Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…3233353738…203

Comments

  • Options
    #1022
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Aegir wrote: »
    you put two and two together and came up with eight hundred and seventy six.


    It has nothing to do with the Brits not wanting to buy european at all, that was a stupid comment,

    You reckon? ;)


  • Options
    #1023
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    You reckon? ;)

    I know.


  • Options
    #1024
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Aegir wrote: »
    I know.

    Look. If it was just a commercial decision and a matter for the companies themselves there would be no rhyme or reason for Messrs Trump and Johnston to be discussing it so angrily on a summit phone call, would there?

    Clearly there is some regulatory oversight needed and if there were genuine problems with Huawei, which there may well be, then it would be a simple matter to knock them off the approved suppliers list.

    Of course there would have to be a suitable alternative, and it would appear in this instance that there is not. But Mr Barr seems to think that a quick way to acquire the necessary expertise is to purchase Nokia (Finland) and or Ericsson (Sweden). So why not just buy their products commercially?

    "I was so impressed I bought the company" as the man famously once said.

    In this case it would seem to be "We're so desperate we have to buy a company. Or two!"


  • Options
    #1025
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    Canada does not have a zero tariff, zero quota trade deal with the EU.

    There are tariff-rate quotas for numerous products included in the Canada-EU trade deal (CETA).

    Fo example, Canada can export 50,000 tonnes of beef to the EU annually without tariffs being imposed. Anything over that amount is subject to the import tariff rates set out in CETA.

    There would be no quotas on any UK products under the outline proposal from the EU, which is based on what was agreed in the Political Declaration to the Withdrawal Agreement

    The UK agreed to have extensive 'level playing field' provisions included in the Political Declaration to the Withdrawal Agreement.

    Feigning outrage at something you've already agreed may work with the British media, but it's not going to impress the EU, and it's now obvious that the UK signed up to the Withdrawal Agreement in bad faith.

    As ever, Neil is not just badly informed but aggressively so.

    I know that. My point is that a quota based FTA would be much better than agreeing to automatically take the EU rule book and accepting ECJ judgement over British law.

    A deal which hands over that level of control to the EU is a bad deal because it restricts the scope of decision making in the UK and impacts what FTAs can be struck with others.


  • Options
    #1026
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,615 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    I know that. My point is that a quota based FTA would be much better than agreeing to automatically take the EU rule book and accepting ECJ judgement over British law.

    A deal which hands over that level of control to the EU is a bad deal because it restricts the scope of decision making in the UK and impacts what FTAs can be struck with others.

    It's only a bad deal if it is a bad situation to be in. There are few, if any, issues that the UK has with current EU regulations. They are letting pride get in their way.

    There is a deal available from the EU, protecting a massive amount of their trade. But to accept it means losing the ability to maybe gain some unknown, and unknowable, future trade based on unknown and unknowable rules and regulations.

    It shouldn't be a difficult decision but the UK have got themselves so wound up it appears that it is a decision they can't decide on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1027
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    The UK Government needs to negotiate it and be clear on what is too far. The right deal will only emerge after saying no first and working through the issues. A good deal is never got at the first offer.


  • Options
    #1028
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    theological wrote:
    The UK Government needs to negotiate it and be clear on what is too far. The right deal will only emerge after saying no first and working through the issues. A good deal is never got at the first offer.

    Your optimism is touching.


  • Options
    #1029
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,825 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    theological wrote: »
    It's worth pointing out that the US is the single biggest country that trades with the UK.

    It's also worth pointing out that the US is a union of 50 states, albeit united in a way that strikes fear into the heart of every Brexiter (single presidential overlord, one army to rule them all, unelected bureaucrats having high-level decision-making roles in the administration of the day, unbelievable wastage of public money, etc., etc.) so if you're comparing like with like, you need to compare UK-US trade with UK-EU trade ... and then your argument falls apart, because the United States of Europe a bigger trade partner than the United States of America.


  • Options
    #1030
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1239432/brexit-news-usa-trade-deal-donald-trump-huawei-mike-pence-boris-johnson

    A UK trade deal with the US may already be at risk following the Government's decision to allow Huawei access to its 5G mobile networks. American Vice-President Mike Pence told CNBC that his administration did not "believe" using the Chinese firm's assets were in the "security or privacy interests" of either country. He warned that this remains a "real issue" between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, and could be a deal breaker in the future. This follows reports of an “apoplectic” between the two leaders, in which Mr Trump raged at the Prime Minister for sticking to the decision.

    It's a fairly big decision for the UK if negotiations get stuck because of this Huawei equipment.


  • Options
    #1031
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,058 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Has anyone come out and said what deal they expect UK to negotiate which will be a better deal than the EU has with that country?

    Also, the EU negotiates air travel and routes as one block...what will UK do? Is it possible that U.K. planes won’t be able to fly over EU airspace?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1032
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Has anyone come out and said what deal they expect UK to negotiate which will be a better deal than the EU has with that country?

    Also, the EU negotiates air travel and routes as one block...what will UK do? Is it possible that U.K. planes won’t be able to fly over EU airspace?

    It's obvious that the UK and the EU will conclude an arrangement on air travel in the same way as it has with the US or other countries. I think the EU would also regard the scenario where no plane can fly to or from Britain as a ludicrous scenario.

    The ideal Brexit would ensure as much trade as possible continues with the EU while also exploring trading relationship to expand existing trade with its other non-EU trading partners. America definitely should be considered first because of its share. The EU has no free trade arrangements with it.

    CelticRambler: The EU doesn't claim to be a country. If it did that would be the point where I would start saying Ireland should leave too.


  • Options
    #1033
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    theological wrote: »
    It's obvious that the UK and the EU will conclude an arrangement on air travel in the same way as it has with the US or other countries. I think the EU would also regard the scenario where no plane can fly to or from Britain as a ludicrous scenario.

    Which would be a disaster.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Open_Skies_Agreement

    Both EU and US airlines are allowed to fly on to a further destination in another country after their initial stop (Fifth Freedom rights). Because the EU is not treated as a single territory for the purposes of the Agreement, this means in practice that US airlines can fly between two points in the EU as long as that flight is the continuation of a flight that started in the US (e.g. New York - London - Berlin)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E

    The "ludicrous" scenario that is actually possible is that not all of those freedoms will be granted or reciprocated. So for example, planes could fly to the EU, but couldn't fly to another EU airport. All this has to be negotiated and airlines like Easyjet would fall victim if the EU decided it didn't gain anything from letting them compete with EU airlines on say stand-alone internal routes in the EU.

    People like you assume that everything will go on as normal. But that requires the EU to give the UK's airlines freedoms that it doesn't give any other third country as far as I know. The EU-US agreement doesn't come close.

    theological wrote: »
    The ideal Brexit would ensure as much trade as possible continues with the EU while also exploring trading relationship to expand existing trade with its other non-EU trading partners. America definitely should be considered first because of its share. The EU has no free trade arrangements with it.

    Out of interest, I looked up what happened to TTIP and found this article about leaks. Keep in mind this is with Obama, not Trump.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/01/leaked-ttip-documents-cast-doubt-on-eu-us-trade-deal

    US proposals include an obligation on the EU to inform its industries of any planned regulations in advance, and to allow them the same input into EU regulatory processes as European firms.

    American firms could influence the content of EU laws at several points along the regulatory line, including through a plethora of proposed technical working groups and committees.

    “Before the EU could even pass a regulation, it would have to go through a gruelling impact assessment process in which the bloc would have to show interested US parties that no voluntary measures, or less exacting regulatory ones, were possible,” Riss said.

    The US is also proposing new articles on “science and risk” to give firms greater regulatory say. Disputes over pesticides residues and food safety would be dealt with by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Codex Alimentarius system.

    I see no conceivable reason for the US not demanding the same of the UK. Will the UK sell out its newfound sovereignty to US firms in order to get a deal if it's asked to?


  • Options
    #1034
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    I didn't say it didn't have to be negotiated. You need to read my posts instead of assuming I said something I didn't.

    I'm not proposing a no deal scenario. I'm opposing ECJ oversight and automatic copying of the rulebook into UK law.

    On TTIP I think the US approach was sensible. If something is going to impact US law then it is obvious that they need real input. The US under that arrangement would have input into the EU rulebook. Arguably if the EU are going to insist on alignment a similar provision for the UK should be included in the FTA. That is if they want regulatory alignment.


  • Options
    #1035
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,615 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    I didn't say it didn't have to be negotiated. You need to read my posts instead of assuming I said something I didn't.

    I'm not proposing a no deal scenario. I'm opposing ECJ oversight and automatic copying of the rulebook into UK law.

    On TTIP I think the US approach was sensible. If something is going to impact US law then it is obvious that they need real input. The US under that arrangement would have input into the EU rulebook. Arguably if the EU are going to insist on alignment a similar provision for the UK should be included in the FTA. That is if they want regulatory alignment.

    What is the benefit to the EU or that approach? They already have a working system within the EU with verification and oversight.

    The UK doesn't want that anymore so are effectively making things more difficult for the EU. What are the UK proposing to help cover this.

    So far all we have got from the UK is that the EU need a deal, but so does the UK. Will the UK cover the costs and administration burden for example? Will they allow EU inspectors to carry out checks (as they do now)?

    The more you look at it the more obvious it becomes that the current system works best. The UK just need to find a way to sell that as a win to the voters


  • Options
    #1036
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    The UK won't agree a deal which requires auto-copying of the rulebook. So the discussion will end up looking at different arbitration mechanisms. Auto-copying and ECJ oversight isn't in the UK's interest and it could hinder other trading agreements.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Which would be a disaster.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93US_Open_Skies_Agreement

    Both EU and US airlines are allowed to fly on to a further destination in another country after their initial stop (Fifth Freedom rights). Because the EU is not treated as a single territory for the purposes of the Agreement, this means in practice that US airlines can fly between two points in the EU as long as that flight is the continuation of a flight that started in the US (e.g. New York - London - Berlin)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thqbjA2DC-E

    The "ludicrous" scenario that is actually possible is that not all of those freedoms will be granted or reciprocated. So for example, planes could fly to the EU, but couldn't fly to another EU airport. All this has to be negotiated and airlines like Easyjet would fall victim if the EU decided it didn't gain anything from letting them compete with EU airlines on say stand-alone internal routes in the EU.

    People like you assume that everything will go on as normal. But that requires the EU to give the UK's airlines freedoms that it doesn't give any other third country as far as I know. The EU-US agreement doesn't come close.

    The EU has every right to decide on point to point travel within the union. For example Paris to Bucharest. I agree that it is probable that British airlines won't be able to do point to point travel in the EU and I think it's a cost of Brexit. Ryanair and easyJet have already made preparations for this. The former in controlling shareholders and where they are from. The latter by setting up an Austrian entity.

    You made it sound like London to Paris wouldn't continue which is untrue. The US fly into the European Union from America.


  • Options
    #1037
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    theological wrote: »
    On TTIP I think the US approach was sensible. If something is going to impact US law then it is obvious that they need real input. The US under that arrangement would have input into the EU rulebook. Arguably if the EU are going to insist on alignment a similar provision for the UK should be included in the FTA. That is if they want regulatory alignment.

    It was ok for the US to want final say on EU regulations lest they harm American firms' interests. And you think the same should be done if the UK is asked to align on standards in the EU.

    In the context of Brexit and sovereignty, I'm surprised that such things would be deemed acceptable for any nation or bloc.


  • Options
    #1038
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It was ok for the US to want final say on EU regulations lest they harm American firms' interests. And you think the same should be done if the UK is asked to align on standards in the EU.

    In the context of Brexit and sovereignty, I'm surprised that such things would be deemed acceptable for any nation or bloc.

    It's not a "final say". It's an input into regulations that will affect trade. If the rulebook has to be shared the US had every right to ask for this.

    Why do you think this is worse than what the EU are asking the UK to do at the outset of these talks? The US idea is actually better.


  • Options
    #1039
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    theological wrote: »
    You made it sound like London to Paris wouldn't continue which is untrue. The US fly into the European Union from America.

    That was another poster. Last year, I believe the EU made provisions regarding those types of flights in case there was No Deal.


  • Options
    #1040
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    theological wrote: »
    It's not a "final say". It's an input into regulations that will affect trade. If the rulebook has to be shared the US had every right to ask for this.

    What I find interesting is that it was about US firms influencing the EU's regulations and not the other way around.
    theological wrote: »
    Why do you think this is worse than what the EU are asking the UK to do at the outset of these talks? The US idea is actually better.

    What was being discussed at the start of these talks was no tariffs no quotas with a country next to the bloc. The EU aren't "asking" the UK to do something. They are offering the UK something that is hugely beneficial but comes with caveats. We will move on from this soon and end up at a more basic deal requiring less alignment etc.

    The US thing seems off to me. That is about US firms coming to the EU and changing the EU's market and regulations to their own benefit. If the UK's government wishes to have an input on something, that is quite different.


  • Options
    #1041
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What I find interesting is that it was about US firms influencing the EU's regulations and not the other way around.



    What was being discussed at the start of these talks was no tariffs no quotas with a country next to the bloc. The EU aren't "asking" the UK to do something. They are offering the UK something that is hugely beneficial but comes with caveats. We will move on from this soon and end up at a more basic deal requiring less alignment etc.

    The US thing seems off to me. That is about US firms coming to the EU and changing the EU's market and regulations to their own benefit. If the UK's government wishes to have an input on something, that is quite different.

    In order to have zero tariffs and zero quotas they are asking them to copy the rulebook of the EU with no say. When America ask for input into EU regulations as a part of a trade deal you say no. Effectively the American request was more reasonable than what the EU are asking the UK to do.

    If I were Boris I would say no thanks on the auto merging of rules and ECJ oversight. Let's chat about alternatives. A quota based deal would be better than accepting that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1042
    cryptocurrency
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭cryptocurrency


    Tories have doubled down now so much that they can't have what the EU wants, ever.


  • Options
    #1043
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    cryptocurrency wrote: »
    Tories have doubled down now so much that they can't have what the EU wants, ever.

    Why would the Tories want to have what the EU wants?


  • Options
    #1044
    cryptocurrency
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭cryptocurrency


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Why would the Tories want to have what the EU wants?

    Totally agree, why would they


  • Options
    #1045
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    cryptocurrency wrote: »
    Totally agree, why would they

    Is English your first language?


  • Options
    #1046
    Annascaul
    Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭Annascaul


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Why would the Tories want to have what the EU wants?

    The Tories under John Major would have. The Tories under Boris are very distant from conservative values.

    The problem with the UK is also that they have no real political personalities and standards these days, neither on the side of the Tories, nor on the side of Labour.

    Corbyn is a stone age socialist with ties to palestine terrorist organizations, not a new labour generation-character like Blair or Brown.


  • Options
    #1047
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Annascaul wrote: »
    The Tories under John Major would have. The Tories under Boris are very distant from conservative values.

    The problem with the UK is also that they have no real political personalities and standards these days, neither on the side of the Tories, nor on the side of Labour.

    Corbyn is a stone age socialist with ties to palestine terrorist organizations, not a new labour generation-character like Blair or Brown.

    Corbyn is gone and is likely to be replaced by Starmer. But it's too little, too late. Corbyn did such an excellent job for the Tories they'll be in power for five years.


  • Options
    #1048
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    First Up wrote: »
    Canada's business with the EU does not include being part of the highly integrated, interdependent supply chains that flourished under the efficiences of the Single Market. Much of the UK's does and no trade "deal" can replicate that.

    The UK will lose most of that business and it won't be replaced by trade "deals' on the other side of the globe.

    What makes you think most of the 45% of trade with the EU will be lost?

    I think that depends on the agreement reached.

    Please provide evidence to back up your claims also.

    Edit: Annascaul - I think Boris has plenty of personality. It just seems to be lacking on the other side.


  • Options
    #1049
    cryptocurrency
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭cryptocurrency


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Corbyn is gone and is likely to be replaced by Starmer. But it's too little, too late. Corbyn did such an excellent job for the Tories they'll be in power for five years.

    They'll be in power much longer. Labour lost their base under Corbyn and Brexit. Stammer going around with a remain or alignment message will not win them back.


  • Options
    #1050
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,825 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    theological wrote: »
    CelticRambler: The EU doesn't claim to be a country. If it did that would be the point where I would start saying Ireland should leave too.

    No, it doesn't claim to be a country, but it is a union of twenty-seven countries/nations/states all of which exercise a degree of autonomy to a greater or lesser extent. Ditto for the union of 50 states on the other side of the Atlantic.

    When it comes to making arguments based on the volume of trade between the UK (oh, look, another union of individual countries exercising a greater or lesser degree of autonomy) it is nonsensical to compare trade with the US as a single "country" instead of a trading bloc while dissecting UK-EU trade into 27 or more regional divisions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1051
    cryptocurrency
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭cryptocurrency


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    No, it doesn't claim to be a country, but it is a union of twenty-seven countries/nations/states all of which exercise a degree of autonomy to a greater or lesser extent. Ditto for the union of 50 states on the other side of the Atlantic.

    When it comes to making arguments based on the volume of trade between the UK (oh, look, another union of individual countries exercising a greater or lesser degree of autonomy) it is nonsensical to compare trade with the US as a single "country" instead of a trading bloc while dissecting UK-EU trade into 27 or more regional divisions.

    If thats the case then what is stopping the UK doing a similar model with the commonwealth without open borders and a few little changes. Remainers, all they do is harp on about the size of the market, it would suddenly be tiny compared to a commonwealth one


Advertisement