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

Blueshoe

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Indeed, i doff my cap to the fine fellow. Only mugs get left behind when the post transition uk economy tanks, the tory grandees will not be found wanting. These splendid chaps will be enjoying the best of both worlds and having a spiffing time playing jolly political games in the commons every day.

Common sense

First Up

theological wrote:

I am supportive of a deal, and want to see one happening. I'm generally opposed to extending, but I maybe could see the argument if the EU begins to move to accept a deal that doesn't require the UK to be a long term rule taker of EU law by June similar to other arrangements with other countries outside the EEA or EU and that this took some time to implement. I would be opposed to 2 years however. A year would even be hard to accept.

I think you need to learn a bit about how international trade agreements work.

The closer the alignment between the economic and regulatory regimes of the two parties, the greater the scope for unhindered movement. Both parties are free to set their own systems and both are also free to impose measures to address any threats or imbalances that arise. A bit of haggling and horse trading and hey presto, a compromise is reached.

When the UK was in the EU and Single Market, we had full alignment and therefore free movement of everything. That's how a single market works.

Outside the EU, the UK can change anything it wants. The EU has no say or control over that, any more than it does over what happens in China, India, the US or elsewhere.

But the EU will ensure that anything that the UK does to distort competition or undermine standards is counteracted by tariffs, quotas or in some cases, prevention to enter the Single Market.

The UK can do whatever it wants but all actions that move it away from the norms it had as an EU member will have consequences. The bigger the difference, the greater the consequences. It will be the UK's choice; the EU's position is clear.

Blueshoe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The EU wants a level playing field.. So that means the UK wants an unlevel playing field. Not sure why think they're entitled to that or why the EU would give it to them.

Again this isn't about trade between the Eu and UK. Going forward the Eu want the UK to stick to Eu standards in order to not undercut them. UK are not in the Eu so why would they be dictated to.

Trade between the Eu and UK is a different argument however

First Up

Blueshoe wrote:

Again this isn't about trade between the Eu and UK. Going forward the Eu want the UK to stick to Eu standards in order to not undercut them. UK are not in the Eu so why would they be dictated to.

They will only be "dictated to" on what they are looking to sell to the EU. The UK is free to drop its standards on anything and take its chances. It would be economic suicide but it's their choice.

ancapailldorcha

Blueshoe wrote: »

Again this isn't about trade between the Eu and UK. Going forward the Eu want the UK to stick to Eu standards in order to not undercut them. UK are not in the Eu so why would they be dictated to.

Trade between the Eu and UK is a different argument however

Of course it is. The UK is expecting access to the single market while ignoring inconvenient regulations. No market works like that.

Trade deals are supposed to codify a level playing field between signatories so that each party is content. Otherwise, there's room for skullduggery and we've seen little else from Westminster on this since 2016.

Donald Trump

Blueshoe wrote: »

Again this isn't about trade between the Eu and UK. Going forward the Eu want the UK to stick to Eu standards in order to not undercut them. UK are not in the Eu so why would they be dictated to.

Trade between the Eu and UK is a different argument however

Lets consider a simple example. Suppose that the UK is allowed to sell all its agricultural produce into the EU market.



Now suppose EU standards dictate that all products must be stamped with the origin of beef and that EU farmers must install systems and complete paperwork and pass inspections to enable each piece of meat sold to be traced back to the farm it was produced on.


UK on the other hand, diverges and decides that beef packed in the UK can be marked as UK beef. That will be its standard.

Under the scenario that UK can set its own standards and definitions, and has unfettered access to EU market, then it is relatively simple for an enterprising UK person or company to ship over cargoes of cheap South American beef (produced perhaps with little or no regulation), repack it in a warehouse in England in order to be allowed to put the "UK" sticker on it and then send that to the EU market.



The EU cannot open up such glaring loopholes. Therefore if the UK want access to the single market, they must be agreeable to be bound by at least some of the conditions.



In some ways the UK reminds me of a 5 year old who thinks of an idea and then thinks that they can fool their parent into agreeing to something, when the parent knows full well what they are up to.

theological

First Up wrote: »

I think you need to learn a bit about how international trade agreements work.

The closer the alignment between the economic and regulatory regimes of the two parties, the greater the scope for unhindered movement. Both parties are free to set their own systems and both are also free to impose measures to address any threats or imbalances that arise. A bit of haggling and horse trading and hey presto, a compromise is reached.

When the UK was in the EU and Single Market, we had full alignment and therefore free movement of everything. That's how a single market works.

Outside the EU, the UK can change anything it wants. The EU has no say or control over that, any more than it does over what happens in China, India, the US or elsewhere.

But the EU will ensure that anything that the UK does to distort competition or undermine standards is counteracted by tariffs, quotas or in some cases, prevention to enter the Single Market.

The UK can do whatever it wants but all actions that move it away from the norms it had as an EU member will have consequences. The bigger the difference, the greater the consequences. It will be the UK's choice; the EU's position is clear.

More sassy nonsense. Particularly the line in bold.

The UK isn't asking to be a member of the single market in the same way that Canada isn't.

There is a joint arbitration panel to enforce the deal and both parties are equally accountable to this panel.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

More sassy nonsense. Particularly the line in bold.

The UK isn't asking to be a member of the single market in the same way that Canada isn't.

There is a joint arbitration panel to enforce the deal and both parties are equally accountable to this panel.

But Theo, the important this is that they are asking for something.


They are not entitled to it. If they are asked and are told "no" then they need to accept that and stop crying and move on. There doesn't even have to be a justification or "reasonable excuse" for telling them no.



The fact that the situation is self-inflicted makes it more of a pity of course, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact - they are asking and they can be told no.

Blueshoe

Donald Trump wrote: »

Lets consider a simple example.

Let's not.

fash

2u2me wrote: »

You speak of the vicious bullying,threatening and taunting that the brexiteers are doing, but I only see that coming from you.
.

Only someone who was utterly delusional could say that and believe it- but let's assume you've lived in a cave without internet for the last 10 years:
Max Hastings mentioned some of the taunts and insults here
Or here:

Or here:

Or... honestly there are so many of these that it is difficult to know where to start with them.

Given that I can only assume you are being entirely dishonest in your argument however, I'm sure you'll deny the words they are saying anyway.

.

A better analogy would be someone trying to leave a cult. When they do so they're told it's not because they want more autonomy it's because they're selfish. They're told they need the cult and will be nothing without them. They're constantly bombarded with reasons why they will hurt the cult if they leave. They're warned of the dire consequences of leaving the cult.
No attention is paid whatsoever to the well being of the individual trying to leave, only focusing on how bad things will be for them in the short term upon leaving.

I'm being completely honest and forthright with my accusations of cult like behaviour. The people within the cult will see the ones leaving as hurting them. They won't see the fact that the one leaving will have more autonomy over their own future actions; they won't even accept that fact.

They will threaten and harrass the ones that are leaving, causing them severe emotional distress. They will make absurd claims (equally as absurd as the brexit leaders) about the French border, the economy(recession) and the Breakup of the Union.

Yet you completely dismiss any of this because it doesn't fit your world view, your ideology and your narrative. You only seek vengeance and retribution for those who have left and the potential of others leaving is unfathomable, hence the strategy of shunning and shaming and disgracing anybody who dares leave.

Just like in a cult.

interesting that you were entirely incapable of engaging with my detailed explanation of Northern Ireland, the GFA, and Brexit - which entirely undermines your silly (indeed cult-like) devotion to asserting "cult" at the behaviour of the EU. Indeed if you were in the slightest aware about what was happening in the background (and it appears you were not- or otherwise are being dishonest in some fashion), the EU has actually assisted the UK in beginning the UK's negotiations with third countries while still an EU member.

I can only conclude that you (unless you are just projecting because you are in a cult, Brexit based or otherwise), that you are being dishonest in your argument.

First Up

theological wrote: »

More sassy nonsense. Particularly the line in bold.

The UK isn't asking to be a member of the single market in the same way that Canada isn't.

There is a joint arbitration panel to enforce the deal and both parties are equally accountable to this panel.

I didn't say they were but a lot of the UK's business with/in the EU depends on the free flow of goods that is only possible in a Single Market.

Canada's trade agreement with the EU is a very poor model for the UK.
Canadian companies doing business in the EU are not part of integrated supply chains with JIT delivery and goods crossing borders several times during the production/value process. All of the UK's EU business of that sort is in grave danger once outside the Single Market.

Arbitration only arises after the deal has been reached. There is no referee during the negotiations.

theological

First Up wrote: »

I didn't say they were but a lot of the UK's business with/in the EU depends on the free flow of goods that is only possible in a Single Market.

Canada's trade agreement with the EU is a very poor model for the UK.
Canadian companies doing business in the EU are not part of integrated supply chains with JIT delivery and goods crossing borders several times during the production/value process. All of the UK's EU business of that sort is in grave danger once outside the Single Market.

Arbitration only arises after the deal has been reached. There is no referee during the negotiations.

I know that.

Hence why I am saying if the EU is going to offer the UK a substandard deal then the UK should leave on WTO terms at the end of the year. An extension should be out of the question in this scenario.

First Up

theological wrote: »

I know that.

Hence why I am saying if the EU is going to offer the UK a substandard deal then the UK should leave on WTO terms at the end of the year. An extension should be out of the question in this scenario.

Well that depends on what both parties consider to be substandard. I suspect those opinions differ but we will find out.

The UK government can do its sums on the impact of WTO terms or whatever terms the EU will give them. Then it can makes its choice and explain its decision to UK industry, trade unions and electorate.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I know that.

Hence why I am saying if the EU is going to offer the UK a substandard deal then the UK should leave on WTO terms at the end of the year. An extension should be out of the question in this scenario.

You throw about these phrases as if they are actually grounded in anything.

Substandard. In relation to what?

WTO, do you understand what the ramifications for UK industry of that is, what the additional costs, the potential upsides?

Throughout the entire debtate massive importance has been placed on the costs of EU membership, yet there has been no review of the costs of being in the WTO, what obligations that entails, and the costs involved to industry.

You continually assert that leaving on WTO if no deal can be reached without an extension without actually providing any justification for that position.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

You throw about these phrases as if they are actually grounded in anything.

Substandard. In relation to what?

WTO, do you understand what the ramifications for UK industry of that is, what the additional costs, the potential upsides?

Throughout the entire debtate massive importance has been placed on the costs of EU membership, yet there has been no review of the costs of being in the WTO, what obligations that entails, and the costs involved to industry.

You continually assert that leaving on WTO if no deal can be reached without an extension without actually providing any justification for that position.

The justification is that the matter ought to be settled instead of prolonged into perpetuity.

I'm entitled to this view in the same way as you are entitled to yours. It is time to settle this matter after 4 years of people continually attempting to thwart Brexit being delivered on.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

The justification is that the matter ought to be settled instead of prolonged into perpetuity.

Why are you perpetuating this falsehood? There is one opportunity for an extension. One. No more.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why are you perpetuating this falsehood? There is one opportunity for an extension. One. No more.

Even if I take the assumption that the EU couldn't extend it another time if they wanted to, which is doubtful. There's no reason to extend it even once more if there isn't an acceptable proposal actively being worked on on the table.

It's time to finish this.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Even if I take the assumption that the EU couldn't extend it another time if they wanted to, which is doubtful. There's no reason to extend it even once more if there isn't an acceptable proposal actively being worked on on the table.

It's time to finish this.

The facts don't suit so you're opting for fiction. It would be easier if you'd just said so.

dundalkfc10

Looks like we are going to have a border unless we have a United Ireland.

Seems to be the only solution

Leroy42

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Looks like we are going to have a border unless we have a United Ireland.

Seems to be the only solution

No, we already have a solution. The UK have agreed, by way of the WA, that they will put in place the controls and procedures to comply with that agreement.

That they didn't understand that, or are now seeking to row back on it, is of no consequence.

I agree with Theo on one thing. It is time to end this. The UK need to stop faffin around and live up to the agreements that they, as a sovereign nation, signed up to.

RobMc59

theological wrote: »

Even if I take the assumption that the EU couldn't extend it another time if they wanted to, which is doubtful. There's no reason to extend it even once more if there isn't an acceptable proposal actively being worked on on the table.

It's time to finish this.

I'd prefer a deal with the EU but would rather walk away and go with WTO rules than be subservient to them.There is an assumption by many posters here that the UK should and will tow the line as the more powerful EU demands it.

fly_agaric

Melanchthon wrote: »

If you've any good articles on it would be curious to read them.

Here's a recent Irish times opinion piece on it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/german-constitutional-court-is-a-bigger-threat-to-eu-than-brexit-or-covid-19-1.4254549

Also read this one a while ago and found it good

https://amp.ft.com/content/2d4a6959-8bdc-4d74-b617-873bba839807

Other countries already referencing this as you say

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/budapest-hungary-reacts-on-german-constitutional-court-ruling/

Don't know any more than yourself so thanks for the links. I'd read the Irish Times one.
As I kind of said, my instinct is it is a nonsensical decision.
I can't see the likes of Poland or Hungary try to this mechanism to defend their own actions (e.g. have some pet judges rule in a kangaroo court that x set of EU laws that Orban does not like were over-reach -> invalid + then act on the ruling). The size of the can of worms it could open up is very large, maybe more than they would be willing to deal with (for all their euroscepticism)?

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd prefer a deal with the EU but would rather walk away and go with WTO rules than be subservient to them.There is an assumption by many posters here that the UK should and will tow the line as the more powerful EU demands it.

Even if the UK walks away, it will be subservient to the EU: no international treaties of importance will be agreed by the UK until the long-term relationship between the UK & EU is settled. Especially as if the UK fails to come to an agreement, it is unlikely that the Tories will win the next election.
In addition, the UK will remain reliant on the EU for food, medicine, selling a large amount of its goods & services.
Just ask Mexico or Canada what it is like living in the shadow of a giant - in particular one with whims.

timetogo1

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd prefer a deal with the EU but would rather walk away and go with WTO rules than be subservient to them.There is an assumption by many posters here that the UK should and will tow the line as the more powerful EU demands it.

Alternatively there seem to be many posts by people who've never negotiated a deal. The Trump style of deal seems to be "I get 100% of what I want and you get whatever.
That's not the real world. A deal means give and take. It doesn't mean you're subservient. If what the other party is offering is not good enough, then you walk away.

If you think the EU is asking the UK to be subservient wait until you see the deals with the US.

theological

timetogo1 wrote: »

Alternatively there seem to be many posts by people who've never negotiated a deal. The Trump style of deal seems to be "I get 100% of what I want and you get whatever.
That's not the real world. A deal means give an take. It doesn't mean you're subservient. If what the other party is offering is not good enough, then you walk away.

If you think the EU is asking the UK to be subservient wait until you see the deals with the US.

Actually, I don't think the US tend to require free movement, or mass adoption of its law into domestic legislation as a pre-requisite for trade arrangements. Nor do they seem to require large fees to be paid for that access on an annual basis.

I agree that a US trade deal will require give and take but I'm definitely not expecting the ask to be as large as it is for EU membership, or the EU-lite membership the EU would like the UK to be bound to.

timetogo1

theological wrote: »

Actually, I don't think the US tend to require free movement, or mass adoption of its law into domestic legislation as a pre-requisite for trade arrangements. Nor do they seem to require large fees to be paid for that access on an annual basis.

I agree that a US trade deal will require give and take but I'm definitely not expecting the ask to be as large as it is for EU membership, or the EU-lite membership the EU would like the UK to be bound to.

Well stating the obvious there. The US have different requirements than the EU with a focus on different areas. Who'd have thought it?

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd prefer a deal with the EU but would rather walk away and go with WTO rules than be subservient to them.There is an assumption by many posters here that the UK should and will tow the line as the more powerful EU demands it.

Do you understand the implications of both?

To prefer one over the other you need to be able to compare them.

And moving to WTO means the UK are now subserviant to a wholly undemocratic institution.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd prefer a deal with the EU but would rather walk away and go with WTO rules than be subservient to them.There is an assumption by many posters here that the UK should and will tow the line as the more powerful EU demands it.

This is just juvenile. The EU is just as entitled to protect its market as the UK is to protect its own.

This difficulty should have been anticipated before the referendum was called.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

Actually, I don't think the US tend to require free movement, or mass adoption of its law into domestic legislation as a pre-requisite for trade arrangements. Nor do they seem to require large fees to be paid for that access on an annual basis.

I agree that a US trade deal will require give and take but I'm definitely not expecting the ask to be as large as it is for EU membership, or the EU-lite membership the EU would like the UK to be bound to.

Theo, I am not meaning to be personal on this but from what I understand you are Irish and living in the UK. I assume you would probably be entitled to a UK passport even if you haven't applied for one. Or that you would be most of the way along to doing so.


In many ways, it is very disingenuous for people with that advantage to be complaining about free movement. What removing free movement does is to take something away from others that cannot be taken from yourself. It will give you a relative advantage. Would you, for example, on a point of principle, refuse to apply for Irish passports for your children (if you have any now or in the future). Or would you apply so that they could avail of the benefits of being a citizen of the EU? While all the while knowing that you might have fought, or at least expressed opinions, to remove that right for their little buddies?

Joe_ Public

We pretty much know the hit the uk is going to take, don't we? Their own government protections make that clear in rather stark terms. Ireland will get a shock too, as will eu, but comparatively mild and recovery will be swifter.

Plus, harvard report last week suggesting a £112bn hit on trade with EU. On the plus side, the projected £3bn they'll get from trade with the US will go to buying a fair few food baskets.