JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

So if a referendum result stripped gays of right to marriage or women of the right to vote you'd be ok with it?

Democracy is as much about protecting minorities rights as it is about reflecting the will of the majority.

Yes if it was a free and fair vote and open to both sexes the electorate voted in

As we have seen not everyone agrees, but the majority view prevails in a democracy irrespective if I agree or not

Those Jews who were stripped of their job and eventually nationality because of laws passed with due process should have just accepted it and moved on.

You are reaching now, are you really comparing Nazi Germany and specifically Adolf Hitler with Brexit?

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes if it was a free and fair vote and open to both sexes the electorate voted in

As we have seen not everyone agrees, but the majority view prevails in a democracy irrespective if I agree or not

Those Jews who were stripped of their job and eventually nationality because of laws passed with due process should have just accepted it and moved on.

You are reaching now, are you really comparing Nazi Germany and specifically Adolf Hitler with Brexit?

You mean comparing the guys which slowly built an us vs them confrontation based mostly on lies to reinforce a perceived national identity at the expense of "non-nationals" with the Nazis?

Nope, totally unrelated.

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

They don't take advantage of it directly, but since it has helped the prosperity of their country, they still do. They also enjoy local fruit and vegetables picked by EU citizens, cheer EU football players, etc.

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

They don't take advantage of it directly, but since it has helped the prosperity of their country, they still do. They also enjoy local fruit and vegetables picked by EU citizens, cheer EU football players, etc.

And now the majority decided it is not worth being in the EU and voted to leave. That is how democracy should work.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Legally-binding” or “not legally-binding” only matters in courts from this point on. As far as non-Brexiteers and third parties are concerned, the UK signed an agreement called the PD. If it reneges on this non legally binding declaration, I suspect many potential trade partners will pay close attention, as one would expect, if one of their main trading partners - the EU - accuses another nation of negotiating in bad faith. Might give them something to think about.

Good grief peddling the same line, the UK has not reneged on the PD. No where whatsoever does it say in the PD that the UK must use Barniers interpretations.

Jump up and down all you like, but if each have different interpretations then it comes down to what the meeting is about negotiating and hopefully both sides will meet in the middle somewhere.

Not hard for other nations to work out that the UK is merely looking to get the best deal in its own interests just like the EU. Bad faith bargaining eh, it’s all in the interpretation

When BoJo says elements of the PD are outrageous, ridiculous, never happening in a million years, etc., a paper he has signed (maybe not read, though), it's not about interpretation. Well all knew he never changed the May deal, except for accepting the unacceptable (the border in the Irish sea), while at the same time promising it wasn't going to happen. So from the start he was signing a deal and reneging it.

Can the EU do something about it ? Yes, that's called no deal. Which some suspect is what BoJo wanted all along anyway, what with not wanting his money and his friends' money to be looked at too closely. Let alone Russian money...

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Letting the public decide is okay even for important decision,s the mistake is to demand just a single majority. Such decisions should only be made when the definite majority of the votes support it. In many countries this is a 2/3 majority. And Brexit is clearly a decision that meant people would have to give up existing rights - like freedom of movement.

I guarantee you the majority of the british population don’t take advantage of freedom of movement. So the majority wins.

They don't take advantage of it directly, but since it has helped the prosperity of their country, they still do. They also enjoy local fruit and vegetables picked by EU citizens, cheer EU football players, etc.

And we’ll still get those people without freedom of movement. Much like how people immigrate to any other country outside of the EU.

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Shame. That’s why we continue to bust our net migration target year after year then?

I work in Financial Services and we regularly take on overseas applicants and we have a very diverse workforce. We have people coming and going all the time and there’s no sign of that slowing down. Was speaking to a colleague on the phone who had just joined us from South Africa and couldn’t wait to get exploring Britain.

London being a world city much like New York and Paris is an attractive place to live and that will never change.

There is a lot of truth in this. However, it ignores one key fact: London remains attractive worldwide (hell, even I would happily move there if the right job came along) because it is diverse (aka full of people whose origins lie elsewhere), metropolitan, full of experts and professionals and highly educated, well-travelled folk (some might call them globalists) and voted in favor of remain.

How many of these newcomers want to go to leave strongholds like Boston, Lincolnshire? Like, ever. Lovely place though it may be.

Which is to say, it’s a bit odd watching a Brexiteer tout the International attractiveness of a city that has a large immigrant and European population and roundly rejected Brexit. London stands for many things that are actively at odds with Brexit ideology. Or whatever people believe in Boston Lincolnshire anyway.

Well I was just told how people were leaving Britain and don’t want to come back, so I was just responding to that point logically.

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

If you're fine with stripping millions of people of a certain right because of a 51-49 vote there's really not much to talk about.

And by that reasoning you would be fine with any future vote on anything that the minority who voted get to decide the outcome that’s real democratic you would make Xi Jinping proud

So if a referendum result stripped gays of right to marriage or women of the right to vote you'd be ok with it?

Democracy is as much about protecting minorities rights as it is about reflecting the will of the majority.

But those referendums would A. never happen and B. Never win.

The EU just isn’t a good deal for Britain. Nor is it for many European countries but the federal state has absorbed you and it’s too late.

Arion640 wrote:

Well I was just told how people were leaving Britain and don’t want to come back, so I was just responding to that point logically.

The two claims are not mutually exclusive.

It is true that “foreigners” (mostly EU folk) are leaving towns and villages across England and are never going to return to those parts of England. It’s equally true that non-EU migrants were never too keen on those towns and villages to begin with.

The latter have - and likely always will - favor the bigger cities which are more diverse, metropolitan, professional, educated etc - and which voted against Brexit. Now their patterns will be replicated by new EU arrivals, who previously might have considered living in (what are now pro-Brexit) towns and villages, but will now favor remain Strongholds - not simply because they voted remain, but because of the demographics that characterize remain strongholds.

Which is to say, newcomers from here on will be going to the bigger cities: London, Manchester etc - further cementing the evident cultural divide between diverse, remain-leaning cities, and UKIP/Tommy Robinson’s England.

Which is why it’s amusing watching Brexiteers tout the global attractiveness of British cities that have rejected - and continue to reject - whatever it is that drove the Brexit hinterlands to vote the way they did.

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Well I was just told how people were leaving Britain and don’t want to come back, so I was just responding to that point logically.

The two claims are not mutually exclusive.

It is true that “foreigners” (mostly EU folk) are leaving towns and villages across England and are never going to return to those parts of England. It’s equally true that non-EU migrants were never too keen on those towns and villages to begin with.

The latter have - and likely always will - favor the bigger cities which are more diverse, metropolitan, professional, educated etc - and which voted against Brexit. Now their patterns will be replicated by new EU arrivals, who previously might have considered living in (what are now pro-Brexit) towns and villages, but will now favor remain Strongholds - not simply because they voted remain, but because of the demographics that characterize remain strongholds.

Which is to say, newcomers from here on will be going to the bigger cities: London, Manchester etc - further cementing the evident cultural divide between diverse, remain-leaning cities, and UKIP/Tommy Robinson’s England.

Which is why it’s amusing watching Brexiteers tout the global attractiveness of British cities that have rejected - and continue to reject - whatever it is that drove the Brexit hinterlands to vote the way they did.

If that’s how it is to be then that’s how it will be. At least those in Boston will be happy their immigrants are gone.

By the way, just because we’re outside of a city it doesn’t automatically mean support For UKIP or tommy robinson.

ElPistolero wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Well I was just told how people were leaving Britain and don’t want to come back, so I was just responding to that point logically.

The two claims are not mutually exclusive.

It is true that “foreigners” (mostly EU folk) are leaving towns and villages across England and are never going to return to those parts of England. It’s equally true that non-EU migrants were never too keen on those towns and villages to begin with.

The latter have - and likely always will - favor the bigger cities which are more diverse, metropolitan, professional, educated etc - and which voted against Brexit. Now their patterns will be replicated by new EU arrivals, who previously might have considered living in (what are now pro-Brexit) towns and villages, but will now favor remain Strongholds - not simply because they voted remain, but because of the demographics that characterize remain strongholds.

Which is to say, newcomers from here on will be going to the bigger cities: London, Manchester etc - further cementing the evident cultural divide between diverse, remain-leaning cities, and UKIP/Tommy Robinson’s England.

Which is why it’s amusing watching Brexiteers tout the global attractiveness of British cities that have rejected - and continue to reject - whatever it is that drove the Brexit hinterlands to vote the way they did.

Just that then the UK has total control over who is allowed to migrate to the UK.

Arion640 wrote:

If that’s how it is to be then that’s how it will be. At least those in Boston will be happy their immigrants are gone.

By the way, just because we’re outside of a city it doesn’t automatically mean support For UKIP or tommy robinson.

The first line - “at least those in Boston will be happy their immigrants are gone” - doesn’t quite jive with “it doesn’t automatically mean support for UKIP or Tommy Robinson”, does it?

Anyway, as with all things in life, the point here is less that everyone outside the cities is actually a “Tommy Robinson” in disguise, and more about international perception. Whether this perception is warranted or not is now past the point of relevance; the corollary is that the higher-skilled immigrants who are going to be coming in, are not going to be taking their skills or relatively higher salaries to those regions.

Which all points to deeper financial and cultural division on Brexit faultlines. A problem that’s going to keep coming back.

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Those Jews who were stripped of their job and eventually nationality because of laws passed with due process should have just accepted it and moved on.

You are reaching now, are you really comparing Nazi Germany and specifically Adolf Hitler with Brexit?

You mean comparing the guys which slowly built an us vs them confrontation based mostly on lies to reinforce a perceived national identity at the expense of "non-nationals" with the Nazis?

Nope, totally unrelated.

The main difference between the two is one of them is not trying to create a new order but instead break from it

Aesma wrote:

When BoJo says elements of the PD are outrageous, ridiculous, never happening in a million years, etc., a paper he has signed (maybe not read, though), it's not about interpretation. Well all knew he never changed the May deal, except for accepting the unacceptable (the border in the Irish sea), while at the same time promising it wasn't going to happen. So from the start he was signing a deal and reneging it.

Well of course he has read both documents it’s just those on here cannot reconcile that Johnson has achieved changes to both documents in the interests of the UK. It has been well established the fundamental difference between the original agreement and the revised and the implications of those and how one wants to interpret the changes in the PD. All political and legal documents are about interpretations hence the reason people take others or nations to court over disputes and get independent arbitration

So, from having very little manoeuvre room before the before the latest GE between Parliament and the EU, Johnson changed a very bad deal for the UK to a deal of somewhat lesser evil( but hey everyone's interpretation is different) for the UK all the while the EU insisted it would NOT reopen the withdrawal agreement. The subtle nuance in negotiations from the May government to Johnson are seem to be having the desired effect.

But if it was Johnson true desired to renege on the agreement all he had to was not ratify it after the GE, he had ample opportunity to do so.

Aesma wrote:

Can the EU do something about it ? Yes, that's called no deal.

Ah, a bit of reverse psychology. By all accounts on this forum that's the UK's bluff after all the EU cant be seen to be the one who walked away from the negations table

Aesma wrote:

Which some suspect is what BoJo wanted all along anyway, what with not wanting his money and his friends' money to be looked at too closely. Let alone Russian money...

Ahh conspiracy theory's are good for



Original PD

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... gdom__.pdf

Revised PD

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ingdom.pdf

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

You are reaching now, are you really comparing Nazi Germany and specifically Adolf Hitler with Brexit?

You mean comparing the guys which slowly built an us vs them confrontation based mostly on lies to reinforce a perceived national identity at the expense of "non-nationals" with the Nazis?

Nope, totally unrelated.

The main difference between the two is one of them is not trying to create a new order but instead break from it

Empire 2.0 sounds pretty neworderish to me but to each his own.

The Nazis were also dreaming of a great past (it was called the Third Reich for a reason) without those pesky non-nationals getting in the way of progress, too.

JJJ wrote:

Empire 2.0 sounds pretty neworderish to me but to each his own.

If that floats your boat..........By all means consolidate Empire 2.0 with New Order and that pretty much sums up the EU project

A101 wrote:

Well of course he has read both documents it’s just those on here cannot reconcile that Johnson has achieved changes to both documents in the interests of the UK. It has been well established the fundamental difference between the original agreement and the revised and the implications of those and how one wants to interpret the changes in the PD. All political and legal documents are about interpretations hence the reason people take others or nations to court over disputes and get independent arbitration

So, from having very little manoeuvre room before the before the latest GE between Parliament and the EU, Johnson changed a very bad deal for the UK to a deal of somewhat lesser evil( but hey everyone's interpretation is different) for the UK all the while the EU insisted it would NOT reopen the withdrawal agreement. The subtle nuance in negotiations from the May government to Johnson are seem to be having the desired effect.

But if it was Johnson true desired to renege on the agreement all he had to was not ratify it after the GE, he had ample opportunity to do so.

Oddly, even Brexiteers believe Johnson did not achieve any meaningful changes. Ask Ben Habib over at Brexit Watch. I get the sense that he pays closer attention to the details of the agreement than most (all?) of us. Repeating falsehoods won’t make them true.

As to interpretation and nuance, what held true before, holds true now. Namely that if you can’t even get to a common interpretation on an existing agreement, this pattern will be repeated going forward. Which either requires future cast iron guarantees on just about everything. Or guarantees a no deal.

A101 wrote:

Ah, a bit of reverse psychology. By all accounts on this forum that's the UK's bluff after all the EU cant be seen to be the one who walked away from the negations table

All the EU committed to was negotiating a deal as long as the UK was willing to take the negotiation seriously. This Brexiteer song and dance about “non-binding” and “interpretation” and “arbitration” is sufficient grounds for the EU to tell it’s stakeholders - quite convincingly - that the Brexiteers will continue to play these games in the future, rendering negotiations futile.

At some point, it becomes more rational (read “easier“) to walk away from negotiations that are already being undermined by the fact that the other party wants to retrospectively renegotiate a previously agreed document. No one is interested in going back and forth.

And the reality is that as this new deal gets more and more watered down and closer to no deal, there’s less incentive for the EU to provide the UK with preferential access to its greatest asset - the single market - to the UK. It’s a well known paradox of these trade negotiations.

NAFTA did not, and cannot work without some common rules about protection for worker, the environment, freedom of movement, finance regulations, and quality of goods. Republicans and Democrats differ on the details, but not at all that these are factors in opening up borders to trade and services. It is often not bragged about, but NAFTA was a major factor in Mexico moving into a developed country. The aborted TPP was a disaster for the US and its Pacific allies. No TPP and China has moved in. I say capital D Disaster.

UK wants a much more open border to goods, no tariffs, not limits on amounts, no inspections of goods, financials services open. That cannot happen without an agreement of political and social values. Its not going to happen.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

NAFTA did not, and cannot work without some common rules about protection for worker, the environment, freedom of movement, finance regulations, and quality of goods. Republicans and Democrats differ on the details, but not at all that these are factors in opening up borders to trade and services. It is often not bragged about, but NAFTA was a major factor in Mexico moving into a developed country. The aborted TPP was a disaster for the US and its Pacific allies. No TPP and China has moved in. I say capital D Disaster.

UK wants a much more open border to goods, no tariffs, not limits on amounts, no inspections of goods, financials services open. That cannot happen without an agreement of political and social values. Its not going to happen.

Indeed. NAFTA 2.0 even includes a poison pill that can be used to exclude Canada, Mexico or the US from the agreement if they trade too freely with certain third countries.

Granted one only needs to look at the negotiations between Canada and the US, or the US and the EU to understand how protectionist Canada and the US actually are - especially on agriculture (nearly torpedoed NAFTA 2.0).

Some Brexiteers seem oblivious to this - they think the EU is the only protectionist actor. Wait till they come up against the “getting to ‘no’” negotiators in India, China, the US etc. Those trade deals aren’t nearly as easy as they’re made out to be.

ElPistolero wrote:

Oddly, even Brexiteers believe Johnson did not achieve any meaningful changes. Ask Ben Habib over at Brexit Watch. I get the sense that he pays closer attention to the details of the agreement than most (all?) of us. Repeating falsehoods won’t make them true.

On that we agree there was still a lot of opposition to the revised agreement. I too would have rejected the WA/PD outright and my views on that have been known for sometime on this forum.

If you read back if it were up to me the only thing the WA would have settled on is the financial settlement nothing more nothing less. But I also conceded that Johnson’s revised deal was done and agreed too out of political expediency due to pressure in the HOC, with the distinct possibility of the house passing a law to revoke A50 if the Government could not get an acceptable agreement which would have been against the majority wishes who voted in the referenda.

So what are my falsehoods I have said it before and will say it again, Johnson had very little room to manoeuvre, he was in fight not only with the EU/May’s extremely bad WA but also a very hostile Parliament and Speaker of the house who was clearly very biased pro-remain who used Parliamentary precedent when it suit or made precedence when it did not.

The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019(Benn Act) clearly forced Johnson’s hand with any renegotiation with the EU who was actually still gambling on a 2nd referenda to be held and the views on this forum that Johnson would be the shortest serving Prime Minister in the history of the UK. I have never said Johnson revised WA deal was ever great, just the lessor of two evils.

But the changes that he got the EU to agree to are very significant in how the WA operates in the future. These changes were in the NI protocol and more significance is moving the LPF provisions from the WA to the PD one which we know is a binding document and the other not. So no: no falsehoods on my part.

ElPistolero wrote:

As to interpretation and nuance, what held true before, holds true now. Namely that if you can’t even get to a common interpretation on an existing agreement, this pattern will be repeated going forward. Which either requires future cast iron guarantees on just about everything. Or guarantees a no deal.

And that’s where the problem lies, interpretation within negotiations on a political declaration which is not an binding agreement. And that’s a natural outcome if the two can’t agree.

The UK acknowledges that the transition phase will come to an end if a agreement is reached or not and know what it means. But the EU continued to apply pressure for an extension to keep the UK locked in that status quo. That is the main difference between how the government negotiated before and after the 2019 GE circumstances of ones hand and the subtle nuance between now and then. I also do acknowledge that the EU is a master at political spin and applying pressure.

ElPistolero wrote:

All the EU committed to was negotiating a deal as long as the UK was willing to take the negotiation seriously. This Brexiteer song and dance about “non-binding” and “interpretation” and “arbitration” is sufficient grounds for the EU to tell it’s stakeholders - quite convincingly - that the Brexiteers will continue to play these games in the future, rendering negotiations futile.

And in which we have done and it all comes down to interpretation within the PD the UK has a position and so does the EU. It’s a wonder that the UK does not walk away now with the EU Parliament making resolution of a veto if the UK doesn’t meet requirements and it’s own interpretation on the PD that’s prejudicial on negotiations before an agreement is reached

ElPistolero wrote:

At some point, it becomes more rational (read “easier“) to walk away from negotiations that are already being undermined by the fact that the other party wants to retrospectively renegotiate a previously agreed document. No one is interested in going back and forth.

That’s up to the EU to decide if they want to walk away.

If the UK wants to try and renegotiate elements within the WA which have a bearing on the UK wide trade deal it perfectly acceptable to try and so after all NI still is in UK customs territory any future trade deal affects NI just as much as the rest of the UK.

ElPistolero wrote:

And the reality is that as this new deal gets more and more watered down and closer to no deal, there’s less incentive for the EU to provide the UK with preferential access to its greatest asset - the single market - to the UK. It’s a well known paradox of these trade negotiations.

We might not have preferential access to the single market if no trade deal is reached, but we will have access under WTO rules anyway unless the EU starts a trade war with the UK to stop all access go right ahead not in anyone’s interest

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well of course he has read both documents it’s just those on here cannot reconcile that Johnson has achieved changes to both documents in the interests of the UK. It has been well established the fundamental difference between the original agreement and the revised and the implications of those

Yes: BoJo effectively just retracted May's hard-won demand for an all-UK backstop and conceded to go back to the EU's original proposal of a border across the Irish Sea.

Just handing back to the EU what May had negotiated for the UK at great effort was what you're getting all starry-eyed about here.

So, from having very little manoeuvre room before the before the latest GE between Parliament and the EU, Johnson changed a very bad deal for the UK to a deal of somewhat lesser evil( but hey everyone's interpretation is different) for the UK all the while the EU insisted it would NOT reopen the withdrawal agreement.

Wrong!

The EU had always declared that they wouldn't change anything about the fundamentals of the deal and that was merely misreported in the UK media as refusing any change whatsoever, which was never the EU's position.

And of course the UK simply conceding a major point to the EU was always perfectly welcome!

That your media contorted themselves to misreport that major concession as a great negotiation victory is actually Baghdad Bob-worthy in its almost hilariously fact-denying audacity.

The subtle nuance in negotiations from the May government to Johnson are seem to be having the desired effect.

Yeah, we're pretty content with BoJo conceding on the NI question.

A101 wrote:

But the changes that he got the EU to agree to are very significant in how the WA operates in the future.

Yes, this had been the EU's preferred solution from the start and only with great reluctance Barnier conceded the all-UK backstop to May; So we were pretty relieved when BoJo conceded that point back to us.

He clearly doesn't care about NI and he knew his domestic propaganda apparatus would protect him at home, and as we can observe it worked like a charm, if just there.

These changes were in the NI protocol and more significance is moving the LPF provisions from the WA to the PD one which we know is a binding document and the other not.

You're suffering from a massive misconception about the "non-binding" Political Declaration:

You and your government clearly think that just because they couldn't be sued in a court about it right now they could therefore treat it like a complete joke.

What you don't get is that the "non-binding" nature of the PD is actually completely meaningless, because it is all about a future agreement between the UK and the EU, and the EU absolutely considers it to be the relevant foundation for a new deal!

So while your leaders make a big show about how silly they find all that PD business and how "clever" they consider themselves to be for pulling the wool over the EU's eyes, Michel Barnier is fully determined to stick to the PD as negotiated with the UK government at the time, and the EU Parliament has just reinforced that position.

So, the EU can indeed not sue the UK about the PD.

But they (we) can and as you may be starting to realize will simply refuse to enter into a new deal with the UK unless it reflects the negotiated positions from the PD.

It's as simple as that.

Legally the PD is non-binding to the UK, at least until a new deal is closed.

But factually the PD is absolutely binding to the EU, and therefore a precondition for a deal.

So no: no falsehoods on my part.

Severe misconceptions would be the term I'd rather use at this point.

A101 wrote:

We might not have preferential access to the single market if no trade deal is reached, but we will have access under WTO rules anyway unless the EU starts a trade war with the UK to stop all access go right ahead not in anyone’s interest

Yes, the UK will have non-preferential access (except for a number of - financial - services), with the highest tariffs, thus behind everybody else.

Services will have no access.

The funny thing about the UK is.

Non binding vote if the UK should leave the EU: This result must be honoured!
Non binding political deceleration with the EU: This can be ignored!

With such a government, the Hard Brexit is the best choice, as any cooperation needs a foundation of trust, and anybody who trusts this UK government needs to see a doctor.

Klaus wrote:

Yes: BoJo effectively just retracted May's hard-won demand for an all-UK backstop and conceded to go back to the EU's original proposal of a border across the Irish Sea.

Geez that one demand really would have twisted the arm of the EU……. NOT

You guys really want to rewrite history don’t you, that’s what the EU wants in its entirety for the UK to continue in the EU customs territory and all the financial/regulatory burdens it entails.

The EU original draft said that” The territory of Northern Ireland shall be considered to be part of the customs territory of the Union” (in perpetuity) which is quite different from continuing in the UK customs territory, in that under the EU draft would have made the Irish sea the border for CCT and that was the impetus for Mays much maligned agreement to the Irish Backstop, And in realty was the Irish Backstop even worse in terms than the then UK’s existing membership.
There are some similarities but fundamentally works very differently to what the EU drafted

Klaus wrote:

Just handing back to the EU what May had negotiated for the UK at great effort was what you're getting all starry-eyed about here.

Good grief no he hasn’t………Under the Irish Backstop in the old WA and EU original draft NI Protocol the UK was unable to sign any trade agreement outside of the EU. Under the current arrangements the UK can make trade agreement set tariff rates and have a sovereign independent parliamentary and judicial oversight. With goods moving to NI and those that pose no risk of being moved across the Irish border can do so without tariffs

Also within the Protocol is CONSENT this gives Northern Ireland the potential to exit from the protocol in four years’ time, and also the NI Assembly will periodically have a vote on whether the consent will continue in the future, something that could not be done in either EU draft or TM Irish Backstop.

Klaus wrote:

Wrong!
The EU had always declared that they wouldn't change anything about the fundamentals of the deal and that was merely misreported in the UK media as refusing any change whatsoever, which was never the EU's position.

Really……..Source please.

Klaus wrote:

That your media contorted themselves to misreport that major concession as a great negotiation victory is actually Baghdad Bob-worthy in its almost hilariously fact-denying audacity.

All media from both the foreign and domestic in which I had access to must have reported it wrong then. Baghdad Bob must be doing a good impression of Juncker/Tusk then;

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the EU’s executive Commission, said the bloc’s leaders were unanimous in the view that the Brexit deal, which has been rejected three times by the British parliament, should not be reopened.
“We repeated unanimously that there will be no renegotiating of the withdrawal agreement,” Juncker said in Brussels after a meeting of EU leaders excluding May.

Donald Tusk, who is the president of the European Council and chairs meetings of EU leaders, said there could be tweaks to the political declaration that accompanies the legally watertight withdrawal agreement. The declaration is vaguer but deals with a range of other matters including the outlines of a future trade relationship between the EU and Britain.

Klaus wrote:

Yes, this had been the EU's preferred solution from the start and only with great reluctance Barnier conceded the all-UK backstop to May; So we were pretty relieved when BoJo conceded that point back to us.

Barnier reluctantly conceded to May backstop; by crikey you make me laugh he must have thought all his Xmas came at once.

Klaus wrote:

He clearly doesn't care about NI and he knew his domestic propaganda apparatus would protect him at home, and as we can observe it worked like a charm, if just there.

You know this for a fact and can prove it, does that also imply that I too do not care about NI since I would have preferred no deal than the WA in either form?

Klaus wrote:

You're suffering from a massive misconception about the "non-binding" Political Declaration:

You and your government clearly think that just because they couldn't be sued in a court about it right now they could therefore treat it like a complete joke.

What you don't get is that the "non-binding" nature of the PD is actually completely meaningless, because it is all about a future agreement between the UK and the EU, and the EU absolutely considers it to be the relevant foundation for a new deal!
So while your leaders make a big show about how silly they find all that PD business and how "clever" they consider themselves to be for pulling the wool over the EU's eyes, Michel Barnier is fully determined to stick to the PD as negotiated with the UK government at the time, and the EU Parliament has just reinforced that position.
So, the EU can indeed not sue the UK about the PD.

So, in your own words the PD is useless but binding at the same time. In Donald Tusk own words on the difference between the WA and PD;

“The declaration is vaguer but deals with a range of other matters including the outlines of a future trade relationship between the EU and Britain.”
Vague meaning: of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.

But since you are expecting the PD to be binding remember;

XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION says that and I’ll paraphrase

“The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standard”

It says: "Should & Current High Level” so all the EU should be asking is a non-regression pact not demanding we follow into EU laws in perpetuity

Klaus wrote:

But they (we) can and as you may be starting to realize will simply refuse to enter into a new deal with the UK unless it reflects the negotiated positions from the PD.
It's as simple as that.
Legally the PD is non-binding to the UK, at least until a new deal is closed.

By crikey we should realise someone can actually walk away without a deal; the thought never crossed our minds

Klaus wrote:

But factually the PD is absolutely binding to the EU, and therefore a precondition for a deal.

But I’ll remember that as the PD also says;

“Where the Parties consider it to be in their mutual interest during the negotiations”

The EU is asking for more than the PD by demanding regulatory alignment and not asking for regulatory equivilance.

Seahawk wrote:

Non binding vote if the UK should leave the EU: This result must be honoured!

Which was a referenda and pledged by the Government will be honoured

Seahawk wrote:

Non binding political deceleration with the EU: This can be ignored!

Which is a framework for a negotiation on a possible trade deal where both parties will consider it if its in interest to do so during the negotiations. And also under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 makes provisions Incorporation of direct EU legislation which means we actually meet the current standards as per the PD

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

We might not have preferential access to the single market if no trade deal is reached, but we will have access under WTO rules anyway unless the EU starts a trade war with the UK to stop all access go right ahead not in anyone’s interest

Yes, the UK will have non-preferential access (except for a number of - financial - services), with the highest tariffs, thus behind everybody else.

Well so be it...…...we too can give preferential treatment to other like minded nations outside the EU who will be happy to increase its market share at the EU expense

Well summed up by this French MEP
https://youtu.be/lSseSjouB2A

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

We might not have preferential access to the single market if no trade deal is reached, but we will have access under WTO rules anyway unless the EU starts a trade war with the UK to stop all access go right ahead not in anyone’s interest

Yes, the UK will have non-preferential access (except for a number of - financial - services), with the highest tariffs, thus behind everybody else.

Well so be it...…...we too can give preferential treatment to other like minded nations outside the EU who will be happy to increase its market share at the EU expense

Britania rules the waves. Good luck. We can recycle all the arguments again: proximity, high-cost country, lack of natural resources, lack of other trade agreements etc.

But it is no use, so good luck. It is the choice of the current UK government to weigh in all the consequences of their decision. January 1st we can finally close these threads. After that, if the UK wants a trade agreement, I hope they are at the back of the line. The EU has tried and failed, so no more effort needs to be put into it if the UK isn't willing to shift their ground. Better to trade with countries who actually want something and see the mutual beneficial relationship.

I am glad we have the EU who does protect my rights and the rights of 450.000.000 other EU citizens.

Arion640 wrote:

Well summed up by this French MEP
https://youtu.be/lSseSjouB2A

Jérome Riviere is a RN member. He is as anti EU than you. Do you think we should also ask Farage for advice ?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, the UK will have non-preferential access (except for a number of - financial - services), with the highest tariffs, thus behind everybody else.

Well so be it...…...we too can give preferential treatment to other like minded nations outside the EU who will be happy to increase its market share at the EU expense

Britania rules the waves. Good luck. We can recycle all the arguments again: proximity, high-cost country, lack of natural resources, lack of other trade agreements etc.

But it is no use, so good luck. It is the choice of the current UK government to weigh in all the consequences of their decision. January 1st we can finally close these threads. After that, if the UK wants a trade agreement, I hope they are at the back of the line. The EU has tried and failed, so no more effort needs to be put into it if the UK isn't willing to shift their ground. Better to trade with countries who actually want something and see the mutual beneficial relationship.

I am glad we have the EU who does protect my rights and the rights of 450.000.000 other EU citizens.

Each to their own

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well so be it...…...we too can give preferential treatment to other like minded nations outside the EU who will be happy to increase its market share at the EU expense

Britania rules the waves. Good luck. We can recycle all the arguments again: proximity, high-cost country, lack of natural resources, lack of other trade agreements etc.

But it is no use, so good luck. It is the choice of the current UK government to weigh in all the consequences of their decision. January 1st we can finally close these threads. After that, if the UK wants a trade agreement, I hope they are at the back of the line. The EU has tried and failed, so no more effort needs to be put into it if the UK isn't willing to shift their ground. Better to trade with countries who actually want something and see the mutual beneficial relationship.

I am glad we have the EU who does protect my rights and the rights of 450.000.000 other EU citizens.

Each to their own

Strange reaction, not even sure what it is a reaction to. But fine.

Olddog wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Well summed up by this French MEP
https://youtu.be/lSseSjouB2A

Jérome Riviere is a RN member. He is as anti EU than you. Do you think we should also ask Farage for advice ?

Democratically elected so obviously part of the French population agree with him.

Arion640 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Well summed up by this French MEP
https://youtu.be/lSseSjouB2A

Jérome Riviere is a RN member. He is as anti EU than you. Do you think we should also ask Farage for advice ?

Democratically elected so obviously part of the French population agree with him.

Point being made is, indeed, part of the French population, with emphases on part, agrees with them.

Why must we seek advice from this person? Lots of people got themselves elected. If you get around 40.000 people behind you, you can get yourself elected in the Dutch parliament. Given the diversity of the Dutch parliament, there are a lot of people with dubious views being elected. So just being elected is quite a low bar to cross.

Seems to me that Brexiteers agree with him, because he blames Barnier for not giving the Brexiteers what they want: full access with 100% UK rules. To bring back a golden oldy: that unicorn will not fly. Sorry you have been told a lie, but the cold hard reality is that you cannot have your cake and eat it, cherry-picking is not an option.

A101 wrote:

It says: "Should & Current High Level” so all the EU should be asking is a non-regression pact not demanding we follow into EU laws in perpetuity

The EU should handcuff itself to current regulations? Or otherwise risk EU jobs moving to the UK?

The EU should not be doing anything, except look out for the interests of EU citizens. The UK is way too small to be in a position to demand what the EU should do.

AeroVega wrote:

A101 wrote:

It says: "Should & Current High Level” so all the EU should be asking is a non-regression pact not demanding we follow into EU laws in perpetuity

The EU should handcuff itself to current regulations? Or otherwise risk EU jobs moving to the UK?

The EU should not be doing anything, except look out for the interests of EU citizens. The UK is way too small to be in a position to demand what the EU should do.

correct. Different sizes, so yeah, not fair, but that is how it works in the world. Come to think of it, would the Brexiteers demand something similar from the US? That would be fun to watch with Trump at the helm.

In trump us and china world fair trade thru wto is over and size eveeything...

AeroVega wrote:

The EU should handcuff itself to current regulations? Or otherwise risk EU jobs moving to the UK?

Wow; you are talking about divergence from the current regulations, the point being is that the EU is demanding more than the PD is asking of the UK but at the same time saying the UK is backsliding from the PD, it can’t be both.

Dutchy wrote:

correct. Different sizes, so yeah, not fair, but that is how it works in the world. Come to think of it, would the Brexiteers demand something similar from the US? That would be fun to watch with Trump at the helm.

China is a bigger market economically and density, are you willing to go into regulatory alignment with China for a trade deal

Arion640 wrote:

Well summed up by this French MEP
https://youtu.be/lSseSjouB2A

French anti-EU MEP, member of Marine Le Pen's party.

A101 wrote:

China is a bigger market economically and density, are you willing to go into regulatory alignment with China for a trade deal

Brexiteers still don’t understand how regulations work, eh?

The party with the higher standard already satisfies the lower standard. The clue is so obvious, one wonders why it needs to be highlighted: “higher standard”. Unless, of course, you actually believe that China’s standards exceed the EUs. Bit too nonsensical for me, but then again, I’m not a Brexiteer, so less susceptible to these types of claims.

Anyway, it’s a moot point. As import markets go, the EU is a larger market than the China. As imports go, the biggest markets are the US, EU and China in that order. Just a fact that’s completely at odds with the premise of your comparison.

The corollary is that if the UK commits to adopting higher standards than the EU, there is no need for regulatory alignment with the EU. Instead EU companies will have to meet UK standards.

For some reason, this simple solution doesn’t appeal to Brexiteers. Why? Is it because Brexiteers favour lower standards?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

correct. Different sizes, so yeah, not fair, but that is how it works in the world. Come to think of it, would the Brexiteers demand something similar from the US? That would be fun to watch with Trump at the helm.

China is a bigger market economically and density, are you willing to go into regulatory alignment with China for a trade deal

Besides what ElPistolero said. The UK wants something: a new trade agreement. The EU has shifted her ground, a hard Brexit is contained, there are more important things.

It all boils down to that the Brexiteers seem to think they are equal or have the upper hand. Can't blame them, it is what has been told during the Brexit campaign. But there were also promises of all the Trade agreements. Have any actually been brokered? Or is each country still waiting for the UK? If the deadline is near, there must some great bargains to gain. NHS privatised to an US corporation anyone?

ElPistolero wrote:

Brexiteers still don’t understand how regulations work, eh?

The party with the higher standard already satisfies the lower standard. The clue is so obvious, one wonders why it needs to be highlighted: “higher standard”. Unless, of course, you actually believe that China’s standards exceed the EUs. Bit too nonsensical for me, but then again, I’m not a Brexiteer, so less susceptible to these types of claims.

The analogy still stands as the standards can change for better or worse, it’s not a case here whom has the higher standards but the context of the debate is just because one party in the talks are smaller then the other has to give in to the larger parties demands on regulatory alignment

In the hypothetical of China demanding the EU alignment itself is not about standards it’s about economic impact overall, China doesn’t want to increase its costs to produce to EU standards. It’s the same context of dutchy post demanding of the UK to the US currently the UK has different standards by your comment they are higher. On that basis alone the one with “higher “ standards is reason enough for demanding regulatory alignment when clearly it is not the case at all.

In both case it’s about economic dominance over the smaller party that is what the EU is trying to achieve over the UK with regulatory alignment

Dutchy wrote:

Besides what ElPistolero said. The UK wants something: a new trade agreement. The EU has shifted her ground, a hard Brexit is contained, there are more important things.

It all boils down to that the Brexiteers seem to think they are equal or have the upper hand. Can't blame them, it is what has been told during the Brexit campaign. But there were also promises of all the Trade agreements. Have any actually been brokered? Or is each country still waiting for the UK? If the deadline is near, there must some great bargains to gain. NHS privatised to an US corporation anyone?

The only FTA deadline is with the EU due to the transition period ending in the hope of a some balance for trade at the end as WTO has financial impacts for both.

But demanding regulatory alignment shows the arrogance of the EU towards the UK because a major economic member dared to do what was once unthinkable and leave the EU project.

As to other negotiations they have start and how the UK handles Brussels demand will have an impact on any perceived resolve on the UK with other nations. The other negotiations are not being played out in the media and have nowhere near the level of acrimonious levels seen in negotiations as with the EU.

The Australians have had a trade deal with the US for sometime, I haven’t seen medicare(similar to the NHS)privatised to US corporations and Australia is a much smaller fish in the pond nor been forced into regulatory alignment

Ouch. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.r ... SKBN23M0KT

Well Germany has to keep her empire funded some how.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Besides what ElPistolero said. The UK wants something: a new trade agreement. The EU has shifted her ground, a hard Brexit is contained, there are more important things.

It all boils down to that the Brexiteers seem to think they are equal or have the upper hand. Can't blame them, it is what has been told during the Brexit campaign. But there were also promises of all the Trade agreements. Have any actually been brokered? Or is each country still waiting for the UK? If the deadline is near, there must some great bargains to gain. NHS privatised to an US corporation anyone?

The only FTA deadline is with the EU due to the transition period ending in the hope of a some balance for trade at the end as WTO has financial impacts for both.

But demanding regulatory alignment shows the arrogance of the EU towards the UK because a major economic member dared to do what was once unthinkable and leave the EU project.

As to other negotiations they have start and how the UK handles Brussels demand will have an impact on any perceived resolve on the UK with other nations. The other negotiations are not being played out in the media and have nowhere near the level of acrimonious levels seen in negotiations as with the EU.

The Australians have had a trade deal with the US for sometime, I haven’t seen medicare(similar to the NHS)privatised to US corporations and Australia is a much smaller fish in the pond nor been forced into regulatory alignment

The funny thing is, is that most people don’t realise parts of the NHS are already privatised and have been for many, many years.

For starters, GP and dentists are all generally privately owned. Maintenance, hospitality and cleaning are also pretty much in private hands.

Plenty of companies can provide a cheaper service at a high standard, which is acceptable as long as providers are held to account.

mm I seem to have not posted the entire reply to ElPistolero for some reason; but here it is

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, it’s a moot point. As import markets go, the EU is a larger market than the China. As imports go, the biggest markets are the US, EU and China in that order. Just a fact that’s completely at odds with the premise of your comparison.

Agree it’s a moot point as the EU does not have an FTA with either country.
As trade goes the EU is in trade surplus with the US and deficit with China overall

ElPistolero wrote:

The corollary is that if the UK commits to adopting higher standards than the EU, there is no need for regulatory alignment with the EU. Instead EU companies will have to meet UK standards.

That’s wrong as the UK cannot change EU regulations on its own independently currently, the whole reason that the EU is demanding regulatory alignment is to stay in lock step with the EU. If the UK was to move its own regulations over and above or in any other direction then that can become a trade barrier to EU goods hence the reason why the EU is demanding regulatory alignment.

ElPistolero wrote:

For some reason, this simple solution doesn’t appeal to Brexiteers. Why? Is it because Brexiteers favour lower standards?

I don’t fear US or Australian/New Zealand food standards as I have been eating it on and off for quite some time, if anything I actually prefer Australian beef as I have found it tastes better is is of good quality

Arion640 wrote:

Ouch. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.r ... SKBN23M0KT

Well Germany has to keep her empire funded some how.

wauw, from the article: "around 1.075% of their gross domestic product into the budget over the next seven years, based on 2018 GDP. "

Some know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

A101 wrote:

The analogy still stands as the standards can change for better or worse, it’s not a case here whom has the higher standards but the context of the debate is just because one party in the talks are smaller then the other has to give in to the larger parties demands on regulatory alignment

Nope. Its about aligning with the highest standards. In this case, it just so happens that one side does not want to commit to retaining equally high (or higher) standards. The EU’s stance: WTO rules, then.

A101 wrote:

In the hypothetical of China demanding the EU alignment itself is not about standards it’s about economic impact overall, China doesn’t want to increase its costs to produce to EU standards.

Then China retains its current level of access to the EU market. The Chinese stance has no bearing on EU current EU exports since they already meet the lower Chinese standards. Simply put, the EU has nothing to lose under status quo.

Now if the EU is desperate for an FTA with China, it can theoretically issue waivers for China-origin goods, which is not the same thing as dropping it’s own standards. It doesn’t need to, and it’s exports will still meet Chinese standards by virtue of exceeding them.

Simply put, the EU does not risk undercutting China. Consequently, as long as it meets Chinese standards, why would China care if the EU holds itself to higher standards (and puts itself at a disadvantage through higher costs)? It’s the same with the UK; if UK standards exceed EU standards, the regulatory alignment issue will have been addressed.

The UK wants these types of waivers, but the EU isn’t desperate enough. If it was, it would. It’s all a cost-benefit analysis, and for better or worse, the EU views the cost (integrity of the single market) as higher than the benefit.

A101 wrote:

It’s the same context of dutchy post demanding of the UK to the US currently the UK has different standards by your comment they are higher. On that basis alone the one with “higher “ standards is reason enough for demanding regulatory alignment when clearly it is not the case at all.

The UK wants a free trade agreement with the US. Agriculture - particularly meat - is a key stumbling block. The US appears to be making that the price of an FTA - the price of preferential access.

Your comparison only holds if the EU desperately wants a UK-US style FTA with China. We both know that isn’t the case. In the US-UK case it’s different. The UK needs a US trade deal just to strengthen its negotiating position with the EU.

The US is sufficiently less concerned about securing a trade deal in the short term than the UK is. It’s worst case is (what has long been a perfectly acceptable) status quo. That means it doesn’t need an FTA as much as the UK. Certainly not in the short term. Or to put it more directly, it can afford to wait out UK resistance to its demands, and see if the UK will cave.

This, of course, is a direct consequence of not yet securing preferential access to about 45-50% of your main market. Everybody and their dog knows the UK looking for replacement markets. And they’re going to be pricy about it. It’s in their interest to be pricy about it. It’s why the UK hasn’t secured as many trade deals as it thought it would have by now. Everybody is watching and waiting to see what happens with the EU.

A101 wrote:

In both case it’s about economic dominance over the smaller party that is what the EU is trying to achieve over the UK with regulatory alignment

[/quote]

The only way that argument would work is if the EU risks losing preferential access to 45-50% of its main export market and desperately needs access to China to make up for it. Thing is, they haven’t. Brexit will be significant - but the UK doesn’t account for 45-50% of EU exports. The impact of no deal just isn’t the same. That’s where the relative discrepancy in negotiating power lies. The EU thinks it can absorb a no deal with relatively lower disruption than the UK.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Besides what ElPistolero said. The UK wants something: a new trade agreement. The EU has shifted her ground, a hard Brexit is contained, there are more important things.

It all boils down to that the Brexiteers seem to think they are equal or have the upper hand. Can't blame them, it is what has been told during the Brexit campaign. But there were also promises of all the Trade agreements. Have any actually been brokered? Or is each country still waiting for the UK? If the deadline is near, there must some great bargains to gain. NHS privatised to an US corporation anyone?

The only FTA deadline is with the EU due to the transition period ending in the hope of a some balance for trade at the end as WTO has financial impacts for both.

Ok no FTA yet,,check. Yes, both will suffer but the financial consequences for the UK are much greater. It is a lose - lose.

A101 wrote:

But demanding regulatory alignment shows the arrogance of the EU towards the UK because a major economic member dared to do what was once unthinkable and leave the EU project.

Assumption without evidence. Quite the contrary I would say, lots of understanding and restrained for the UK is shown.

The UK citizens were promised full access to the. EU internal market, The EU. is willing to do that but it has a. price. If the UK doesn't want it that fine, another FTA deal is there. Will be less beneficial for the UK, but fine, the UK are independent. UK choice.

A101 wrote:

As to other negotiations they have start and how the UK handles Brussels demand will have an impact on any perceived resolve on the UK with other nations. The other negotiations are not being played out in the media and have nowhere near the level of acrimonious levels seen in negotiations as with the EU.

So you are either very well informed and have inside knowledge, or you have a public source for this remarkable statement,

A101 wrote:

The Australians have had a trade deal with the US for sometime, I haven’t seen medicare(similar to the NHS)privatised to US corporations and Australia is a much smaller fish in the pond nor been forced into regulatory alignment

Does Australia have a comprehensive trade deal with full access to the internal American market? If not, it is not quite the same. UK's choice. what kind of deal you want. The UK agreed to dozens of them when they were in the EU, so they know them, so choice if Johnson is serious, if not serious then just go on like this.

A101 wrote:

The only FTA deadline is with the EU due to the transition period ending in the hope of a some balance for trade at the end as WTO has financial impacts for both.

Yes, the economics are bad for both. Remainers have been pointing that out for years. But Brexiteers put political considerations above economic considerations.

Bit daft - and outright hypocritical - then, to criticize the EU for responding by putting non-economic considerations ahead of economics considerations.

Brexiteers started this nonsense. The EU has always said everyone would be worse off as a result of it. Bit late to complain about it now.

A101 wrote:

But demanding regulatory alignment shows the arrogance of the EU towards the UK because a major economic member dared to do what was once unthinkable and leave the EU project.

Uh, no. The EU isn’t demanding regulatory alignment in all scenarios. It is only demanding regulatory alignment IF the UK wants preferential access to the EU single market. If the UK wants to go WTO, the regulatory alignment requirement ceases to exist.

The victim complex is really weird.

A101 wrote:

As to other negotiations they have start and how the UK handles Brussels demand will have an impact on any perceived resolve on the UK with other nations. The other negotiations are not being played out in the media and have nowhere near the level of acrimonious levels seen in negotiations as with the EU.

I mean, the nicest thing we can say here is: glass houses. No one can go around comparing the EU to Nazis and the Soviet Union and expect things to go swimmingly....

As for other countries, a lot of them are keeping their powder dry to see if the UK zeroes out tariffs in the event of no deal, which will provide them with more access to the UK market, without giving anything up.

A101 wrote:

The Australians have had a trade deal with the US for sometime, I haven’t seen medicare(similar to the NHS)privatised to US corporations and Australia is a much smaller fish in the pond nor been forced into regulatory alignment

I don’t know much about that trade deal, but according to the site below, Australia-US trade is impressively insignificant. Apparently Australia exported only USD 10 billion to the US - 4% of its exports - in 2018. Compare that to China (36%), Japan (17%), South Korea (7%), India (5%) and Hong Kong (3%). I get the sense that this trade deal isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be.

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/ ... by-country

Anyway, it’s evident most of Australian exports go to Asian countries. It’s that whole geography thing that - as I recall - you refuse to acknowledge.

I think I know what you were going for, but you couldn’t have picked a worse example. If anything, it reinforces the importance of geography in trade.