Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

Because Johnson is a blackguard the fear the E.U. have now is that as his histrionics haven't worked he will probably agree to anything with no intention of meaningfully honouring the terms of the agreement.
I wouldn't want to be the E.U. negotiators.

I think that is exactly the situation. The EU needs to be able to instigate instant repercussions at the slightest sign of backsliding = instant punitive sanctions - no matter how small the deviation. Otherwise they will try the salami trick.

J Mysterio

Firblog wrote: »

AFIK Nothern Ireland is not part of the UK ?

It is indeed part of the UK. Without Northern Ireland, there would only be Britain:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Imreoir2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gei/goodsexportsandimportsseptember2020/

Latest data

EU 40% exports
US 33%
UK is now 4th behind China
5th if lump rest of world ex China, EU, US

93% Irish exports go anywhere but UK

Some posters ask if we seriously expect to replace exports to the UK with EU markets, but the increase in exports to the EU in one year between 2019 - 2020 was worth about 2/3 of the total exports to GB.

While the increase in exports for all markets in that year was worth more than the total GB market is.

So, yes actually.

IamtheWalrus

I want Brexit to blow up in the Tories’ face with a no deal but is that cutting of our nose to spite our face? Is no deal an economic catastrophe for Ireland?

amacca

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that is exactly the situation. The EU needs to be able to instigate instant repercussions at the slightest sign of backsliding = instant punitive sanctions - no matter how small the deviation. Otherwise they will try the salami trick.

So would allowing extensions facilitate EU side to put in place mechanisms to enforce those sanctions?

Do the extensions relate to getting the UK to sign an agreement that is iron clad they would find difficult to renege on or putting in place ways to enforce on the ground .....or a liitle bit of both .....or neither......at this point it cant be about wanting to avoid blame if there is no deal can it? ......its clear brexiters will blame EU if they bent over backwards at this stage....and while it would be better if there was s deal there comes a point where continuing to let this go on must be damaging to the EU

CelticRambler

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Is no deal an economic catastrophe for Ireland?

No.

Because: [see Brexit discussion threads I - XII (closed) & XIII]

Strazdas

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I want Brexit to blow up in the Tories’ face with a no deal but is that cutting of our nose to spite our face? Is no deal an economic catastrophe for Ireland?

Not a catastrophe, no. It would be a setback but a manageable one.

fash

Firblog wrote: »

EU standards and laws are pretty much interchangeable in the trade talks, they are 'rules' which the EU sets and wants the UK to implement without having an input.

The UK wants preferential access to sell quota and tariff free into the single market - the world's most lucrative market and wants to do so without being bound to the same environmental,, state aid and workers'rights obligations as everyone else with that level of access in order to unfairly steal business and destabilize (and destroy) the single market. Why should we let them (which is what you are suggesting )?

fash

Firblog wrote: »

Do any other countries / blocs with agreements with the EU have to abide by rules in that respect, do they have to implement exactly the same standards as those in the EU?

Yes - for even less access. Note however the UK is not even being asked to implement "exactly the same standards" - it is being asked not to implement unfairly different standards while being granted tariff and quota free access. Furthermore the UK was told this was the basis for a trade deal in 2018 and the UK signed up to it in the political declaration as the basis for discussion - and wants to renege on that now.

I note everyone is ignoring the problem with fishing rights, is that a sign that everyone knows the EU is acting silly beggars looking for continued access to UK waters?

Nobody actually cares about fish - it is smaller than the UK door lock and hinge market - without considering the fact that the UK needs access to the single market to sell the fish and the UK has been offered reciprocal access to the EU fishing waters worth €125 million /year.
The fish issue is a deliberate ploy by both sides to have gullible and dim Brexiters follow a "shiny shiny" distraction because they are too stupid to understand what is really going on in the discussion. You aren't accusing the people here of being that stupid and naive are you?

AutoTuning

The UK, well perhaps I'm speaking more about England than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, has an Achilles' heal: an enormous ego, a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism that came from empire and a tinge of xenophobia or superiority that, once massaged with the right headlines and narrative, can result in spectacularly self-destructive behaviour, and in this case policy making.

The tabloids, the populist politicians like Johnson and their spin doctors know exactly how to drive a political agenda by repeatedly pushing that button with jingoistic headlines. They will very likely keep pushing those buttons until the very end of this process, which seems to be about delivering a completely deregulated and rather dystopian society in which they will have dismantled hard-won changes that brought about a social infrastructure upon which post WWII Britain was built.

It's a society that was built on decent social welfare safety nets, a good and very accessible and free education system, including access to third level and venerable institutions like the NHS. All of those seem to be in the targets of the current band of Tories. What I'm seeing is Thatcherism on steroids.

None of the pro-Brexit, or just generally centre right leaning media or commentators ever seem to challenge things like why the UK Government is so frightened of things like the European Social Charter and Convention on Human Rights. The Working Time Directive or countless other pieces of EU level playing field standards and laws that were designed to improve the lot of normal working people.

From my reading of it, the majority of the UK population in most polls and surveys, or even speaking to them anecdotally, are centrists and have an expectation of a decent society, with strong protections around many of those things. You only have to look at the generally shocked and angered reaction you will get at any suggestion of dismantling the NHS, which is seen as a national treasure.

The UK was at its most successful and most prosperous during times when it was most centrist and pragmatic in public policy and never when it went off in either far right or far left ideologically driven government.

They're driving GOP-like policies, that seem to have little broad support and from what I am looking it, it will end in disaster and probably public disorder, like Thatcher's 1980s doses of 'medicine' that were designed to reinvent the British economy as something it clearly didn't want to be.

I think Brexit is nothing but a laissez faire, neoliberal economic Trojan Horse, wrapped in a Union flag and a load of fake patriotism. The tail is wagging the dog.

Akesh

The UK will take a deal. Johnson knows any potential long-term Brexit benefits would be well after the lifetime of his government and the difficult decisions that he would need to make for the UK to compete with other markets would be a race to the bottom that his government would be unlikely to survive the chaos.

Snickers Man

Firblog wrote: »

AFIK Nothern Ireland is not part of the UK ?

"Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, as much as my own constituency (Finchley)"
Margaret Thatcher, November 1981

"Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as is Somerset"
Jacob Rees-Mogg. MP for Somerset, post Brexit referendum.

Sam Russell

I think that it is unfortunate that some politicians latch on to a sound bite that resonated deeply with the popular press and that soundbite becomes a dog whistle and then becomes a cause celebre with a larger and larger group and the becomes a movement until it becomes the centre policy of a leading political party.

We saw this with McCarthyism in the USA in the 1950s where the word Communist became a label that would destroy anyone it was attached to - and destroyed many of the careers of Hollywood stars. By giving such power to a single word, American society has been locked in a right wing mindset that has coloured political debate ever since. Helping the poor is not a noble enterprise in the USA.

Before that, in the 1920s, prohibition led to the establishment of organised crime that allowed the Mafia to gain a stranglehold in America.

The NRA has driven the gun lobby in USA politics for the last couple of generations, and made it virtually impossible for any administrations to bring sanity to bear on the constant deaths caused by Americans shooting Americans.

It is unfortunate that those American voices that managed to get the sanity of the Marshal Plan in reality that led to the rebuilding of Europe after WW II could not keep that benevolence going to not just rebuild Europe, but extend it to build the USSR to move from a command economy to a market economy, or to build Africa to be self sufficient and self governed - and end colonialism.

Instead the USA went on a military spending spree to combat the spread of Communism, particularly in the far east - Korea and Vietnam, with a view to taking on China. Currently, the USA military spend is greater than all other nations combined. If all that wealth wasted on arms was instead spent on eradicating poverty - what a different world we would have now! Even introducing the equivalent of the British NHS would have transformed the society in the USA.

The EU was established with the expressed aim of establishing peace in Europe, which clearly has been successful. It also was established to prevent hunger in Europe by securing food supply - again that aim has been achieved. It also had the aim to eradicate poverty in Europe - again achieved but it is a continuing project. When Ireland joined the EU, our GDP was at 60% of the average, and now we are above average and are now a net contributor.

The EU has since tried to spread largesse through tariff free trade with impoverished countries in Africa and South and Central America with their EBA (everything but arms) tariff free imports policy.

If the USA had pursued the same policies as the EU in the last 60 years, the world would be a much safer place. Instead, rather than send aid, they send in the bombers and tanks. I doubt this will change for some time.

The UK appear to be more of the USA mindset now than the EU one. Perhaps they always were. Such a pity.

Henryq.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that it is unfortunate that some politicians latch on to a sound bite that resonated deeply with the popular press and that soundbite becomes a dog whistle and then becomes a cause celebre with a larger and larger group and the becomes a movement until it becomes the centre policy of a leading political party.

We saw this with McCarthyism in the USA in the 1950s where the word Communist became a label that would destroy anyone it was attached to - and destroyed many of the careers of Hollywood stars. By giving such power to a single word, American society has been locked in a right wing mindset that has coloured political debate ever since. Helping the poor is not a noble enterprise in the USA.

Before that, in the 1920s, prohibition led to the establishment of organised crime that allowed the Mafia to gain a stranglehold in America.

The NRA has driven the gun lobby in USA politics for the last couple of generations, and made it virtually impossible for any administrations to bring sanity to bear on the constant deaths caused by Americans shooting Americans.

It is unfortunate that those American voices that managed to get the sanity of the Marshal Plan in reality that led to the rebuilding of Europe after WW II could not keep that benevolence going to not just rebuild Europe, but extend it to build the USSR to move from a command economy to a market economy, or to build Africa to be self sufficient and self governed - and end colonialism.

Instead the USA went on a military spending spree to combat the spread of Communism, particularly in the far east - Korea and Vietnam, with a view to taking on China. Currently, the USA military spend is greater than all other nations combined. If all that wealth wasted on arms was instead spent on eradicating poverty - what a different world we would have now! Even introducing the equivalent of the British NHS would have transformed the society in the USA.

The EU was established with the expressed aim of establishing peace in Europe, which clearly has been successful. It also was established to prevent hunger in Europe by securing food supply - again that aim has been achieved. It also had the aim to eradicate poverty in Europe - again achieved but it is a continuing project. When Ireland joined the EU, our GDP was at 60% of the average, and now we are above average and are now a net contributor.

The EU has since tried to spread largesse through tariff free trade with impoverished countries in Africa and South and Central America with their EBA (everything but arms) tariff free imports policy.

If the USA had pursued the same policies as the EU in the last 60 years, the world would be a much safer place. Instead, rather than send aid, they send in the bombers and tanks. I doubt this will change for some time.

The UK appear to be more of the USA mindset now than the EU one. Perhaps they always were. Such a pity.

The UK created the shambles they have today by removing jobs from working class areas

That was the big mistake Thatcher and others made, they underestimated the value of work

Firblog

paul71 wrote: »

Stop selectively choosing which facts to reply to. NI is not part of any future tariffs in the event of no deal, end of story.

My point was that NI is not counted in exports to UK - so makes no difference if our exports to them are not affected

paul71 wrote: »

Parma/tech in Ireland 25k jobs? Try 300k to 400k.

Please supply link, my info is from here re agri jobs & here re pharma

paul71 wrote: »

Agri employment in Ireland is about 3.5% or about 100k of the workforce. Your estimates may have been accurate in 1950.

A link would be good

paul71 wrote: »

I would rather the hit is taken no-where but forced to choose, anybody with a modicum of sense would choose the sector that is by far our largest employer, source of revenue and growing above a declining market with very low employment rates and in many areas such as Suckler herds loss making.

That just makes no sense, I'd rather the hit be taken where there are fewer ppl employed, 30% less ppl working in pharma or fishing is much less of an impact than reduction in labour of 30% in agri.


You all seem to be placing a much grater emphasis on the monetary value of exports to X or Y, rather than the value of the employment the exporting company provides.

Sam Russell

Henryq. wrote: »

The UK created the shambles they have today by removing jobs from working class areas

That was the big mistake Thatcher and others made, they underestimated the value of work

The election of Margaret Thatcher was a mistake. The Tories wanted to get rid of Heath (who was too far to the left for the Tories - he was almost a centrist) and she was proposed in the heave as a stalking horse candidate to force a leadership election. Unfortunately too many Tory MPs voted for her so she won on the first count. The real candidates did not have a chance to stand.

She was ultra hard right - anti everything that had a whiff of social benefits towards the poor. She would have abolished social welfare and the NHS if she thought she could. She introduced a Poll Tax with the intention of voter suppression of Labour voters, because the tax was a prerequisite for a vote.

Don't forget she went to war over the Falklands/Malvinas to protect a few thousand sheep in the South Atlantic, just off the Argentine coast - a very important outpost of the Empire. Most British people at the time had no idea even where it was - or who lived there.

Her election was the start of Eurosceptic Tories getting control.

robindch

Sam Russell wrote: »

Instead the USA went on a military spending spree to combat the spread of Communism, particularly in the far east - Korea and Vietnam, with a view to taking on China. Currently, the USA military spend is greater than all other nations combined.

A warning against which was made, pointedly, by Dwight D Eisenhower in his final public speech as US President in January, 1961:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

Dwight D Eisenhower wrote:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Leroy42

Firblog, that all sounds great, and as a theoretical argument I'm sure that it makes some sort of sense.

However, what alternative does Ireland have? We needed to choose. Either drop out of the EU with the UK, and thus become the junior partner in a London centred union, or remain with the EU?

What the Irish government did was to try to mitigate the worst outcomes of Brexit, and they achieved that by getting the WA.

That the UK are now intent on crashing out without a deal, despite making the same deals with Japan and will sign up to standards with the US, despite them claiming sovereignty is king but gleefully welcoming WTO rules and remaining member of NATO.

The one thing we can be sure of after nearly 5 years of Brexit, is that the UK doesn't know what it wants, so trying to infer that somehow Ireland should have done something to give them that is, whilst comforting, is misplaced.

The deal that the UK have in front of them gives them almost everything they said they wanted. Ending FoM, ending payments to EU, no more ECJ oversight. No more wasted MEP's in Brussels.

But they have now picked up on other issues. It's all about fish, and sovereignty. They want everything their way. If you have ever dealt with people like that you know that there really is only one solution, to walk away. Nothing you agree will ever be enough.

As soon as ay deal if done, just like the WA, the UK will be back complaining that the deal isn't fair. They want to change this or that, that surely this standard is almost the same and sure as a sovereign country they should be allowed to use lead paint!

So, rather than simply say that Ireland, or the EU, should have done better, what exactly do you think should be done to get to this agreement where Brexit is not going to impact Ireland?

Firblog

CelticRambler wrote: »

I suppose what's most interesting about your posts over the last few pages is that you are, almost certainly, representative of a segment of the Irish population that is just as uninformed about the whys and wherefores of the EU as the infamous 52% across the Irish Sea, and five years (yes, five - starting even before the referendum was held) five years after the government took steps to mitigate the potential economic damage and social disruption on the Island of Ireland, people such as yourself are suddenly waking up to what's going on.

Instead of spouting nonsense about Micheál Martin and Simon Coveny panicking, you should be glad that Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveny were far more on the ball than you (and others new to this thread) and got our side of the deal sorted out last year.

What is very interesting in what you've written is that you claim to have read what I've posted over the last few pages, and then say I've been spouting nonsense about Micheal Martin & Simon Coveny..



I've never mentioned them once in the couple of posts I've made,



Now I could go on to say how this is an example how pro EU ppl on here read posts and take umbrage at anything vaguely anti EU side, and then post ridiculous replies accusing the other poster of making all sorts of points (that they haven't made), but I'll not do that, I'll just advise you to go back and read again, and when you have you can reply to this post admitting how wrong you were, no need for an apology for a simple mistake - it must be those blue tinted glasses..


So they got our side of the deal sorted out last year did they? I'll give you that they got a part of it sorted ok, for the time being, but perhaps there there is still a tiny bit of the agreement to be finalized? just tie up the loose ends with fishing and trade, things which are important to us but over which we have no control - perhaps we are all on big blue train ok, we can suggest directions to the driver, but we don't necessarily end up where we want to go

ambro25

Firblog wrote: »

That just makes no sense, I'd rather the hit be taken where there are fewer ppl employed, 30% less ppl working in pharma or fishing is much less of an impact than reduction in labour of 30% in agri.

You all seem to be placing a much grater emphasis on the monetary value of exports to X or Y, rather than the value of the employment the exporting company provides.

Both are intrinsically linked as the value added by the (each) job. Highest for high tech/high added value sectors like pharma, lowest for low tech/low added value like agrifood. 1 pharma worker worth 50 crop pickers, economically and in treasury terms, to put it bluntly.

You're in danger of making the same myopic assessment, as recent UK governments have in handling the economic aspects of Brexit, and sidelining services wholesale within that, i.e. they have continually ignored the fact that the UK is a knowledge-based economy.

They UK will re-learn it soon enough, deal or no deal irrespective.

J Mysterio

Firblog wrote: »

What is very interesting in what you've written is that you claim to have read what I've posted over the last few pages, and then say I've been spouting nonsense about Micheal Martin & Simon Coveny..



I've never mentioned them once in the couple of posts I've made,



Now I could go on to say how this is an example how pro EU ppl on here read posts and take umbrage at anything vaguely anti EU side, and then post ridiculous replies accusing the other poster of making all sorts of points (that they haven't made), but I'll not do that, I'll just advise you to go back and read again, and when you have you can reply to this post admitting how wrong you were, no need for an apology for a simple mistake - it must be those blue tinted glasses..


So they got our side of the deal sorted out last year did they? I'll give you that they got a part of it sorted ok, for the time being, but perhaps there there is still a tiny bit of the agreement to be finalized? just tie up the loose ends with fishing and trade, things which are important to us but over which we have no control - perhaps we are all on big blue train ok, we can suggest directions to the driver, but we don't necessarily end up where we want to go

The smugness is dripping from your posts, but they're not half as clever as you seem to think they are.

This after your post which indicated you didn't know that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. That is beyond basic.

Really, you don't know what you are talking about and I have no idea why other posters are taking the time to seriously engage with you. Best ignored.

Sam Russell

robindch wrote: »

A warning against which was made, pointedly, by Dwight D Eisenhower in his final public speech as US President in January, 1961:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

Eisenhower was the commander in chief of the D Day landings and was familiar with what war could achieve and what it could cost. Unfortunately, that knowledge has been lost.

Firblog

Leroy42 wrote: »

Firblog, that all sounds great, and as a theoretical argument I'm sure that it makes some sort of sense.

However, what alternative does Ireland have? We needed to choose. WIther drop out of the EU with the UK, and thus become the junior partner in a London centred union, or remain with the EU?

What the Irish government did was to try to mitigate the worst outcomes of Brexit, and they achieved that by getting the WA.

That the UK are now intent on crashing out without a deal, despite making the same deals with Japan and will sign up to standards with the US, despite them claiming sovereignty is king but gleefully welcoming WTO rules and remaining member of NATO.

The one thing we can be sure of after nearly 5 years of Brexit, is that the UK don't know what it wants, so trying to infer that somehow Ireland should have done something to give them that is, whilst comforting, is misplaced.

The deal that the UK have in front of them gives them almost everything they said they wanted. Ending FoM, ending payments to EU, no more ECJ oversight. No more wasted EP's in Brussels.

But they have now picked up on other issues. Its all about fish, and soveriengty. They want everything their way. If you have every dealt with people like that you know that there really is only one solution, to walk away. Nothing you agree will ever be enough.

As soon as ay deal if done, just like the WA, the UK will be back complaining tht the deal isn't fair. They want to change this or that, that surely this standard is almost the same and sure as a sovereign country they should be allowed to use lead paint!

So, rather than simply say that IReland, or the EU, should have done better, what exactly do you think should be done to get to this agreement where BRexit is not going to impact Ireland?

You are mistaking where I'm coming from, I have no issue with what our government(s) have done with Brexit coming down the line, they've done very well.


What I am taking issue with is the EU stance on negotiations, on fisheries they seem to want to continue taking 80% share of the fish stocks located in the UK waters.



Simple question, do you think that is fair?



Here is an excerpt from a Guardian piece on the state of play


The row is over divergence on environmental, labour and social standards, ranging from emission reduction targets to health and safety regulations and food standards, that could leave companies on one side with a lower cost base when they try to sell goods into the European market. As the EU develops its rulebook on working conditions or the environment, for example, it is seeking a mechanism to ensure that European businesses are not left at an economic disadvantage if Britain fails to step up as well.


As time goes by, it is argued, the minimum standards protected by non-regression will become obsolete. Initially the EU was proposing that where one side failed to upgrade its standards, the other should be able to apply tariffs automatically to correct the terms of trade. The thinking moved on sometime ago, however.


It is instead argued by Brussels that it should be possible for either side to propose a revision of the common minimum standards when the time comes. There should be a forum for discussion, it is argued, and a system for dispute resolution, possibly through independent arbitration, should one side be foot-dragging. In extremis, there could then be tariffs applied.
The UK has a few problems with this approach. It wants to know what the test will be for judging whether one side has been put at a competitive disadvantage. Is it simply a risk of trade being distorted or tangible evidence of it having occurred? It wants to know how the new minimum standards will be set. Downing Street says it surely cannot be whatever EU law might be. And the application of tariffs needs to be controlled. The UK wants it to be clear that tariffs should only be applied in areas of trade where distortions can be shown to have emerged due to regulatory divergence rather than cross-cutting across all sectors of the economy.
The UK says that without assurances over the mechanism, it poses a threat to its sovereign right to make its own way from 1 January. The UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, claims that fear of countermeasures could lead to Britain being dragged into the EU orbit. Officials in Brussels suspect there is another motivation behind the UK’s scepticism: a future Labour government could agree to upgrades in standards that a future Conservative administration would be powerless to peel back. Once the clause has ratcheted up a policy, there is no way to ratchet down.




Now I don't see the UK point of view as being unreasonable, and came on to this thread to point out that - in my view - the UK has a point, and that the europhiles on here should be aware that the EU may bring huge damage upon us if they don't cop on.



The 'we're on the bigger blue train' post just got on my nerve as it seemed so infantile, and jingoistic - things most on here complain about in the uk media, and against my better judgement it got me to post on here (I was nearly trolled into posting lol) where any post that doesn't tow the line that the Brits/Brexiteers are knucledragging/jingoistic/racist troglodytes and that the EU is a benign/philanthropic organisation without a shred of nationalistic self interest is landed upon with great vigor - I've even being accused of posting things that I haven't.

Firblog

J Mysterio wrote: »

The smugness is dripping from your posts, but they're not half as clever as you seem to think they are.

This after your post which indicated you didn't know that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. That is beyond basic.

Really, you don't know what you are talking about and I have no idea why other posters are taking the time to seriously engage with you. Best ignored.

Jesus mate, I'm hardly smug, what a terrible insult.. never been accused of being smug or clever before, and there they are both in one sentence..



Hands up got my geographic expression wrong, got my Great Britains mixed up with my United Kingdoms, and NI is not part of Great Britain, but is part of UK. You win, you are really clever.

Leroy42

It isn't about whether it is fair or not. That is the price that the EU have put on access to the market. They are taking advantage of the fact that the UK made it such a massive issue when in reality it ner was.

Is it fair that the price of a new car is €30K? I don't personally think so, but there are plenty of people willing to pay that, and a hell of a lot more, for a new car. That is the deal. If I want a new car that is the price.

The UK went into this without ever working out the price they were willing to pay. They knew that the price of EU membership, not just monetarily, was too high, but they never actually knew, and still don't want a fair price was. Hence the massive infighting and historic mutiny during TM's time as PM.

Should they keep 80% of the fish? It seems really high when you put it simply like that, but how much of that 80% is accounted for by foreign vessels operating with UK licences sold to them? How much of that 80% are the UK fleet missing out on? Could they catch it instead? If they catch it, could they sell it in the UK? What about into the EU if tariffs are applied?

The issue, as brought up in a sky news interview the other day by a Spanish minister, is that trade talks are not the place to demand sovereignty. Being at the trade talks in the 1st place shows sovereignty. The EU is not going to hold trade talks with you or me! Trade talks are where two sovereign countries discussed way to increase interdependence, to pool their sovereignty in some cases, for their mutual benefit. The Uk seem to want all of the benefits but none of the costs

But what is the offer that the EU should be making? According to many Brexiteers, they want full and complete control of their waters, their laws, their borders. Very little about cooperation. However, they do want the EU to recognise the UK rules, buy the fish from their waters. They want control but cannot understand why anyone else would want it.

I see the pound has jumped on the possibility of there still being a deal.

GBP 	% change 	£1 buys One £ buys 	
Change
GBP against Euro /EUR
+1.23% €1.1050 +0.0134

GBP against Yen /JPY
+1.24% ¥139.3340 +1.7090

GBP against USD /USD
+1.51% $1.3429 +0.0200

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see the pound has jumped on the possibility of there still being a deal.

GBP 	% change 	£1 buys One £ buys 	
Change
GBP against Euro /EUR
+1.23% €1.1050 +0.0134

GBP against Yen /JPY
+1.24% ¥139.3340 +1.7090

GBP against USD /USD
+1.51% $1.3429 +0.0200

Some great gains being made if you were a connected currency trader with an inside track on these Brexit talks..

I'm sure none such people exist though

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

It isn't about whether it is fair or not.

Fairness? The nudge and the wink from the Brexiteers before the vote and after was not only that they would leave the E.U. but engage in predatory practices to bring the Enemy to its knees. i.e. predatory business and political practices and arbitrage on a grand scale. The sauce was that the E.U. would be begging at the table for the trade deal after all this that would facilitate it all.

Who in the E.U. would want to do more than "appear" to negotiate with Britain after how they conducted themselves through the last decade.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

Some great gains being made if you were a connected currency trader with an inside track on these Brexit talks..

I'm sure none such people exist though

True, but there are a large number of speculatorsgamblers in the game.

trellheim

It is instead argued by Brussels that it should be possible for either side to propose a revision of the common minimum standards when the time comes. There should be a forum for discussion, it is argued, and a system for dispute resolution, possibly through independent arbitration, should one side be foot-dragging. In extremis, there could then be tariffs applied.
The UK has a few problems with this approach. It wants to know what the test will be for judging whether one side has been put at a competitive disadvantage. Is it simply a risk of trade being distorted or tangible evidence of it having occurred? It wants to know how the new minimum standards will be set. Downing Street says it surely cannot be whatever EU law might be. And the application of tariffs needs to be controlled. The UK wants it to be clear that tariffs should only be applied in areas of trade where distortions can be shown to have emerged due to regulatory divergence rather than cross-cutting across all sectors of the economy.

who should arbitrate : Not UK supreme court. Definitely not CJEU from the uk point of view ( apparently this is turning out to be the brexit touchstone) . WTO arbitration ? lol . UK introducing IMB and Taxation bill - hardly evidence of good faith. Its real people across the table



Even if there's a deal signed lorries are going to be stacked on the M20 leading down to Dover as the UK are no longer members of the EU and their stuff needs checking like Norway