UK definitely shouldn't.

But the UK isn't looking for a Canada deal: it's looking for a deal on 10 times the trade volume with literally infinitely fewer tariffs and quotas plus more EU member rights than you can shake a stick at while in competition in the exact same markets and areas as EU businesses.

So why should the EU give the UK the UK all that for free?

And furthermore, do you agree that if the EU were that soft and prone to giving stuff away as to get anywhere close to contemplating it, that as a member state, we should do everything we could to prevent it from doing so - and if not, we should look to replace the EU with an entity which would properly protect our interests (and squeeze the UK for everything it has)?

Seth Brundle

mick087 wrote: »

I say your right maybe brexit has done much damage but its what the Brits wanted.

Not quite true.
It's what half of the that Brit voters wanted. Of the population of the UK at the time, it was a minority.
Two of the four UK "countries" voted against it.
it is fair to say that many of those who voted for it did not know what they were voting for given that there was no clarity on what would happen.
Even now, it could be easily argued that no two Brexitees want the same thing.

mick087 wrote: »

Yes the break up of the union is a possibility .

...and that is a good thing from a Uk perspective?
Is that taking back control?

mick087 wrote: »

I think your getting the impression my understanding of the UK's position is not restricted rarther than limited to what your understanding would be? Would you agree that may be the case?

I'm reading your questions and subsequent responses.
You say something, someone refutes it and you then appear to agree with them.
I don't believe that you understand the problems that the UK has hid from for decades by allowing both the government and media to blame the EU for anything and everything.
I don't believe that you understand that the UK leaving the EU will lead to a more difficult trading position for Britain, a decline in standards especially in food production, a buyout of the NHS by US investors (presumably for bugger all) and an increase in poverty throughout the UK.
I don't believe that you realise that it hasn't really started yet. Whilst Brexit has happened, the cushion that is the transition period remains but by the Uks making will be pulled at New year. The Uk does not want to extend thus allowing the Uk to form a better position. The UK wants to run straight at the cliff in the belief that the EU will suddenly turn around and say "yes, here is everything you want because you're so important to us". But they won't. Each time the UK anticipated the EU to cave, the EU stood firm and it was the UK that caved.
Your line of questioning does not support the view that you get all of this.

mick087

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not quite true.

It's what half of the that Brits voted wanted. Of the population of the UK at the time, it was a minority.
I think it was over 17 Million people voted for brexit 52% to 48%

Two of the four UK "countries" voted against it.
In fairness they voted as the UK not seperate nations but i will accept that 2 of the 4 nations voted to leave. Im a firm believer in all nations citizens voting in a referendum to leave the UK or be it the EU if public opinion deems so Citizens should always have these powers.

it is fair to say that many of those who voted for it did not know what they were voting for given that there was no clarity on what would happen.
No me i would of voted to remain if i was a Brit, I have many friends in the UK the ones who wanted to leave knew exactly why and there reasons was differernt and many.

Even now, it could be easily argued that no two Brexitees want the same thing.
There have been many who have had issues with the EU long before the name brexit came along.The EU did not listen to the UK at the time and when brexit happened they look around them and wonder why it happened.

...and that is a good thing from a Uk perspective?
Is that taking back control?
I have no idea no one does

I'm reading your questions and subsequent responses.
You say something, someone refutes it and you then appear to agree with them.

I don't believe that you understand the problems that the UK has hid from for decades by allowing both the government and media to blame the EU for anything and everything.
Can you prove what the UK government has hidden from its Citizens?
I think the UK always had a 50 50 balance when it came to media over the EU.


I don't believe that you understand that the UK leaving the EU will lead to a more difficult trading position for Britain, a decline in standards especially in food production, a buyout of the NHS by US investors (presumably for bugger all) and an increase in poverty throughout the UK.

This just a possibility.
If you think that the Brits will sell the NHS then you are talking nonsense. Where did you got that from? Its spin and total rubbish. In this case i go as far to say its scare tactics.

I don't believe that you realise that it hasn't really started yet. Whilst Brexit has happened, the cushion that is the transition period remains but by the Uks making will be pulled at New year. The Uk does not want to extend thus allowing the Uk to form a better position.

No none of us know what will happen that for sure but maybe just maybe another possibility is they might thrive and be the envy of Europe. You don't know i don't know no one knows.


The UK wants to run straight at the cliff in the belief that the EU will suddenly turn around and say "yes, here is everything you want because you're so important to us". But they won't. Each time the UK anticipated the EU to cave, the EU stood firm and it was the UK that caved.
Your line of questioning does not support the view that you get all of this
I very much doubt the brits will do there not like that they will tough it out if things got bad.


So would you now agree you dont know the answer to these questions? No one knows what will happen.

fash

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not quite true.
It's what half of the that Brit voters wanted.

Actually of those who voted for brexit, 65% at the time thought they'd be remaining within the single market - Peter Foster recently linked to a tweet on that... So over 80% of voters voted to remain in the single market - yet here we are.

CelticRambler

mick087 wrote: »

It's what half of the that Brits voted wanted. Of the population of the UK at the time, it was a minority.
I think it was over 17 Million people voted for brexit 52% to 48%

52% voted against remaining in the EU; they didn't vote for anything - they weren't given the choice - and seeing as "Brexit" was never defined as anything other than "Brexit" there were "different and many" reasons as you've observed amongst your friends. And there's the problem: that 52% don't agree amongst themselves as to what they voted for or what they want, and until they do, the EU can't negotiate with them.

theological

fash wrote: »

But the UK isn't looking for a Canada deal: it's looking for a deal on 10 times the trade volume with literally infinitely fewer tariffs and quotas plus more EU member rights than you can shake a stick at while in competition in the exact same markets and areas as EU businesses.

So why should the EU give the UK the UK all that for free?

And furthermore, do you agree that if the EU were that soft and prone to giving stuff away as to get anywhere close to contemplating it, that as a member state, we should do everything we could to prevent it from doing so - and if not, we should look to replace the EU with an entity which would properly protect our interests (and squeeze the UK for everything it has)?

This language isn't helpful.

The UK is simply proposing a deal that provides good trading conditions for both parties into each other's markets. I agree that the trade volume may be larger, but I don't think the arrangement proposed is actually much more radical than what Canada has otherwise.

The argument was made by other posters that the UK were simply only saying what they don't want. That is manifestly false. The UK have proposed an end state, but the EU are rejecting it.

In that scenario I'm of the mind that if the EU are not interested in coming to a reasonable arrangement then falling onto WTO terms might be the best outcome. It is definitely a better outcome than continuing to have lots of policy areas dictated by Brussels in the long term.

ancapailldorcha

mick087 wrote: »

...and that is a good thing from a Uk perspective?
Is that taking back control?
I have no idea no one does

So, this basically:

mick087 wrote: »

I don't believe that you understand that the UK leaving the EU will lead to a more difficult trading position for Britain, a decline in standards especially in food production, a buyout of the NHS by US investors (presumably for bugger all) and an increase in poverty throughout the UK.

This just a possibility.
If you think that the Brits will sell the NHS then you are talking nonsense. Where did you got that from? Its spin and total rubbish. In this case i go as far to say its scare tactics.

No none of us know what will happen that for sure but maybe just maybe another possibility is they might thrive and be the envy of Europe. You don't know i don't know no one knows.


The UK wants to run straight at the cliff in the belief that the EU will suddenly turn around and say "yes, here is everything you want because you're so important to us". But they won't. Each time the UK anticipated the EU to cave, the EU stood firm and it was the UK that caved.
Your line of questioning does not support the view that you get all of this
I very much doubt the brits will do there not like that they will tough it out if things got bad.


So would you now agree you dont know the answer to these questions? No one knows what will happen.

So, you're just going to do the usual thing of dismissing anything you don't like as scare tactics? Why? We're discussing this on an Irish bulletin board after the vote. What good are alleged scare tactics?

And the "nobody knows" bit. When you need to know what's going to happen but can't, you look at expert projections and analysis instead of comforting nonsense on the internet.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So, this basically:





So, you're just going to do the usual thing of dismissing anything you don't like as scare tactics? Why? We're discussing this on an Irish bulletin board after the vote. What good are alleged scare tactics?

And the "nobody knows" bit. When you need to know what's going to happen but can't, you look at expert projections and analysis instead of comforting nonsense on the internet.

It is unfounded predictions that have never come to pass that are worthy of criticism. There have been a lot of dramatic predictions in this criteria over the last few years of negotiating. One of the more absurd ones was that the UK economy was going to tank on the referendum result.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The UK is simply proposing a deal that provides good trading conditions for both parties into each other's markets. I agree that the trade volume may be larger, but I don't think the arrangement proposed is actually much more radical than what Canada has otherwise.

That proposed deal can be summarised as "we want to be able to sell you any old crap we like, tariff free". The EU has responded by pointing out that any other country can only sell into the EU if they respect EU rules and regulations (which have become a de facto world standard). The UK has further responded by insisting that absolutely no-one should hold them to any standards.

Canada complies with EU rules (insofar as they apply to Canadian trade with EU member states) - so why shouldn't the UK?

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

In that scenario I'm of the mind that if the EU are not interested in coming to a reasonable arrangement then falling onto WTO terms might be the best outcome. It is definitely a better outcome than continuing to have lots of policy areas dictated by Brussels in the long term.

Well Theo the UK should just terminate the current transition period and go to WTO and stop wasting everyone's time. By staying up to the last minute they are implicitly saying that the transition period terms are better than what will come after it.


You don't want UK policy to be dictated by Brussels. You can understand that ok. So maybe the EU don't want their policy to be dictated by a relatively small player outside their club either. So just go. Fall back on their magical WTO terms and let them deal with the fallout and readjust.



They can just go tomorrow. That they won't speaks volumes

forgottenhills

First Up wrote: »

Which bits of UK domestic policy were controlled by Brussels?

There are plenty if you look them up but "controlled" is the wrong word - "regulated" would be better. Off the top of my head I can think of the regulations over state assistance to its private industry. A second would be around freedom of movement of all EU citizens.

The raft of regulations in the trade area are often referred to as the "level playing field" by the EU who want to keep these regulations in place in the UK after Jan 2021 if the UK is to get free trade access to the EU market.

forgottenhills

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well Theo the UK should just terminate the current transition period and go to WTO and stop wasting everyone's time. By staying up to the last minute they are implicitly saying that the transition period terms are better than what will come after it.


You don't want UK policy to be dictated by Brussels. You can understand that ok. So maybe the EU don't want their policy to be dictated by a relatively small player outside their club either. So just go. Fall back on their magical WTO terms and let them deal with the fallout and readjust.



They can just go tomorrow. That they won't speaks volumes

The UK would have to break the WA to go to WTO before Jan 2021 so your post does not make sense.

Seth Brundle

mick087 wrote: »

It's what half of the that Brits voted wanted. Of the population of the UK at the time, it was a minority.
I think it was over 17 Million people voted for brexit 52% to 48%

erm, are you just confirming my post then?
It was a vote on whether to remain or not. There were no options in terms of leaving the EU.

mick087 wrote: »

Two of the four UK "countries" voted against it.
In fairness they voted as the UK not seperate nations but i will accept that 2 of the 4 nations voted to leave. Im a firm believer in all nations citizens voting in a referendum to leave the UK or be it the EU if public opinion deems so Citizens should always have these powers.

I suspect that NI and Scotland will view things differently to you. Did either NI & Scotland (or even Wales) ask to leave the EU?
Or was it the Tory led government in England that decided for them?

mick087 wrote: »

it is fair to say that many of those who voted for it did not know what they were voting for given that there was no clarity on what would happen.
No me i would of voted to remain if i was a Brit, I have many friends in the UK the ones who wanted to leave knew exactly why and there reasons was differernt and many.

Fine. Did all of your buddies have the exact same reasons for leaving?
Did any of them believe in some of the lies spouted by the pro-Brexit side?
Did they know exactly what would happen once the UK left the EU?

mick087 wrote: »

Even now, it could be easily argued that no two Brexitees want the same thing.
There have been many who have had issues with the EU long before the name brexit came along.The EU did not listen to the UK at the time and when brexit happened they look around them and wonder why it happened.

The EU did not listen to the UK? Can you give us an example?
In terms of people looking around and wondering what happened, I think it's fairy clear to those who wish to see.
A massively biased media and government that allowed the Eu to be blamed for decades of decisions against the people of the UK.
The people of the UK have to a large extent disengaged from politics given the crap nature of their own FPTP electoral system. Many of the people of the Uk failed to realise what the EU did for them.

mick087 wrote: »

...and that is a good thing from a Uk perspective?
Is that taking back control?
I have no idea no one does

So you're unsure if following a route that is likely to break up the union is a bad idea or not? I think lots of people know the answer to that! :rolleyes:

mick087 wrote: »

I'm reading your questions and subsequent responses.
You say something, someone refutes it and you then appear to agree with them.

I don't believe that you understand the problems that the UK has hid from for decades by allowing both the government and media to blame the EU for anything and everything.
Can you prove what the UK government has hidden from its Citizens?
I think the UK always had a 50 50 balance when it came to media over the EU.

For decades people were led to believe that immigration was under the control of the EU. People were led to believe that poverty was as a result of being in the EU despite the EU being the ones that financially supported so many areas.
All of the stuff manipulated by the Leave side as reasons to leave the EU :rolleyes:
Even Boris made stuff up about the EU (bendy bananas).
As for your 50:50 assertion, I'm struggling to think where you may have formed the view that the UK media is balanced in its approach to the EU.

mick087 wrote: »

I don't believe that you understand that the UK leaving the EU will lead to a more difficult trading position for Britain, a decline in standards especially in food production, a buyout of the NHS by US investors (presumably for bugger all) and an increase in poverty throughout the UK.

This just a possibility.
If you think that the Brits will sell the NHS then you are talking nonsense. Where did you got that from? Its spin and total rubbish. In this case i go as far to say its scare tactics.

Well the Americans don't believe that it's scare tactics!
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-48516196

mick087 wrote: »

I don't believe that you realise that it hasn't really started yet. Whilst Brexit has happened, the cushion that is the transition period remains but by the Uks making will be pulled at New year. The Uk does not want to extend thus allowing the Uk to form a better position.

No none of us know what will happen that for sure but maybe just maybe another possibility is they might thrive and be the envy of Europe. You don't know i don't know no one knows.

You're making stuff up now
The experts all predict massive damage to the UK.
By leaving the EU the UK will be introducing massive trade burdens on itself. The UK kept claiming about negotiating better deals but so far the only deal they've managed is with the Faroe Islands and they ballsed that up.
The EU has agreed lucrative trade deals with most countries around the world. If the Uk was to agree a deal with any of those countries, it cannot get better terms that that country is willing to offer the EU.
So how will the UK thrive over the position it had been in whilst a member of the EU?

mick087 wrote: »

The UK wants to run straight at the cliff in the belief that the EU will suddenly turn around and say "yes, here is everything you want because you're so important to us". But they won't. Each time the UK anticipated the EU to cave, the EU stood firm and it was the UK that caved.
Your line of questioning does not support the view that you get all of this
I very much doubt the brits will do there not like that they will tough it out if things got bad.

Tough things out? You mean the great British spirit like in the Blitz, fighting the hun?
The UK government recently admitted to the likleihood of massive economic damage come January - even though they previously claimed such obvious allegations were fake news.
You being in denial won't make it any different.

mick087 wrote: »

So would you now agree you dont know the answer to these questions? No one knows what will happen.

I beg to differ!
:rolleyes:

First Up

forgottenhills wrote:

There are plenty if you look them up but "controlled" is the wrong word - "regulated" would be better. Off the top of my head I can think of the regulations over state assistance to its private industry. A second would be around freedom of movement of all EU citizens.

Ah, so maybe he meant the common standards agreed and enforced by all members, including the UK, so the Single Market (from which they all prospered) could be created.

He hasn't given us his examples. Wonder why......

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

That proposed deal can be summarised as "we want to be able to sell you any old crap we like, tariff free". The EU has responded by pointing out that any other country can only sell into the EU if they respect EU rules and regulations (which have become a de facto world standard). The UK has further responded by insisting that absolutely no-one should hold them to any standards.

Canada complies with EU rules (insofar as they apply to Canadian trade with EU member states) - so why shouldn't the UK?

And EU firms can sell what they like to the UK tariff free. This seems to be seldom mentioned for some odd reason.

As far as I can tell products sold into the EU market would still need to conform to EU rules much in the same way as products sold to the US would need to follow US rules. I don't know why you are suggesting the UK is trying to change this.

The UK is simply insisting that it should be able to set it's own standards domestically from what I understand.

fash

theological wrote: »

This language isn't helpful.

The UK is simply proposing a deal that provides good trading conditions for both parties into each other's markets.

No it's not: it's proposing to unfairly and massively undercut EU businesses- to be allowed to be a parasite on the EU.
And to have the world's most ambitious trading agreement with zero checks and balances to ensure fairness.

I agree that the trade volume may be larger, but I don't think the arrangement proposed is actually much more radical than what Canada has otherwise.

It's over 10 times larger! And involves businesses in direct competition - unlike Canadian businesses which compliment EU businesses - and that is to forget about all of the other asks.
10 times greater trade mean that any distortion is at least 10 times greater - that means LPF must be at a minimum 10 times stricter to keep unfair practices to the level as been Canada & EU.
That is aside from the fact that Canada is a friendly and stable country while the UK government and politicians have actively stated that their aim is to undermine the EU. How is it in our interest to allow them to do that?



[/quote]
The argument was made by other posters that the UK were simply only saying what they don't want. That is manifestly false. The UK have proposed an end state, but the EU are rejecting it. [/quote] "we want most of the benefits but almost none of the obligations" is not a reasonable request to ask of anyone. So in that sense they haven't said what they want.

In that scenario I'm of the mind that if the EU are not interested in coming to a reasonable arrangement then falling onto WTO terms might be the best outcome. It is definitely a better outcome than continuing to have lots of policy areas dictated by Brussels in the long term.

I am sure you agree that given the UK asks, the current EU conditions are exceptionally and extraordinarily generous.
And absolutely I agree, no deal is better than a bad deal - we can squeeze the UK when it leaves the transition period, strip it of its businesses and within short gain Scotland as a new EU member state.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The UK is simply insisting that it should be able to set it's own standards domestically from what I understand.

The UK has always been able to set its own standards domestically (in exactly the same way that it was free to regulate Freedom of Movement, but opted out). What it wants to do now is deviate from EU norms (probably downwards as there's little room to go up), to continue to sell into the EU and to be exempt from any kind of accountability. We know now that that's not an idle threat, as the Johnson-Cummings administration has demonstrated that "accountability" is not something that matters to them.

theological

First Up wrote: »

Ah, so maybe he meant the common standards agreed and enforced by all members, including the UK, so the Single Market (from which they all prospered) could be created.

He hasn't given us his examples. Wonder why......

I've mentioned TFEU and shared and exclusive competences of the EU several times on this thread.

Stop lying.

CelticRambler wrote: »

The UK has always been able to set its own standards domestically (in exactly the same way that it was free to regulate Freedom of Movement, but opted out). What it wants to do now is deviate from EU norms (probably downwards as there's little room to go up), to continue to sell into the EU and to be exempt from any kind of accountability. We know now that that's not an idle threat, as the Johnson-Cummings administration has demonstrated that "accountability" is not something that matters to them.

The UK should be able to determine its own domestic policy and any arrangement should be rejected if the EU is asking for continued control over its domestic policy after the agreement is signed.

What isn't true is that the UK wants to flog goods into the EU that don't meet EU standards.

mick087

fash wrote: »

Actually of those who voted for brexit, 65% at the time thought they'd be remaining within the single market - Peter Foster recently linked to a tweet on that... So over 80% of voters voted to remain in the single market - yet here we are.

But 52% did vote to leave

The referendum was leave or remain.

forgottenhills

First Up wrote: »

Ah, so maybe he meant the common standards agreed and enforced by all members, including the UK, so the Single Market (from which they all prospered) could be created.

He hasn't given us his examples. Wonder why......

It doesn't matter if EU regulations/laws are common standards applying to all members, it is patently clear that the UK doesn't want as many of these as possible to (automatically) apply to it going forward.

People keep saying that only 52% of the UK populace voted for Brexit as if this is meaningful in some way and we can turn back the clock somehow. This is overlooking the inconvenient fact that Boris Johnson got returned with a large majority to implement a hard Brexit. There are too many people in Ireland still in denial over Brexit.

The UK has left the EU and now unfortunately its going to be a hard Brexit from January. We need to be talking right now about how to avoid tariffs from January as these will cause massive problems in many areas of our economy such as agriculture. We are literally walking blindfolded to a January cliff at present and it doesn't matter whose fault it is. it is what it is and what it is will be very bad indeed.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

What isn't true is that the UK wants to flog goods into the EU that don't meet EU standards.

Why won't they agree to the Level Playing Field conditions, then, and oversight of the ECJ ? Other countries do. Why makes Britain so special that they should be given an exemption?

fash

theological wrote: »

The UK is simply insisting that it should be able to set it's own standards domestically from what I understand.

That's not exactly correct: the UK wants to be able to pour state aid into companies to give them a competitive edge, remove environmental protections and labour and welfare safeguards to allow them to undercut EU businesses.
That's not setting domestic standards - that is unfairly undercutting EU business.

Let's not forget that the UK has history in this and did the same thing to the Irish free state when that came in to existence. So it's not like it has not always been their go to plan (aside from the fact that they've continuously stated that this was the purpose of brexit).

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

People keep saying that only 52% of the UK populace voted for Brexit as if this is meaningful in some way and we can turn back the clock somehow. This is overlooking the inconvenient fact that Boris Johnson got returned with a large majority to implement a hard Brexit.

60% of the UK electorate voted against Johnson. That he still ended up with a majority in parliament is a reflection of the undemocratic nature of FPTP. On the basis of votes cast, 60% against Johnson's supposedly oven-ready Brexit is a marked shift from the 52% in favour of the whatever-you-want-it-to-be Brexit.

mick087

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So, this basically:





So, you're just going to do the usual thing of dismissing anything you don't like as scare tactics? Why? We're discussing this on an Irish bulletin board after the vote. What good are alleged scare tactics?

And the "nobody knows" bit. When you need to know what's going to happen but can't, you look at expert projections and analysis instead of comforting nonsense on the internet.

I didn't bring the NHS up as you well know i didn't

And your right it has no place in this thread.


Expert projections? you mean experts in what you want to hear.
You can get experts in anything you want to hear. There is no expert who can predict the future all they do is give it there best guess.