Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:48 pm

ElPistolero wrote:

Ah, you’re trying a new line of attack to see if it will stick. Might need to rework it a bit though because you’re inventing things now.



Nope been calling that way for a long time, just have to look back over the numerous thread to see that


ElPistolero wrote:

The regulatory alignment piece was about frictionless trade/no border checks etc. That’s why NI will be in regulatory alignment with the EU, removing the requirement for border checks on the island of Ireland, but requiring border checks between NI and GB in the event of no deal.



Nope we have all moved on from that,the EU has been saying the regulatory alignment is the price for a trade deal for sometime, hence why they said they would not move on until the next phase until the WA was secured, but that was under a different lead Government with different aspirations. The EU hasn’t come to terms yet it’s no longer dealing with a hostile parliament and a pro EU leader under May. Hence the no movement in the current negotiations

ElPistolero wrote:

As has been pointed out many times before, it’s about ensuring that companies that want to sell in the EU don’t bypass regulatory checks by setting up shop in the UK, if the UK maintains wide, frictionless access to the EU as part of any deal.



Really how are they going to bypass regulatory checks, the level integration and trade barriers checks and balance will ensure that.

The EU aspect of regulatory alignment is not only about ensuring industry remains on the continent but also to make it more difficult and costly for others to increase market share in the UK as the EU currently dominates imports to the UK.

ElPistolero wrote:
It has no bearing on what the UK sells to Mozambique.



Off course it does regulatory alignment means we have to compete from the same standards and move in the same direction as the EU and in any future standards instead of independently.

I have never looked into what standards Mozambique has, but just like Australia has different standards because of EU regulations the only agricultural products shipped are at EU standards industry can’t compete except on price point and that relies on CAP to help reduce the price on goods

ElPistolero wrote:
And? They don’t want companies setting up in a weaker regulatory regime in the UK and selling into the EU with easier access than if they were based outside the UK?



EU regulations and trade barriers will see that they do not, we will never be trading again like we were in the SM

ElPistolero wrote:

No. The EU is simply saying that if the UK wants a high level of access without stringent border checks etc, it needs to have a regulatory regime that allows that. Otherwise, WTO.


The EU has said they want a “deep and comprehensive agreement” which can be taken to be a Norway style of agreement, the Johnson government is saying it wants a CETA+ or if that can’t happen trade on WTO

ElPistolero wrote:

Question is, why is the UK so adamant that it should have frictionless access while promising to diverge on regulations?


Well it’s not hard to figure out that one is it, it wants the best deal it can get just like any transactions you go in high or low depending if you are the buyer or seller and hopefully meet somewhere in the middle above your minimum expectations.

We actually have not said we will diverge, but being a independent sovereign nation gives us that right to do so in the future if the EU moves in a direction not in the interests of the UK

ElPistolero wrote:

They abide with EU regulations now.


Because it’s the law, under the 2018 Withdrawal Act. What ever on the books at that time stays until an act of parliament changes it

ElPistolero wrote:

But there’s an explicit promise of divergence which suggests they might not in the future. Why should the EU not factor that divergence in and ask for guarantees? The other way of doing this is to diverge first, then work out what kind of trade deal works.


No the UK has done no such thing. All the UK has said we will no longer be a rule taker from the EU if anything under future laws it’s the EU that actually diverges from the UK by changing its own rules in its interests

ElPistolero wrote:

As for protectionism, of course it is. Brexit is an inherently protectionist endeavor. Brexiteers wanted the native population to be protected from EU migrants, be it in jobs, schools whatever. Control who comes in, etc. Post-Brexit, the EU is taking back control on the goods that enter its borders.


Really the UK was the most multi-cultural of all the EU members, but there a big difference from unsustainable migration to controlled migration, i thinks its best if you look at the policy of other members first

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit- ... ssels/amp/



ElPistolero wrote:

The protectionist element that’s being injected here was created by Brexiteers. We all know that.


The protectionism rhetoric has been around long before Brexit and I suspect long after
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1981
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:35 am

A101 wrote:

Nope we have all moved on from that,the EU has been saying the regulatory alignment is the price for a trade deal for sometime, hence why they said they would not move on until the next phase until the WA was secured, but that was under a different lead Government with different aspirations. The EU hasn’t come to terms yet it’s no longer dealing with a hostile parliament and a pro EU leader under May. Hence the no movement in the current negotiations


Okay, I’ll bite. Where are they saying that?

Also, the WA was renegotiated under Boris Johnson. Why are we rewriting history here? Either way, as a general rule, a change in government in one country has no bearing on the positions or policies of others.

In any case, why are you guys so hung up on it? The WTO rules - the ...errr ...Australia style deal still exists. You’ll get a “trade deal”. What’s with the victim complex?
A101 wrote:
Really how are they going to bypass regulatory checks, the level integration and trade barriers checks and balance will ensure that.


Frictionless = no border checks. If goods coming from the UK bypass checks (goods from third countries entering the UK only have to meet UK standards rather than EU standards), that puts the integrity of the single market at risk.

This is so self-evident, I don’t know what you’re trying to argue here.

A101 wrote:
The EU aspect of regulatory alignment is not only about ensuring industry remains on the continent but also to make it more difficult and costly for others to increase market share in the UK as the EU currently dominates imports to the UK.


Only to the extent that they don’t want sub-EU standard products leaking into the single market without border checks.

There is a way around this. WTO rules with border checks. It’s the UK’s choice.

A101 wrote:
Off course it does regulatory alignment means we have to compete from the same standards and move in the same direction as the EU and in any future standards instead of independently.

I have never looked into what standards Mozambique has, but just like Australia has different standards because of EU regulations the only agricultural products shipped are at EU standards industry can’t compete except on price point and that relies on CAP to help reduce the price on goods


Makes you wonder how Germany, Italy, Netherlands and France all make the top 10 list of exporters. All of them export more than the UK too. The EU, despite its “higher” standards, is the biggest exporter in the world.

But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story haha.

A101 wrote:
EU regulations and trade barriers will see that they do not, we will never be trading again like we were in the SM


Indeed. As I recall, the EU has been making that clear since the day after Brexit.

Soooo... what’s the issue?

A101 wrote:
The EU has said they want a “deep and comprehensive agreement” which can be taken to be a Norway style of agreement, the Johnson government is saying it wants a CETA+ or if that can’t happen trade on WTO


You mean the EU is holding Johnson to agreements he ..err.. agreed to.

Not sure what your point is here. Should they be working on the assumption that he was lying?

A101 wrote:
Well it’s not hard to figure out that one is it, it wants the best deal it can get just like any transactions you go in high or low depending if you are the buyer or seller and hopefully meet somewhere in the middle above your minimum expectations.

We actually have not said we will diverge, but being a independent sovereign nation gives us that right to do so in the future if the EU moves in a direction not in the interests of the UK


The EU set out it’s stall years ago. Bit late to cry now about them meaning what they said. As for a future agreement, if Brexiteers can’t even stand by the agreement they signed up to, why should the EU take chances and hope the UK doesn’t diverge.

A101 wrote:
No the UK has done no such thing. All the UK has said we will no longer be a rule taker from the EU if anything under future laws it’s the EU that actually diverges from the UK by changing its own rules in its interests


Okay, fair. Implicit then.

The only way they can predict future UK behaviour is by listening to what Brexiteers say now. And they do talk a lot about divergence.

You just spent half your post justifying divergence and it’s benefits yourself.

A101 wrote:
Really the UK was the most multi-cultural of all the EU members, but there a big difference from unsustainable migration to controlled migration, i thinks its best if you look at the policy of other members first

https:www.politico.eu/article/brexit-diversity-exits-the-eu-brussels/amp/


Okay, replace “native” with “British”. Pressure on housing; pressure on jobs; pressure on healthcare etc. Wasn’t that what this was all about? Protecting Britain from free movement.

Imposing barriers on free movement, just like free trade, is protectionist. Ultimately, it’s becomes a case of quality/utility of the good/person taking second place to its (or his/her) country of origin.

Why pretend like they’re different things? You’re a big proponent of controlling what comes into ones borders, no?

A101 wrote:
The protectionism rhetoric has been around long before Brexit and I suspect long after


In the context of the future relationship with the EU, it was, is, and will remain a Brexiteer demand. Even if they are just parroting long-standing BNP policy.

Allow free movement, and a lot of your gripes about trade will be addressed.
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:06 am

ElPistolero wrote:

Okay, I’ll bite. Where are they saying that?


The most recent is via the EU Parliament "MEPs Demand EU Make Regulatory Alignment the Price for UK Trade Deal"
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/0 ... rade-deal/

ElPistolero wrote:

Also, the WA was renegotiated under Boris Johnson. Why are we rewriting history here?



Yes poor words on my part, majority of the WA was under the May government and hostile Parliament, The Johnson government didn't have the time nor the support from Parliament or from the EU to make an agreement solely of his doing

ElPistolero wrote:

Either way, as a general rule, a change in government in one country has no bearing on the positions or policies of others.


But as history showed us it did, the EU was uncompromising to change the WA under PM May until PM Johnson came to power. The EU was gambled on the hostile UK parliament to do its biding for it.

ElPistolero wrote:
In any case, why are you guys so hung up on it? The WTO rules - the ...errr ...Australia style deal still exists. You’ll get a “trade deal”. What’s with the victim complex?


There is no victim complex just your perception, like the EU we too are taking an unyielding position towards regulatory alignment

ElPistolero wrote:

Frictionless = no border checks. If goods coming from the UK bypass checks (goods from third countries entering the UK only have to meet UK standards rather than EU standards), that puts the integrity of the single market at risk.

This is so self-evident, I don’t know what you’re trying to argue here.


Trade between the EU/UK was never going to be 100% frictionless, even trade within the EU is not 100% frictionless there is still a regulatory reporting burden

ElPistolero wrote:

Only to the extent that they don’t want sub-EU standard products leaking into the single market without border checks.



As I said before there was always going to be border checks under any trade agreement we signed

ElPistolero wrote:
There is a way around this. WTO rules with border checks. It’s the UK’s choice.


I've got no problem trading on WTO, but even FTA come with border checks

ElPistolero wrote:
Makes you wonder how Germany, Italy, Netherlands and France all make the top 10 list of exporters. All of them export more than the UK too. The EU, despite its “higher” standards, is the biggest exporter in the world.


I didn't say they could not compete just that it is harder to compete against countries with different standards, and which means price point becomes an important tool because of the subsidies like CAP.

ElPistolero wrote:
But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story haha.


Just a few facts of exports: included in exports stats is country specific so exports within the EU are counted as exports with the majority within the EU

From a continental perspective, about three-quarters of exports by value from the Netherlands were delivered to fellow European countries while 10.4% were sold to importers in Asia. The Netherlands shipped another 5.7% worth of goods to North America. Smaller percentages went to Africa (2.7%), Latin America excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean (1.9%) then Oceania led by Australia and New Zealand (0.6%).

From a continental perspective, about two-thirds (65.6%) of Germany’s exports by value were delivered to fellow European countries while 18.1% were sold to importers in Asia. Germany shipped another 10.8% worth of goods to North America. Smaller percentages went to Africa (1.8%), Latin America (1.7%) excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean then Oceania led by Australia and New Zealand (0.8%).

From a continental perspective, 64.3% of France exports by value were delivered to fellow European countries while 17.4% were sold to importers in Asia. France shipped another 10% worth of goods to North America and Africa (5.2%). Smaller percentages went to Latin America excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean (1.9%) then Oceania led by Australia (1%).



ElPistolero wrote:
You mean the EU is holding Johnson to agreements he ..err.. agreed to.

Not sure what your point is here. Should they be working on the assumption that he was lying?


its a frame work and interpretation which could be used as a guided, there was nothing in the PD that compelled the UK to give what the EU is demanding

ElPistolero wrote:
The EU set out it’s stall years ago. Bit late to cry now about them meaning what they said.


Many people have said it over the years even to PM May, Barnier is jumping up and down because someone finally on our side has the gumption to put there foot down to the EU, we are far from crying we are standing up and applauding Johnson and his negotiations team under David Frost

ElPistolero wrote:

As for a future agreement, if Brexiteers can’t even stand by the agreement they signed up to, why should the EU take chances and hope the UK doesn’t diverge
.


Which agreement would that be?
And where have we broken it?


ElPistolero wrote:
The only way they can predict future UK behaviour is by listening to what Brexiteers say now. And they do talk a lot about divergence.
.


Only when the EU moves away from the current rules as they stand

ElPistolero wrote:

You just spent half your post justifying divergence and it’s benefits yourself.
.


Ahumm:...……... against continued regulatory alignment as you say no one can predict what laws the EU will change that can have a negative outcome for the UK

ElPistolero wrote:
Okay, replace “native” with “British”. Pressure on housing; pressure on jobs; pressure on healthcare etc. Wasn’t that what this was all about? Protecting Britain from free movement.

Imposing barriers on free movement, just like free trade, is protectionist. Ultimately, it’s becomes a case of quality/utility of the good/person taking second place to its (or his/her) country of origin.
.


You actually contorted the original context earlier to protectionism into immigration, and yes Brexit and leaving the EU four freedoms give the UK the ability to control migration so it can reduce pressure on all those things listed, every country in the world imposes immigration controls as does the EU to its external borders. one of the benefits of Brexit it reduce the free movement of the EU into a more controlled manor.

This does not stop people from migrating to the UK only it give the UK more control on who comes when and why


ElPistolero wrote:

In the context of the future relationship with the EU, it was, is, and will remain a Brexiteer demand. Even if they are just parroting long-standing BNP policy.
.


Its not only the UK who have that line of thought, I've been to a few countries around the world and its seems to be a reoccurring theme

Even Cecilia Malmström, who was the EU Trade Commissioner thinks the EU is protectionist
She warned of an increasing demand among European politicians to link trade deals to climate and sustainability goals, and of the ongoing sway of the Continent's protectionist farm lobbies.


https://www.afr.com/world/europe/austra ... 519-p54u69

ElPistolero wrote:
Allow free movement, and a lot of your gripes about trade will be addressed.
.


So are you saying if we agree to free movement the EU will give up its fisheries demand and along with regulatory alignment?
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1981
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:18 am

A101 wrote:
The most recent is via the EU Parliament "MEPs Demand EU Make Regulatory Alignment the Price for UK Trade Deal"
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/0 ... rade-deal/


Breitbart? Really? I’m not giving those hacks ad revenue. Please link to a journalism outlet (left or right wing - don’t care as long as they live up to some basic journalistic standards)

A101 wrote:
Yes poor words on my part, majority of the WA was under the May government and hostile Parliament, The Johnson government didn't have the time nor the support from Parliament or from the EU to make an agreement solely of his doing


Then he shouldn’t have signed up to it. This isn’t rocket science.

A101 wrote:
But as history showed us it did, the EU was uncompromising to change the WA under PM May until PM Johnson came to power. The EU was gambled on the hostile UK parliament to do its biding for it.


So what? They didn’t need to do it then, and they don’t need to do it again. “They showed some flexibility, therefore they should just keep rolling over” is a not a strong argument.

A101 wrote:
There is no victim complex just your perception, like the EU we too are taking an unyielding position towards regulatory alignment


Cool. So what’s the issue? That the EU isn’t accepting UK demands unconditionally?

A101 wrote:
Trade between the EU/UK was never going to be 100% frictionless, even trade within the EU is not 100% frictionless there is still a regulatory reporting burden


Oh, semantics. Okay, we can play that game. The level of “frictionless” that we will see on the island of Ireland going forward.

A101 wrote:
As I said before there was always going to be border checks under any trade agreement we signed


Really? Any trade deal that looks like whatever is going to happen between NI and RoI would not require whatever level of border checks are required under WTO. In fact, it doesn’t. It only requires checks between GB and Ireland.

Clearly there are some trade deals that don’t require WTO level border checks.

A101 wrote:
I've got no problem trading on WTO, but even FTA come with border checks


So advocate in favour of that. Instead of complaining about the EU so much.

A101 wrote:
I didn't say they could not compete just that it is harder to compete against countries with different standards, and which means price point becomes an important tool because of the subsidies like CAP.

From a continental perspective, about three-quarters of exports by value from the Netherlands were delivered to fellow European countries while 10.4% were sold to importers in Asia. The Netherlands shipped another 5.7% worth of goods to North America. Smaller percentages went to Africa (2.7%), Latin America excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean (1.9%) then Oceania led by Australia and New Zealand (0.6%).


Cool. By the same token - from the same site you used:

“Applying a continental lens, over half of the United Kingdom exports by value were delivered to fellow European countries while 23.2% were sold to Asian importers. The UK shipped another 17.3% worth of goods to North American importers.

Smaller percentages went to Africa (2.3%), Oceania (1.4%) led by Australia and New Zealand, then Latin America excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean (1.3%).”

I’m sure Australia will make up for the market the UK loses in Europe.

A101 wrote:
its a frame work and interpretation which could be used as a guided, there was nothing in the PD that compelled the UK to give what the EU is demanding


Yes, it’s not binding. But it is a declaration of intent.

Anyway, it seems your issue is that the EU is sticking to its interpretation of a framework that is open to interpretation.

A101 wrote:
Many people have said it over the years even to PM May, Barnier is jumping up and down because someone finally on our side has the gumption to put there foot down to the EU, we are far from crying we are standing up and applauding Johnson and his negotiations team under David Frost


Is that it? I think we’re all waiting for the UK to blow up the talks, as the pro-Brexit Spectator has been predicting for months. We’re all kind of bored of the “I am UK; hear me roar” chest-thumping or gumption or whatever you call it. It’s just domestic political theatre. It’s audience has basically been whittled down to jingoistic Brexiteers.

A101 wrote:
Which agreement would that be?
And where have we broken it?


The Political Declaration evidently. And I didn’t say “broken” - I said the UK isn’t standing by them.

"In all areas, the UK continues to backtrack under commitments undertaken in the political declaration, including on fisheries. We cannot and will not accept this backtracking on the political declaration."

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics ... rade-talks

That’s from 3 days ago.

A101 wrote:
Only when the EU moves away from the current rules as they stand


But even that’s not guaranteed, is it? If the US applies enough pressure on hormone-injected beef as a condition for an FTA....

A101 wrote:
Ahumm:...……... against continued regulatory alignment as you say no one can predict what laws the EU will change that can have a negative outcome for the UK


You gave up your seat at the table voluntarily. Either take your chances, or go full WTO.

Should point out that Switzerland and Norway don’t seem particularly fussed.

A101 wrote:
You actually contorted the original context earlier to protectionism into immigration, and yes Brexit and leaving the EU four freedoms give the UK the ability to control migration so it can reduce pressure on all those things listed, every country in the world imposes immigration controls as does the EU to its external borders. one of the benefits of Brexit it reduce the free movement of the EU into a more controlled manor.


Contorted? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Just a bit rich to chide the EU for being protectionist when the prime instinct driving Brexit was protectionism, albeit through a labour lens, rather than a goods lens. That all countries do it does not make it “not protectionist”. The EU doesn’t do it between member states, for example.

A101 wrote:
This does not stop people from migrating to the UK only it give the UK more control on who comes when and why


Indeed. And a WTO trade deal - Australia or whatever it’s called - does not stop the UK from trading with the EU. It just gives the EU more control on what comes in and why. I mean, they buy more than 50% of UK exports, and they agreed to renegotiate the WA, but all they keep hearing is “no deal” or “Australia” or something, as well as some backtracking. Who wouldn’t get fed up?

A101 wrote:
Its not only the UK who have that line of thought, I've been to a few countries around the world and its seems to be a reoccurring theme

Even Cecilia Malmström, who was the EU Trade Commissioner thinks the EU is protectionist

She warned of an increasing demand among European politicians to link trade deals to climate and sustainability goals, and of the ongoing sway of the Continent's protectionist farm lobbies.
https://www.afr.com/world/europe/austra ... 519-p54u69


And? Virtually every country you want to do a trade deal with has protectionist policies in one sector or the other. The current US administration wears its protectionism as a badge of honour. They also all have very stringent immigration controls.

Is it India that’s making freer movement of labour a condition for allowing freer movement of goods?

Two sides of the same coin.

Like I said, a brexiteer trying to accuse others of protectionism is a bit too pot/kettle to take seriously.

A101 wrote:
So are you saying if we agree to free movement the EU will give up its fisheries demand and along with regulatory alignment?


Maybe. Maybe not. Put it on the table and see what happens. But Brexiteers won’t, so we will never know.

There was a time when Brexiteers thought Norway would be a good model. Remember that? But that required free movement. And the Brexiteer protectionists just couldn’t handle that.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21541
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:40 am

A101 wrote:
But as history showed us it did, the EU was uncompromising to change the WA under PM May until PM Johnson came to power. The EU was gambled on the hostile UK parliament to do its biding for it.

Nonsense. Johnson just caved in to the EU's long-standing preference after May had been unable to reach a compromise, torn apart between her own sanity, the DUP and the rabid Brexiters.

The actual WA now is mostly what the EU had proposed all along, after Johnson had withdrawn May's request for the entire UK being covered.

And Johnson doesn't care about sanity and the DUP is no factor any more, so after the Tory purge it's the hardest possible Brexit now, apparently.

ElPistolero wrote:
In any case, why are you guys so hung up on it? The WTO rules - the ...errr ...Australia style deal still exists. You’ll get a “trade deal”. What’s with the victim complex?


There is no victim complex just your perception, like the EU we too are taking an unyielding position towards regulatory alignment

It's simply the UK's choice whether to pay the price asked for a deal or not. We can afford no deal and no deal is still by very far preferable to the UK's current demands, so the UK has no leverage over us on this. The UK, on the other hand, effectively can't afford no deal. And everyone knows it, at least outside of England.

ElPistolero wrote:
There is a way around this. WTO rules with border checks. It’s the UK’s choice.


I've got no problem trading on WTO, but even FTA come with border checks

Much lighter ones if it's a good one!

ElPistolero wrote:
You mean the EU is holding Johnson to agreements he ..err.. agreed to.

Not sure what your point is here. Should they be working on the assumption that he was lying?


its a frame work and interpretation which could be used as a guided, there was nothing in the PD that compelled the UK to give what the EU is demanding

Johnson and his accomplices have been telling you that this was just a joke and totally meaningless.

Turns out the EU actually meant every word in there, and they're not amused about the UK reneging on that signed agreement.

This also gives a positively devastating picture of the UK's future good faith and compliance in potential agreements with other countries – this damage will extend substantially beyond just the EU negotiations.

ElPistolero wrote:
The EU set out it’s stall years ago. Bit late to cry now about them meaning what they said.


Many people have said it over the years even to PM May, Barnier is jumping up and down because someone finally on our side has the gumption to put there foot down to the EU, we are far from crying we are standing up and applauding Johnson and his negotiations team under David Frost

The EU has had the same position from before even the referendum and is very consistently pursuing it.

"Jumping up and down" and all kinds of bizarre drama have been pretty much exclusive to Westminster so far.

ElPistolero wrote:
As for a future agreement, if Brexiteers can’t even stand by the agreement they signed up to, why should the EU take chances and hope the UK doesn’t diverge.

Which agreement would that be?
And where have we broken it?

Barnier has just listed where the UK government is backtracking on the agreement they had signed themselves up to in the political declaration.

I know those people are habitual liars and about as reliable and as serious as any other con man, but it's still pretty dire to see this kind of thing playing out on the international level.

ElPistolero wrote:
The only way they can predict future UK behaviour is by listening to what Brexiteers say now. And they do talk a lot about divergence. .


Only when the EU moves away from the current rules as they stand

That is not at all what all of them have been clamoring about all this time.

Actively diverging from EU regulations has always been the main goal of Brexit, exactly contrary to your claim here! How can you even think you could get away with this now?

Even Cecilia Malmström, who was the EU Trade Commissioner thinks the EU is protectionist
She warned of an increasing demand among European politicians to link trade deals to climate and sustainability goals, and of the ongoing sway of the Continent's protectionist farm lobbies.


https://www.afr.com/world/europe/austra ... 519-p54u69

Yes, standards are worthless if you're not ready to protect them.

Protecting all the assets of the European Union is not just a Good Thing, it is essential and inevitable and it's absurd to expect the EU to budge on that.

ElPistolero wrote:
Allow free movement, and a lot of your gripes about trade will be addressed.
.


So are you saying if we agree to free movement the EU will give up its fisheries demand and along with regulatory alignment?

It would be a necessary precondition for a lot of really beneficial outcomes which the UK can't get otherwise, but still not a sufficient one.

As things stand, Johnson will get his wish: A worst possible, hard crash-out Brexit without any protections.

Given the way Johnson and Frost have been acting so far, that is increasingly the only outcome that's left any more.
 
AeroVega
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:54 am

A101 wrote:
Following EU regulations is a prerequisite of goods entering the market.


That is not true. Many goods enter the EU market from countries that do not follow EU regulations on carbon pricing.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:55 am

A101 wrote:
seahawk wrote:


If Brexiteers have a problem with the EU having a trade surplus with the UK, all those talks can be ended right now, as it shows a lack understanding the reality. The UK is a service economy and services to do show up the in trade surplus, so obviously a service economy does import goods from industrial and agrarian economies.


Nope the reality is that imports will have to continue irrespective if they come from the EU or any other region across the globe by reducing the protectionism embedded within the EU structure can help reduce the costs to those on lower incomes, continued regulatory alignment will continue the paying a premium for goods in the UK


The UK is free to import from whomever they choose, just as the EU is free to decide if they want let UK services into their market or not.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3618
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 6:15 am

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:

What you're saying is that as long as the end product meets EU standards, the process under which it is produced should be of no importance to the EU whatsoever..
The EU does not agree, so the choice is yours: you want to sell to the EU, you'll have to set up the entire process according to heir regulations.


Lots of countries do sell with minimal regulatory alignment. Problem is the UK wants to sell to the EU tariff and quota free, with automatic recognition, no customs checks and a host of other goodies which have taken the likes of Norway and Switzerland considerable regulatory alignment to get.

They'll get as far as they're willing to compromise.


And the other side of the coin is that the EU wants regulatory alignment with any level of trade deal under the guise of proximity which is a load of bull


Did you read what I just wrote? Regulatory alignment is a scale, it's not black or white.

Canada had to change a few laws to comply with CETA, that's regulatory alignment, too. Currently the UK is 100% aligned and has 100% access. You want to reduce alignment it will be at the expense of access.

It's quite simple really, the government and the regime's press are doing a great work of obfuscating it apparently.
 
olle
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 6:42 am

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:
The most recent is via the EU Parliament "MEPs Demand EU Make Regulatory Alignment the Price for UK Trade Deal"
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/0 ... rade-deal/


Breitbart? Really? I’m not giving those hacks ad revenue. Please link to a journalism outlet (left or right wing - don’t care as long as they live up to some basic journalistic standards)

A101 wrote:
Yes poor words on my part, majority of the WA was under the May government and hostile Parliament, The Johnson government didn't have the time nor the support from Parliament or from the EU to make an agreement solely of his doing


Then he shouldn’t have signed up to it. This isn’t rocket science.

A101 wrote:
But as history showed us it did, the EU was uncompromising to change the WA under PM May until PM Johnson came to power. The EU was gambled on the hostile UK parliament to do its biding for it.


So what? They didn’t need to do it then, and they don’t need to do it again. “They showed some flexibility, therefore they should just keep rolling over” is a not a strong argument.

A101 wrote:
There is no victim complex just your perception, like the EU we too are taking an unyielding position towards regulatory alignment


Cool. So what’s the issue? That the EU isn’t accepting UK demands unconditionally?

A101 wrote:
Trade between the EU/UK was never going to be 100% frictionless, even trade within the EU is not 100% frictionless there is still a regulatory reporting burden


Oh, semantics. Okay, we can play that game. The level of “frictionless” that we will see on the island of Ireland going forward.

A101 wrote:
As I said before there was always going to be border checks under any trade agreement we signed


Really? Any trade deal that looks like whatever is going to happen between NI and RoI would not require whatever level of border checks are required under WTO. In fact, it doesn’t. It only requires checks between GB and Ireland.

Clearly there are some trade deals that don’t require WTO level border checks.

A101 wrote:
I've got no problem trading on WTO, but even FTA come with border checks


So advocate in favour of that. Instead of complaining about the EU so much.

A101 wrote:
I didn't say they could not compete just that it is harder to compete against countries with different standards, and which means price point becomes an important tool because of the subsidies like CAP.

From a continental perspective, about three-quarters of exports by value from the Netherlands were delivered to fellow European countries while 10.4% were sold to importers in Asia. The Netherlands shipped another 5.7% worth of goods to North America. Smaller percentages went to Africa (2.7%), Latin America excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean (1.9%) then Oceania led by Australia and New Zealand (0.6%).


Cool. By the same token - from the same site you used:

“Applying a continental lens, over half of the United Kingdom exports by value were delivered to fellow European countries while 23.2% were sold to Asian importers. The UK shipped another 17.3% worth of goods to North American importers.

Smaller percentages went to Africa (2.3%), Oceania (1.4%) led by Australia and New Zealand, then Latin America excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean (1.3%).”

I’m sure Australia will make up for the market the UK loses in Europe.

A101 wrote:
its a frame work and interpretation which could be used as a guided, there was nothing in the PD that compelled the UK to give what the EU is demanding


Yes, it’s not binding. But it is a declaration of intent.

Anyway, it seems your issue is that the EU is sticking to its interpretation of a framework that is open to interpretation.

A101 wrote:
Many people have said it over the years even to PM May, Barnier is jumping up and down because someone finally on our side has the gumption to put there foot down to the EU, we are far from crying we are standing up and applauding Johnson and his negotiations team under David Frost


Is that it? I think we’re all waiting for the UK to blow up the talks, as the pro-Brexit Spectator has been predicting for months. We’re all kind of bored of the “I am UK; hear me roar” chest-thumping or gumption or whatever you call it. It’s just domestic political theatre. It’s audience has basically been whittled down to jingoistic Brexiteers.

A101 wrote:
Which agreement would that be?
And where have we broken it?


The Political Declaration evidently. And I didn’t say “broken” - I said the UK isn’t standing by them.

"In all areas, the UK continues to backtrack under commitments undertaken in the political declaration, including on fisheries. We cannot and will not accept this backtracking on the political declaration."

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics ... rade-talks

That’s from 3 days ago.

A101 wrote:
Only when the EU moves away from the current rules as they stand


But even that’s not guaranteed, is it? If the US applies enough pressure on hormone-injected beef as a condition for an FTA....

A101 wrote:
Ahumm:...……... against continued regulatory alignment as you say no one can predict what laws the EU will change that can have a negative outcome for the UK


You gave up your seat at the table voluntarily. Either take your chances, or go full WTO.

Should point out that Switzerland and Norway don’t seem particularly fussed.

A101 wrote:
You actually contorted the original context earlier to protectionism into immigration, and yes Brexit and leaving the EU four freedoms give the UK the ability to control migration so it can reduce pressure on all those things listed, every country in the world imposes immigration controls as does the EU to its external borders. one of the benefits of Brexit it reduce the free movement of the EU into a more controlled manor.


Contorted? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Just a bit rich to chide the EU for being protectionist when the prime instinct driving Brexit was protectionism, albeit through a labour lens, rather than a goods lens. That all countries do it does not make it “not protectionist”. The EU doesn’t do it between member states, for example.

A101 wrote:
This does not stop people from migrating to the UK only it give the UK more control on who comes when and why


Indeed. And a WTO trade deal - Australia or whatever it’s called - does not stop the UK from trading with the EU. It just gives the EU more control on what comes in and why. I mean, they buy more than 50% of UK exports, and they agreed to renegotiate the WA, but all they keep hearing is “no deal” or “Australia” or something, as well as some backtracking. Who wouldn’t get fed up?

A101 wrote:
Its not only the UK who have that line of thought, I've been to a few countries around the world and its seems to be a reoccurring theme

Even Cecilia Malmström, who was the EU Trade Commissioner thinks the EU is protectionist

She warned of an increasing demand among European politicians to link trade deals to climate and sustainability goals, and of the ongoing sway of the Continent's protectionist farm lobbies.
https://www.afr.com/world/europe/austra ... 519-p54u69


And? Virtually every country you want to do a trade deal with has protectionist policies in one sector or the other. The current US administration wears its protectionism as a badge of honour. They also all have very stringent immigration controls.

Is it India that’s making freer movement of labour a condition for allowing freer movement of goods?

Two sides of the same coin.

Like I said, a brexiteer trying to accuse others of protectionism is a bit too pot/kettle to take seriously.

A101 wrote:
So are you saying if we agree to free movement the EU will give up its fisheries demand and along with regulatory alignment?


Maybe. Maybe not. Put it on the table and see what happens. But Brexiteers won’t, so we will never know.

There was a time when Brexiteers thought Norway would be a good model. Remember that? But that required free movement. And the Brexiteer protectionists just couldn’t handle that.


While talking about that do not forget that major UK exports is financial services not shown in these numbers, nor in trade balance. Without having detailed numbers I can only assume that these services is mainly sold to EU Schengen countries. So the loss to compensate is even bigger then the numbers shows. The loss of passporting and services that in the future will be forced inside the EU (like it has been before) is the central in these discussions. Perhaps as you mention a few million people in Australia can compensate of as loss of SM with close 500 million.
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:12 am

ElPistolero wrote:

Breitbart? Really? I’m not giving those hacks ad revenue. Please link to a journalism outlet (left or right wing - don’t care as long as they live up to some basic journalistic standards)


Up to you not me, use your google-fu more than one source on EU Parliament passed

ElPistolero wrote:
Then he shouldn’t have signed up to it. This isn’t rocket science.



Political expediency at the time, well documented the hostile Parliament at the time. I had hoped it would put it thru but not to be

ElPistolero wrote:

So what? They didn’t need to do it then, and they don’t need to do it again. “They showed some flexibility, therefore they should just keep rolling over” is a not a strong argument.


So what :rotfl: no flexibility was shown. pressure was brought to bear its was either compromise or no deal. you still got the better end of the stick. no one saying you have to role over just mean that no deal will prevail eventually

ElPistolero wrote:
Oh, semantics. Okay, we can play that game. The level of “frictionless” that we will see on the island of Ireland going forward.


And that is the level the rest of the UK is expecting to trade with the EU anyway, and actually the biggest winner out of that is the NI who get to play on both sides of the street for near free. Even then NI doesn't have to stay in the EU regulatory alignment nor stay in the UK time will tell if border checks will have an impact within NI imports being that the EU (except UK) imports roughly worth £5,4 billion in 2018, and the remainder of the UK £13.4 billion in 2018 up to the Northern Islanders

ElPistolero wrote:

Really? Any trade deal that looks like whatever is going to happen between NI and RoI would not require whatever level of border checks are required under WTO. In fact, it doesn’t. It only requires checks between GB and Ireland.

Clearly there are some trade deals that don’t require WTO level border checks.



That's true because technically one doesn't have to have border checks under WTO rules, but given MFN nations do for a variety of reasons. and as I have said before if the withdrawal agreement wasn't signed the UK could have used GATT ARTICLE XXI SECURITY EXCEPTIONS to precluded border checks if it so desired without affecting MFN

ElPistolero wrote:

So advocate in favour of that. Instead of complaining about the EU so much.


I have been, not complaining just responding to posts on the forum

ElPistolero wrote:
Cool. By the same token - from the same site you used:

“Applying a continental lens, over half of the United Kingdom exports by value were delivered to fellow European countries while 23.2% were sold to Asian importers. The UK shipped another 17.3% worth of goods to North American importers.
Smaller percentages went to Africa (2.3%), Oceania (1.4%) led by Australia and New Zealand, then Latin America excluding Mexico but including the Caribbean (1.3%).”


like usual you have taken the facts out of context,,, its easier to move goods within the EU than out side hence the high level of trade within the block because of EU regulations

ElPistolero wrote:

I’m sure Australia will make up for the market the UK loses in Europe.



Highly doubtful, but I'm sure or ANZAC cousins can replace a lot of the agricultural imports from the EU if need be

ElPistolero wrote:

Yes, it’s not binding. But it is a declaration of intent.

Anyway, it seems your issue is that the EU is sticking to its interpretation of a framework that is open to interpretation.


AS you are so fondly of saying: so what both side have a different interpretation

ElPistolero wrote:


Is that it? I think we’re all waiting for the UK to blow up the talks, as the pro-Brexit Spectator has been predicting for months. We’re all kind of bored of the “I am UK; hear me roar” chest-thumping or gumption or whatever you call it. It’s just domestic political theatre. It’s audience has basically been whittled down to jingoistic Brexiteers.



If you are bored of it why continue the debate, there still is a strong remain bias who actively campaign against Brexit in the UK. From what I can see Brexit is still reported within the EU so there is still an interest in in whatever flavour of bias from the media to whom is ever reporting it.

ElPistolero wrote:

The Political Declaration evidently. And I didn’t say “broken” - I said the UK isn’t standing by them.

"In all areas, the UK continues to backtrack under commitments undertaken in the political declaration, including on fisheries. We cannot and will not accept this backtracking on the political declaration."

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics ... rade-talks

That’s from 3 days ago.



Yeah so its was a non binding framework as you know. nothing in the PD commits us to do anything if its not in our interest . it actually reinforces it as well
3. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation with a comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement at its core, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. Where the Parties consider it to be in their mutual interest during the negotiations



The government has decide its not in its interest for EU law to be incorporated further than what is current under the 2018 EU withdrawal act, and by the way we are still technicly are standing by the PD. it doesn't say anything about future EU standards

77,...…...
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 standards



ElPistolero wrote:

But even that’s not guaranteed, is it? If the US applies enough pressure on hormone-injected beef as a condition for an FTA....



That's not a given yet either, 1st in best dressed if you don't want that to happen. the talks are happening with the EU now as far as I know they haven't started with the UK/US talks yet, but its not like you do not import beef from the US from now so what's the problem?

ElPistolero wrote:

You gave up your seat at the table voluntarily. Either take your chances, or go full WTO.

.


Again you are talking out of context. we weren't talking about a seat at the at the EU table. you were talking about I justified divergence, when clearly I was talking about putting EU law into domestic UK law

ElPistolero wrote:
Should point out that Switzerland and Norway don’t seem particularly fussed.


Well I'm not from either of those countries and will not comment if it was right or wrong that's their choice to decide

ElPistolero wrote:
Contorted? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.


contorted: twisted or bent out of the normal shape, but we know how fastidious you are :coffee:

ElPistolero wrote:
Just a bit rich to chide the EU for being protectionist when the prime instinct driving Brexit was protectionism, albeit through a labour lens, rather than a goods lens. That all countries do it does not make it “not protectionist”. The EU doesn’t do it between member states, for example.

And? Virtually every country you want to do a trade deal with has protectionist policies in one sector or the other. The current US administration wears its protectionism as a badge of honour. They also all have very stringent immigration controls.

Is it India that’s making freer movement of labour a condition for allowing freer movement of goods?

Two sides of the same coin.

Like I said, a brexiteer trying to accuse others of protectionism is a bit too pot/kettle to take seriously.


If the shoe fits, but gee you are very sensitive about the subject

ElPistolero wrote:
Maybe. Maybe not. Put it on the table and see what happens. But Brexiteers won’t, so we will never know.




Why would the UK need to bring it up, its you're suggestion

ElPistolero wrote:
There was a time when Brexiteers thought Norway would be a good model. Remember that? But that required free movement. And the Brexiteer protectionists just couldn’t handle that.


There were many suggestions during the referenda campaign, that was just one of them. Even the EU rejected that one

Brussels sees the EEA as too good for BritainPerhaps most importantly, EU negotiators see the EEA as an off-the-shelf model that is simply too flexible and generous for a big economic rival like Britain. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, has suggested the UK could opt for full integration with the single market. But when EU negotiators talk about Norway Plus, they mean something tailored to be stricter and more restrictive, so that there are better guarantees EU law is applied automatically in the UK. EEA rules allowing divergence on regulation are a particular concern. Under the pact’s Article 102, Norway can ultimately reject a change to EU law if it is willing to see its market access suspended in relevant areas.To EU officials this sounds too much like “cherry-picking” the best bits of the single market. The article has never been used by Norway, but they fear the UK would be unable to contain its exceptionalist instincts. “They should look at how the reality of the EEA works,” said one senior EU figure involved in talks. “Norway is Norway.”


https://www.ft.com/content/17e3993c-f32 ... f9881e729f
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:27 am

Let´s just agree that the EU never wanted to give the UK the deal the UK wanted and move on. This debate is going round in circles.
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:13 am

seahawk wrote:
Let´s just agree that the EU never wanted to give the UK the deal the UK wanted and move on. This debate is going round in circles.



Agree lock it
 
JJJ
Posts: 3618
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 11:06 am

A101 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

Breitbart? Really? I’m not giving those hacks ad revenue. Please link to a journalism outlet (left or right wing - don’t care as long as they live up to some basic journalistic standards)


Up to you not me, use your google-fu more than one source on EU Parliament passed


So, this is the actual declaration.

“To maintain quota-free, tariff-free trade relations, the British government should pledge to update its rules on, for instance, competition, labour standards and environmental protection, in order to ensure ‘dynamic alignment’ of EU-UK laws,”

Storm in a teacup, as usual. This is what the EU has been saying for a long time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... nson-trade

4 months ago Boris was complaining about "close" alignment, but it was the Labour party who first spoke about dynamic alignment.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... -labour-eu
 
LJ
Posts: 5255
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:44 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:
Only when the EU moves away from the current rules as they stand


But even that’s not guaranteed, is it? If the US applies enough pressure on hormone-injected beef as a condition for an FTA....


Seems that it's already happening. Seems that the UK will have to choose between the US and the EU, unless it wants to trade on WTO with both..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/06/uk-accused-u-turn-animal-welfare-us-trade-talks
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1981
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:48 pm

A101 wrote:
Political expediency at the time, well documented the hostile Parliament at the time. I had hoped it would put it thru but not to be


The UK’s internal domestic politics are the UK’s problem. Nobody else’s, unfortunately.

A101 wrote:
And that is the level the rest of the UK is expecting to trade with the EU anyway, and actually the biggest winner out of that is the NI who get to play on both sides of the street for near free. Even then NI doesn't have to stay in the EU regulatory alignment nor stay in the UK time will tell if border checks will have an impact within NI imports being that the EU (except UK) imports roughly worth £5,4 billion in 2018, and the remainder of the UK £13.4 billion in 2018 up to the Northern Islanders


Not sure where you’re going with this. As I recall, May gained a similar level of access for all of the UK.

A101 wrote:
That's true because technically one doesn't have to have border checks under WTO rules, but given MFN nations do for a variety of reasons. and as I have said before if the withdrawal agreement wasn't signed the UK could have used GATT ARTICLE XXI SECURITY EXCEPTIONS to precluded border checks if it so desired without affecting MFN


Why didn’t he do that then? Is it because it wouldn’t work? It’s not like this wasn’t hashed out.

A101 wrote:
like usual you have taken the facts out of context,,, its easier to move goods within the EU than out side hence the high level of trade within the block because of EU regulations


Out of context? That’s rather the point. It’s the biggest trading bloc in the world. Which, presumably, is why the UK hasn’t walked away. Exports are exports - doesn’t matter where they’re going.

A101 wrote:
If you are bored of it why continue the debate, there still is a strong remain bias who actively campaign against Brexit in the UK. From what I can see Brexit is still reported within the EU so there is still an interest in in whatever flavour of bias from the media to whom is ever reporting it.


Only the ones concerned about the impact on the economy.

A101 wrote:
Yeah so its was a non binding framework as you know. nothing in the PD commits us to do anything if its not in our interest . it actually reinforces it as well


Indeed. But declaring your intent to do something, and then doing a 45, 90 or 180, is generally not a good look when it comes to international negotiations. Leads to mistrust, that then requires future guarantees that the UK won’t do it again and again.

What works in Britain doesn’t necessarily work outside Britain.

A101 wrote:
The government has decide its not in its interest for EU law to be incorporated further than what is current under the 2018 EU withdrawal act, and by the way we are still technicly are standing by the PD. it doesn't say anything about future EU standards


The fact that you have to qualify it with “technically” says it all. The EU evidently thinks the UK’s plan going forward is to adopt the most superficial approach. So they’re doubling down on details. Seems it’s a trust issue.

A101 wrote:
That's not a given yet either, 1st in best dressed if you don't want that to happen. the talks are happening with the EU now as far as I know they haven't started with the UK/US talks yet, but its not like you do not import beef from the US from now so what's the problem?


Nothing is given. You raised a hypothetical in which the EU might implement regulations that aren’t in the UK’s interests. I responded by raising a hypothetical where lowered UK standards would breach the integrity of the single market.

Neither of those two things are set in stone, although you seem to think your own view is.

A101 wrote:
Again you are talking out of context. we weren't talking about a seat at the at the EU table. you were talking about I justified divergence, when clearly I was talking about putting EU law into domestic UK law


You’re worried about the implementation of new rules that aren’t in the UK’s interests, but ignoring the fact that it was the UK’s sovereign decision to give up a seat at the table. If you were so worried about that, maybe should have thought about it when you cast your vote.

If not, accept it for what it is. Or go for no deal. It’s really quite simple.

A101 wrote:
Well I'm not from either of those countries and will not comment if it was right or wrong that's their choice to decide


Just pointing out that all available evidence suggests that your concerns are, well, questionable at best. The entire premise seems to be that the EU acts against the interest of the UK and/or third countries. Other third countries don’t seem to have that issue.

A101 wrote:
If the shoe fits, but gee you are very sensitive about the subject


Am I? You were banging on about “EU protectionism” In several posts.

I just felt compelled to point out that Brexit was the original protectionist endeavour that sent us down this protectionist path. And added a few facts along the way.

Seems to have taken the steam right out of your EU protectionism line of attack. Funny how facts keep getting in the way of Brexit dogma, eh?

A101 wrote:
There were many suggestions during the referenda campaign, that was just one of them. Even the EU rejected that one


Did it officially reject it? If so, where. As I recall, the same Breixteers who promoted it during the referendum, rejected it out of hand immediately after winning, without even checking.

Seems some Brexiteers will say anything to get their way, and then backtrack immediately after. Which then contributes to mistrust and demands for cast iron guarantees for the future.

Seeing a theme here?
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:07 am

ElPistolero wrote:

The UK’s internal domestic politics are the UK’s problem. Nobody else’s, unfortunately.



No one said it wasn’t, but it was you who actually brought up regulatory alignment through the WA in relation to the ROI/NI border and checks at the Irish Sea. Being not applicable to the current negotiations, but I have noticed you change the context to what is actually being discuss to suit your own agenda

Domestic politics and international politics does have an impact on how one can manoeuvre. I was pointing out the well known history on how the WA came about. Which is no different than what happens in the EU or any other Parliamentary body around the world via horse trading. It’s well known that Johnson’s predecessor agreed to a bad deal with the EU which left very little room to move than which was compounded by a hostile Parliament and EU who thought Johnson could not work the problems

ElPistolero wrote:

Not sure where you’re going with this. As I recall, May gained a similar level of access for all of the UK.



Fundamental difference between May’s deal and Johnson was the May’s backstop provision in which we were never going to have independent parliamentary and judicial sovereignty with the UK tied to the EU/ECJ in perpetuity.

Johnson’s deal has given the NI Parliament the ability to consent which is an important element within the GFA, its ability for NI to consent whether or not to remain in lockstep with the EU or leave. And with the Johnsons revised agreement remaining parts of the UK will leaving EU rule. Very big difference

Remember no one gave him a chance in hell on renegotiating the WA. Only real problem it didn’t go far enough due to domestic shenanigans

ElPistolero wrote:

Why didn’t he do that then? Is it because it wouldn’t work? It’s not like this wasn’t hashed out


He went down a different path due to circumstances, remember the bias speaker of the house gave every chance for pro remain to stop Brexit, which then passed the bill if no agreement is reached then parliament has to vote on a no deal withdrawal in which he knew that he did not have the numbers at that point in time

But I agree he could have stop the withdrawal agreement becoming law after he won his landslide majority. But he didn’t as it was his intention to negotiate a fair and equitable trade deal with the EU,but as we have seen from the negotiations both sides are far apart on where they want to be.

ElPistolero wrote:

Out of context? That’s rather the point. It’s the biggest trading bloc in the world. Which, presumably, is why the UK hasn’t walked away. Exports are exports - doesn’t matter where they’re going.



Of course it’s out of context for statistical purposes, the EU is a trading block and negotiates trade as a single block when it suits, but when it doesn’t you are each individual nations. What do you want to be individual’s or indivisible?

ElPistolero wrote:

Only the ones concerned about the impact on the economy.


From remain or leave?

ElPistolero wrote:

Indeed. But declaring your intent to do something, and then doing a 45, 90 or 180, is generally not a good look when it comes to international negotiations. Leads to mistrust, that then requires future guarantees that the UK won’t do it again and again.

What works in Britain doesn’t necessarily work outside Britain.



Negotiations are along the same line everywhere whether political or private treaty. Once again there is no backsliding as I pointed out it’s just Barnier interpretation. The EU wants to use its rule book going forward into the future and the UK just goes along with, no sane country in the world does that without opt outs even Norway has those available to use if needed. The disagreement in regards to sect 77 as M Barnier pointed out is regulatory alignment now and in the future.

ElPistolero wrote:

The fact that you have to qualify it with “technically” says it all. The EU evidently thinks the UK’s plan going forward is to adopt the most superficial approach. So they’re doubling down on details. Seems it’s a trust issue.


Technically I am right in my interpretation.

adverb
technically: according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly.

ElPistolero wrote:

Nothing is given. You raised a hypothetical in which the EU might implement regulations that aren’t in the UK’s interests. I responded by raising a hypothetical where lowered UK standards would breach the integrity of the single market.

Neither of those two things are set in stone, although you seem to think your own view is.



The hypotheticals described have vastly different potential outcomes, if the UK adopted the EU rule book and any future rule into domestic law it can have negative consequences, the hypothetical that you brought would not breech the SM as the product is banned from the EU market it would not even reach continental EU or for that matter NI. The EU already deals with countries that have different stands in which the businesses importing into the EU have to be certified

ElPistolero wrote:

Neither of those two things are set in stone, although you seem to think your own view is.



That’s far from the case but we all know that EU rules/ regulations are not set and forget they are reviewed and updated from time to time.

My view is the same as yours as you described earlier no one knows what’s going to happen in the future and if we signed up to a regulatory alignment to maintain standards the UK cannot move its own rules unilaterally as it sees fit nor hypothetically if we wanted to increase those standards to a higher level than the EU because regulatory alignment will put a stop to it.

ElPistolero wrote:

You’re worried about the implementation of new rules that aren’t in the UK’s interests, but ignoring the fact that it was the UK’s sovereign decision to give up a seat at the table. If you were so worried about that, maybe should have thought about it when you cast your vote.



It’s not ignoring the fact at all you seem to think that the UK must enter into vassalage state with the EU when we also are an independent nation. Brexit is about being in control of our own judicial and regulatory system not tying it up again with the EU. The EU is free to change its laws just like the UK, under regulatory alignment we will not have that option.

ElPistolero wrote:

If not, accept it for what it is. Or go for no deal. It’s really quite simple.



It is simple really isn’t it, if the EU is immovable from its current position no deal is the default position....simples

ElPistolero wrote:

Just pointing out that all available evidence suggests that your concerns are, well, questionable at best.



My concerns are 100% justifiable, and so far you or anyone else on the forum has convinced me otherwise.


Well let me put it this way: those on this forum say because the EU is larger because of its population and economic size as a whole than the UK that the UK has no options but follow and fall into regulatory alignment.

China has a both larger economy and population than the EU, would you be willing to incorporate Chinese law as domestic EU law via regulatory alignment just to secure a trade deal with China ?


ElPistolero wrote:

The entire premise seems to be that the EU acts against the interest of the UK and/or third countries. Other third countries don’t seem to have that issue.


There is acting in ones own interest that is fair and equitable to both parties, and there is acting ones own interest at the expense of the other with no concern of the implications to the other party



ElPistolero wrote:

Am I? You were banging on about “EU protectionism” In several posts.

I just felt compelled to point out that Brexit was the original protectionist endeavour that sent us down this protectionist path. And added a few facts along the way.

Seems to have taken the steam right out of your EU protectionism line of attack. Funny how facts keep getting in the way of Brexit dogma, eh?



As I said before EU protectionism has been talked about long before Brexit really gather steam, it’s nothing new.

Funny how you’re facts haven’t countered any argument about protectionism and as pointed out Cecilia Malmström agrees that the EU is protectionist, can’t get more damming evidence than from EU’s own trade commissioner from 2014 to 2019.

ElPistolero wrote:
Did it officially reject it?


Semantics: Has it been officially brought up in the trade negotiations?........no

ElPistolero wrote:
As I recall, the same Breixteers who promoted it during the referendum, rejected it out of hand immediately after winning, without even checking.



Obviously you didn’t read the post in full yesterday, nor the link to an article titled “Six reasons why ‘Norway Plus’ is an unlikely Brexit outcome”
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:02 am

A101 wrote:
Brexit is about being in control of our own judicial and regulatory system not tying it up again with the EU.


Look A101,

you've been banging on about how things should ideally work out in future between the EU and the UK for the past 3 days now...

After more than 4 years of being demonstrated the EU isn't going to give in on the integrity of the SM, reality should have settled in by now that it's just not going to happen according to the POVs Brexiteers have long used to base their exciting business plans for Brexit Britain on so to say, does it?

So in the end, you can decide to keep posting your lengthy posts on virtual outcomes virtually nobody reads through any longer, or you can just answer the one simple question asked already several times as a sobering reality check:

"are you willing to pay the price asked by the seller or not?".


The UK is free to walk at any time, you know?
All we get is a potential buyer coming back to the 'Euroshop' to negotiate a lower price based on its own assessment that a very much wanted product is overpriced for him.
The seller likes to sell , but not if it means pissing off tens of good customers of his and in any case has a healty business also without this one particular potential new buyer;
the buyer on the other hand seems to have a massive problem if he's to go back home without the wanted product, so what's it going to be?
You buy from the Euroshop? Or you buy at the American stores next door?
At both, you'll have to pay roughly the asking price and at both it will definitely mean you'll have to accept their sales conditions in full, exactly as was always said.

That much valued British sovereignty of Brexiteers effectively boils down to just being able to make a rather depressing choice between who's rules the UK accepts to stick to in future; the massive loss from having this free choice is that in any case none of them will be co-authored by the UK any longer: it's just the slave being allowed to choose the aloy of his own chains from now on.
 
olle
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:21 am

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:
Political expediency at the time, well documented the hostile Parliament at the time. I had hoped it would put it thru but not to be


The UK’s internal domestic politics are the UK’s problem. Nobody else’s, unfortunately.

A101 wrote:
And that is the level the rest of the UK is expecting to trade with the EU anyway, and actually the biggest winner out of that is the NI who get to play on both sides of the street for near free. Even then NI doesn't have to stay in the EU regulatory alignment nor stay in the UK time will tell if border checks will have an impact within NI imports being that the EU (except UK) imports roughly worth £5,4 billion in 2018, and the remainder of the UK £13.4 billion in 2018 up to the Northern Islanders


Not sure where you’re going with this. As I recall, May gained a similar level of access for all of the UK.

A101 wrote:
That's true because technically one doesn't have to have border checks under WTO rules, but given MFN nations do for a variety of reasons. and as I have said before if the withdrawal agreement wasn't signed the UK could have used GATT ARTICLE XXI SECURITY EXCEPTIONS to precluded border checks if it so desired without affecting MFN


Why didn’t he do that then? Is it because it wouldn’t work? It’s not like this wasn’t hashed out.

A101 wrote:
like usual you have taken the facts out of context,,, its easier to move goods within the EU than out side hence the high level of trade within the block because of EU regulations


Out of context? That’s rather the point. It’s the biggest trading bloc in the world. Which, presumably, is why the UK hasn’t walked away. Exports are exports - doesn’t matter where they’re going.

A101 wrote:
If you are bored of it why continue the debate, there still is a strong remain bias who actively campaign against Brexit in the UK. From what I can see Brexit is still reported within the EU so there is still an interest in in whatever flavour of bias from the media to whom is ever reporting it.


Only the ones concerned about the impact on the economy.

A101 wrote:
Yeah so its was a non binding framework as you know. nothing in the PD commits us to do anything if its not in our interest . it actually reinforces it as well


Indeed. But declaring your intent to do something, and then doing a 45, 90 or 180, is generally not a good look when it comes to international negotiations. Leads to mistrust, that then requires future guarantees that the UK won’t do it again and again.

What works in Britain doesn’t necessarily work outside Britain.

A101 wrote:
The government has decide its not in its interest for EU law to be incorporated further than what is current under the 2018 EU withdrawal act, and by the way we are still technicly are standing by the PD. it doesn't say anything about future EU standards


The fact that you have to qualify it with “technically” says it all. The EU evidently thinks the UK’s plan going forward is to adopt the most superficial approach. So they’re doubling down on details. Seems it’s a trust issue.

A101 wrote:
That's not a given yet either, 1st in best dressed if you don't want that to happen. the talks are happening with the EU now as far as I know they haven't started with the UK/US talks yet, but its not like you do not import beef from the US from now so what's the problem?


Nothing is given. You raised a hypothetical in which the EU might implement regulations that aren’t in the UK’s interests. I responded by raising a hypothetical where lowered UK standards would breach the integrity of the single market.

Neither of those two things are set in stone, although you seem to think your own view is.

A101 wrote:
Again you are talking out of context. we weren't talking about a seat at the at the EU table. you were talking about I justified divergence, when clearly I was talking about putting EU law into domestic UK law


You’re worried about the implementation of new rules that aren’t in the UK’s interests, but ignoring the fact that it was the UK’s sovereign decision to give up a seat at the table. If you were so worried about that, maybe should have thought about it when you cast your vote.

If not, accept it for what it is. Or go for no deal. It’s really quite simple.

A101 wrote:
Well I'm not from either of those countries and will not comment if it was right or wrong that's their choice to decide


Just pointing out that all available evidence suggests that your concerns are, well, questionable at best. The entire premise seems to be that the EU acts against the interest of the UK and/or third countries. Other third countries don’t seem to have that issue.

A101 wrote:
If the shoe fits, but gee you are very sensitive about the subject


Am I? You were banging on about “EU protectionism” In several posts.

I just felt compelled to point out that Brexit was the original protectionist endeavour that sent us down this protectionist path. And added a few facts along the way.

Seems to have taken the steam right out of your EU protectionism line of attack. Funny how facts keep getting in the way of Brexit dogma, eh?

A101 wrote:
There were many suggestions during the referenda campaign, that was just one of them. Even the EU rejected that one


Did it officially reject it? If so, where. As I recall, the same Breixteers who promoted it during the referendum, rejected it out of hand immediately after winning, without even checking.

Seems some Brexiteers will say anything to get their way, and then backtrack immediately after. Which then contributes to mistrust and demands for cast iron guarantees for the future.

Seeing a theme here?


Mr Farage was using Norway as a main example why to do Brexit.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1118817963874881536

The main problem was that he forgot to mention that Norway in reality accepts everything that EU tells them to accept.
 
olle
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:31 am

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
Brexit is about being in control of our own judicial and regulatory system not tying it up again with the EU.


Look A101,

you've been banging on about how things should ideally work out in future between the EU and the UK for the past 3 days now...

After more than 4 years of being demonstrated the EU isn't going to give in on the integrity of the SM, reality should have settled in by now that it's just not going to happen according to the POVs Brexiteers have long used to base their exciting business plans for Brexit Britain on so to say, does it?

So in the end, you can decide to keep posting your lengthy posts on virtual outcomes virtually nobody reads through any longer, or you can just answer the one simple question asked already several times as a sobering reality check:

"are you willing to pay the price asked by the seller or not?".


The UK is free to walk at any time, you know?
All we get is a potential buyer coming back to the 'Euroshop' to negotiate a lower price based on its own assessment that a very much wanted product is overpriced for him.
The seller likes to sell , but not if it means pissing off tens of good customers of his and in any case has a healty business also without this one particular potential new buyer;
the buyer on the other hand seems to have a massive problem if he's to go back home without the wanted product, so what's it going to be?
You buy from the Euroshop? Or you buy at the American stores next door?
At both, you'll have to pay roughly the asking price and at both it will definitely mean you'll have to accept their sales conditions in full, exactly as was always said.

That much valued British sovereignty of Brexiteers effectively boils down to just being able to make a rather depressing choice between who's rules the UK accepts to stick to in future; the massive loss from having this free choice is that in any case none of them will be co-authored by the UK any longer: it's just the slave being allowed to choose the aloy of his own chains from now on.


In a negotiation between 2 sovereign states or in this case 1 sovereign sate and a group of sovereign states both sides are sellers and both sides are buyers.

Both sides has the right to walk away at any time.
 
User avatar
Number6
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:49 am

olle wrote:

In a negotiation between 2 sovereign states or in this case 1 sovereign sate and a group of sovereign states both sides are sellers and both sides are buyers.

Both sides has the right to walk away at any time.


I’ve never liked this ‘both sides can walk away from a deal because it’s almost always based on the wrong premise. If company A makes a product, and company B Make a product that could sit well with Company A, then yes, both can negotiate a deal to benefit each other. If the deal can’t be worked out, then yes, both companies can walk away and nothing much changes. Both companies remain as they were.

Brexit however is more like a single company, where a specific department is looking to spin off out of the company, setting up business on their own. Now they want to stay friendly with the main company, so the deal they need to work out is based on the need to maintain certain access to the main companies Assets, let’s say like a joint payroll or HR. Now if neither side reach an amicable deal, walking away doesn't maintain the status quo. The new company will be out on its own and the original company has to recreate the missing section. Of course the original company is huge and can full that hole is much easier than the the now new company has to recreate everything from scratch.

Long story short. Yes both sides can walk away, but the default for no deal isn’t the status quo.

As for the current talks, from here in Austria, It seems certain that no deal is the preferred outcome the U.K government is aiming for, it’s just looking for a way to spin it to make the UK the victim, rather than reason.
 
Reinhardt
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:57 am

olle wrote:
In a negotiation between 2 sovereign states or in this case 1 sovereign sate and a group of sovereign states both sides are sellers and both sides are buyers.

Both sides has the right to walk away at any time.


It think the sabenapilot's post in it's original form was spot on, but now it's too simplistic for the real world situation to use to answer your comment.

From the UK's side they want to buy and sell with the EU and buy and sell with the US. But different rules, different games apply. Clearly being able to have both is not compatible, as we know what the US has asked for in return..and those food regulations, farming practices we were told only last weekend by the UK govenment are not open for negotiation. So whilst the UK govenment can play this game of wanting to cherry pick things with the EU that aren't possible to cherry pick (as the EU has said all along) time is running out and Boris 'oven ready' brexit policy is nothing of the sorts, and the deal with the US is competely unclear. Made all the more of a mess by Trump's decision to rip up established international trade rules and make the WTO even more of a wild west that it was before.

The Brexiteer claim that WTO rules are fine, is proving to be more and more stupid as time goes on.
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 9:25 am

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
Brexit is about being in control of our own judicial and regulatory system not tying it up again with the EU.


Look A101,

you've been banging on about how things should ideally work out in future between the EU and the UK for the past 3 days now...

After more than 4 years of being demonstrated the EU isn't going to give in on the integrity of the SM, reality should have settled in by now that it's just not going to happen according to the POVs Brexiteers have long used to base their exciting business plans for Brexit Britain on so to say, does it?

So in the end, you can decide to keep posting your lengthy posts on virtual outcomes virtually nobody reads through any longer, or you can just answer the one simple question asked already several times as a sobering reality check:

"are you willing to pay the price asked by the seller or not?".


The UK is free to walk at any time, you know?
All we get is a potential buyer coming back to the 'Euroshop' to negotiate a lower price based on its own assessment that a very much wanted product is overpriced for him.
The seller likes to sell , but not if it means pissing off tens of good customers of his and in any case has a healty business also without this one particular potential new buyer;
the buyer on the other hand seems to have a massive problem if he's to go back home without the wanted product, so what's it going to be?
You buy from the Euroshop? Or you buy at the American stores next door?
At both, you'll have to pay roughly the asking price and at both it will definitely mean you'll have to accept their sales conditions in full, exactly as was always said.

That much valued British sovereignty of Brexiteers effectively boils down to just being able to make a rather depressing choice between who's rules the UK accepts to stick to in future; the massive loss from having this free choice is that in any case none of them will be co-authored by the UK any longer: it's just the slave being allowed to choose the aloy of his own chains from now on.



:rotfl: Not bang on: responding...…………. to what others write/post, its just that people on here don't like an alternative view to the almighty institution of the EU

But since it appears you did not read my previous post you would have found the answer to you're question "are you willing to pay the price asked by the seller or not?". you would have found the answer in Post#2266 and other posts overtime. my position is quite well known

if you don't like what I post there is always the ignore option within the forum :D
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:00 pm

The problem is that the UK sees it as a negotiation between 2 rather equal parties, while in reality it is one party vs a group 27 parties. But why should the Uk understand the EU after it left, when it never understood the EU while it was part of the EU?
 
olle
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:40 pm

Somone had the example of spinoff from a company.

I think that this example hits the same problem.

If I stay at the company and shall have a relationship with the spinoff my experience is that this is very complicated.The spinoff still consider me as college, while we need to find a new standard supplier buyer relationship.

My experience is that this is very complicated, and I really avoid having these kind of suppliers. Sometimes it works but more often it does not.

Therefore I really believe that UK should leave No deal model and then let new administrations on both sides start over.

We could also compare with FTA negotiations EU USA. During Obama administration it worked but with Trump it was better to walk away.
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 2:14 pm

seahawk wrote:
The problem is that the UK sees it as a negotiation between 2 rather equal parties, while in reality it is one party vs a group 27 parties. But why should the Uk understand the EU after it left, when it never understood the EU while it was part of the EU?

Unfortunately rather incorrect. Brexiteers see it with the delusion that EU cannot possibly cope without good ol' blighty and therefore the EU will kowtow to every UK demand.

Obviously this is a load of hokum, and the delusional minority were repeatedly told this by all and sundry, including the EU that their idea of "brexit" was not, is not and never will be possible.

Of course these delusional idiots are now once again crying foul and resorting to their usual cries of "it's those nasty un-elected EU bureaucrats fault", even though yet again, it's entirely the UK's (and anti-EU muppets) own fault. Just like 99.9% of the previous cries.


I'd much rather have the EU's representatives, those representatives are sticking to the principles of the union and it's constitution. All the while acting with dignity and respect in the face of the petulant, shambolic, child-like, delusional clusterfuds that are the UK's brexit brigade.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:29 pm

A101 wrote:
It appears you did not read my previous post you would have found the answer to you're question "are you willing to pay the price asked by the seller or not?". you would have found the answer in Post#2266 and other posts overtime. my position is quite well known


As said, I don't read your posts consisting of often single line responses to 25+ short quotes.
A discussion is to have some sort of intellectual depth, or it's not to be had at all: twitter style exchanges are no way to discuss.

seahawk wrote:
The problem is that the UK sees it as a negotiation between 2 rather equal parties, while in reality it is one party vs a group 27 parties.

It is a fact that Britain does not want to accept that size matters: 'sovereign' does not mean 'on equal footing'.
As Brexiteers dreamt alout of regaining British sovereignty, they also assumed Britain to be just taking back its former stature from a past long gone by, forgetting this stature was linked to the size of a sphere of influence now no longer in existance, rather than to the Britishness itself.
Brexit is a humbling demonstration of how ridiculous British exceptionalism truly is, today.

ChrisKen wrote:
I'd much rather have the EU's representatives: those representatives are sticking to the principles of the union and it's constitution. All the while acting with dignity and respect in the face of the petulant, shambolic, child-like, delusional clusterfuds that are the UK's brexit brigade.


What can I say?
Even Farage agrees with you...
BTW- has he already picked up his burgundy passport from the German embassy? ;)

The success rate of Global Britain firming up all those British FTAs it was supposed to have ligned up ready for signing the very minute after Brexit so far, as well as the projections for the future gains from them (e.g. the whopping 0,000x% annual gain from a truly unique and fantastic FTA with the USA in which the UK basically has to go flat on the belley) or the pace at which the "oven ready" deal with the EU is advancing, are a nice illustration of Brexiteers' abilities outside of their comfortable realm of imagination where they've clearly only been talking to themselves for the past decades.
Clearly there's not much oven ready at all, because they just can't stand the heat of the kitchen very well..
Last edited by sabenapilot on Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
olle
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:47 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
It appears you did not read my previous post you would have found the answer to you're question "are you willing to pay the price asked by the seller or not?". you would have found the answer in Post#2266 and other posts overtime. my position is quite well known


As said, I don't read your posts consisting of often single line responses to 25+ short quotes.
A discussion is to have some sort of intellectual depth, or it's not to be had at all: twitter style exchanges are no way to discuss.

seahawk wrote:
The problem is that the UK sees it as a negotiation between 2 rather equal parties, while in reality it is one party vs a group 27 parties.

It is a fact that Britain does not want to accept that size matters: 'sovereign' does not mean 'on equal footing'.

ChrisKen wrote:
I'd much rather have the EU's representatives, those representatives are sticking to the principles of the union and it's constitution. All the while acting with dignity and respect in the face of the petulant, shambolic, child-like, delusional clusterfuds that are the UK's brexit brigade.


What can I say?
Even Farage agrees with you...
The success rate of Global Britain signing British FTAs it was supposed to have all ligned up for singing the minute after Brexit so far, as well as the projections for the future (e.g. the whopping 0,000x% annual gain from a FTA with the USA in which the UK goes flat on the belley for Trump) or the pace at which the "oven ready" deal with the EU is going, are a nice illustration of their abilities outside of their comfortable realm of imagination where they've clearly only been talking to themselves, for the past decades.



This is what I do not understand... UK can walk away from FTAs with EU represent a huge part of it economy and replace it with FTAs with Asia and USA that first only is as combination less then 1% of UK GDP.

What shall compensate the other 7%?

EU, China, Mercosur (Somone mentioned Maldivas?) and USA recognize this.

So far from what we hear from FTA negotiations with Japan and USA it seems to include the whole wishlist's from health care, free car exports (Sunderland?) to food with lower standards. What shall UK export back in these FTAs? Financial services?
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1981
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 9:21 pm

A101 wrote:
Domestic politics and international politics does have an impact on how one can manoeuvre. I was pointing out the well known history on how the WA came about. Which is no different than what happens in the EU or any other Parliamentary body around the world via horse trading.


“Can” have an impact? Sure.

“Must” have an impact? Nope.

A101 wrote:
It’s well known that Johnson’s predecessor agreed to a bad deal with the EU which left very little room to move than which was compounded by a hostile Parliament and EU who thought Johnson could not work the problems


May’s Government, which technically was the UK Government, agreed to a deal.

Which is to say: Technically, this was always a negotiation between the EU and the UK Government. Not between the EU and May or the EU and Johnson.

A101 wrote:
Fundamental difference between May’s deal and Johnson was the May’s backstop provision in which we were never going to have independent parliamentary and judicial sovereignty with the UK tied to the EU/ECJ in perpetuity.


Whatever you said above doesn’t technically apply to the UK of GB and NI. It only applies to GB.

A101 wrote:
Johnson’s deal has given the NI Parliament the ability to consent which is an important element within the GFA, its ability for NI to consent whether or not to remain in lockstep with the EU or leave. And with the Johnsons revised agreement remaining parts of the UK will leaving EU rule. Very big difference


Or Johnson put a border between GB and NI, to the apparent displeasure of his erstwhile Unionist Allies, while May refused to. I think you’ll find many Northern Irelanders who think Johnson threw NI unionists under the bus to keep his English Brexiteers happy.

A101 wrote:
Remember no one gave him a chance in hell on renegotiating the WA. Only real problem it didn’t go far enough due to domestic shenanigans


Ah, yes, the lionization of Johnson. Which assumes - contradictorily - that only Johnson could sway the EU, and that the EU has no free agency.

Technically, Johnson only got what the EU was willing to give him - a border between NI and GB. And that too, only after RoI was satisfied.

This brexiteer habit of treating it as a “victory”, rather than EU flexibility, with the follow-on assumption that Johnson can bring the EU to heel whenever he wants, is the reason the talks have hit an impasse. Brexiteers appear to have mistaken EU flexibility for weakness.

A101 wrote:
He went down a different path due to circumstances, remember the bias speaker of the house gave every chance for pro remain to stop Brexit, which then passed the bill if no agreement is reached then parliament has to vote on a no deal withdrawal in which he knew that he did not have the numbers at that point in time

But I agree he could have stop the withdrawal agreement becoming law after he won his landslide majority. But he didn’t as it was his intention to negotiate a fair and equitable trade deal with the EU,but as we have seen from the negotiations both sides are far apart on where they want to be.


For Brexiteers, it’s always somebody else’s fault, isn’t it?

A101 wrote:
Of course it’s out of context for statistical purposes, the EU is a trading block and negotiates trade as a single block when it suits, but when it doesn’t you are each individual nations. What do you want to be individual’s or indivisible?


Yes, the benefits of being a fairly loose trading union. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance among Brexiteers right now. “What do you mean they all run their own embassies?” France is both an independent sovereign nation that exports to Germany, and a co-member in a larger union, along with Germany, that makes it easier for France to export to Germany. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

As an aside, a group of individuals can be indivisible. ‘Technically’, etc. The two are not, nor have they ever been, mutually exclusive. Examples abound. Like the UK - an indivisible union of four individual nations.

A101 wrote:
Negotiations are along the same line everywhere whether political or private treaty. Once again there is no backsliding as I pointed out it’s just Barnier interpretation. The EU wants to use its rule book going forward into the future and the UK just goes along with, no sane country in the world does that without opt outs even Norway has those available to use if needed. The disagreement in regards to sect 77 as M Barnier pointed out is regulatory alignment now and in the future.


The EU disagrees, and given that it’s one of the two parties in this negotiation, that’s a problem.

Want Norway-style opt outs? Sign up for a Norway-style deal.

A101 wrote:
Technically I am right in my interpretation.

adverb
technically: according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly.


Technically, you are correct.

Although, as demonstrated above, questions remain about how technically accurate the rest of your assumptions are.

A101 wrote:
The hypotheticals described have vastly different potential outcomes, if the UK adopted the EU rule book and any future rule into domestic law it can have negative consequences, the hypothetical that you brought would not breech the SM as the product is banned from the EU market it would not even reach continental EU or for that matter NI. The EU already deals with countries that have different stands in which the businesses importing into the EU have to be certified


Only if border checks are in place.

Regulatory alignment is aimed at reducing or eliminating border checks (see NI-RoI). If sub-standard goods (technically speaking) enter the UK and can benefit from the relatively less stringent border checks that the UK is seeking, then that is a problem for the EU.

The alternative is very careful scrutiny of everything entering the EU and NI, which is more painful for businesses, and more costly for both sides. Thats what we’re heading for if there isn’t a certain level of regulatory alignment.

A101 wrote:
That’s far from the case but we all know that EU rules/ regulations are not set and forget they are reviewed and updated from time to time.

My view is the same as yours as you described earlier no one knows what’s going to happen in the future and if we signed up to a regulatory alignment to maintain standards the UK cannot move its own rules unilaterally as it sees fit nor hypothetically if we wanted to increase those standards to a higher level than the EU because regulatory alignment will put a stop to it.


Indeed.

Our view only differs insofar as Brexiteers think the EU will be driven by malice going forward, while I think it will be driven by pragmatism. The corresponding implication is that brexiteers think the EU will act irrationally with respect to economics and trade, while I think they will act rationally, which will - on balance - be good for everyone in the EU, and those with close relationships with it - Switzerland, Norway etc. Even the UK, if it so chooses.

Obviously I’m not alone here. Technically almost half the UK agrees with this view.

A101 wrote:
It’s not ignoring the fact at all you seem to think that the UK must enter into vassalage state with the EU when we also are an independent nation. Brexit is about being in control of our own judicial and regulatory system not tying it up again with the EU. The EU is free to change its laws just like the UK, under regulatory alignment we will not have that option.


Technically, that’s not accurate. The UK was an independent nation and an equal member of the EU while it was in the EU. It walked away.

Now it’s an independent nation that is not a member of the EU. However, it wants to benefit (to some degree) from easy access to the biggest asset of the EU - the single market. But, given that the UK is not a member, the EU is putting conditions for that access.

Worth noting that the EU does not propose taking control of all of the UK’s laws as your technically imprecise language suggests (technically speaking - or otherwise - it never has). It’s proposing regulatory alignment on specific areas that it views as being critical to the integrity of its biggest asset. - the single market (ie maintain labour standards, environmental standards, state aid rules). It is not, for example, seeking to dictate UK criminal or education or defence law.

A101 wrote:
My concerns are 100% justifiable, and so far you or anyone else on the forum has convinced me otherwise.


In fairness to us all, mankind has long struggled to convince dogmatists, religious or otherwise, that their technically irrational articles of faith are, well, technically irrational. Some people continue to believe the world is flat. Others believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. This is less a reflection of ones ability to convince another, than it is a reflection of the inherent dangers of ideology and dogmatism.

That said, you haven’t, technically, demonstrated that EU behaviour - on balance - is damaging to those closest to it (Norway, Switzerland etc). Unless you believe Switzerland and Norway are thoroughly irrational actors (notwithstanding the fact they technically have higher quality of life indicators than the UK), their experience contradicts your assertions.

A101 wrote:
Well let me put it this way: those on this forum say because the EU is larger because of its population and economic size as a whole than the UK that the UK has no options but follow and fall into regulatory alignment.

China has a both larger economy and population than the EU, would you be willing to incorporate Chinese law as domestic EU law via regulatory alignment just to secure a trade deal with China ?


That line of argument doesn’t - technically - work.

As a general rule, the party with the highest standard doesn’t have to adjust to the lower standard for the simple reason that - technically - it already meets the lower standards by virtue of being, well, a higher standard.

But that aside, it depends on how much ease of access one party is seeking - or willing to provide - to the other party.

If the UK wants to go to lower standards, it loses some ease of access. If it intends to go for higher standards, it might as well go into full alignment because then the EU regulations have no bearing - they will be met anyway.

Therein lies the crux: if the UK isn’t going to adopt lower standards - that is to say - if it intends to maintain the same or higher standards, then why the fuss about regulatory alignment when it will align by default anyway?

The only logical answer is that it intends to undercut EU standards, as a result of which the EU is seeking guarantees.

This has always been a very simple and straightforward issue.

A101 wrote:
As I said before EU protectionism has been talked about long before Brexit really gather steam, it’s nothing new.

Funny how you’re facts haven’t countered any argument about protectionism and as pointed out Cecilia Malmström agrees that the EU is protectionist, can’t get more damming evidence than from EU’s own trade commissioner from 2014 to 2019.


None of that - technically - changes the fact that any EU trade protectionism that the UK will face after leaving the EU is a direct consequence of Brexiteer labour protectionism. If the latter protectionists hadn’t prevailed, the former would not happen. That is to say, the UK would still have had full access to the single market - no scope for EU protectionism.

Which makes the sight of Brexiteers criticizing anybody else’s protectionism seem farcical - you know, “protectionist angry at other protectionists for being equally protectionist.” Glass houses etc.

As an aside, I’ve never denied that the EU is protectionist. Literally every country is. This is just a fact. That’s why countries spend years negotiating trade deals. That’s why EU nations created a trading bloc.

A101 wrote:
Obviously you didn’t read the post in full yesterday, nor the link to an article titled “Six reasons why ‘Norway Plus’ is an unlikely Brexit outcome”


Why should I rely on somebody not involved in the negotiations speculating, rather than any official communication from one party or the other? If it’s true, surely it must be out there.

As I recall, all options were on the table at the beginning. Probably still are. I can’t imagine the EU refusing to discuss a Norway type deal even now. Can you?
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:59 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:
Domestic politics and international politics does have an impact on how one can manoeuvre. I was pointing out the well known history on how the WA came about. Which is no different than what happens in the EU or any other Parliamentary body around the world via horse trading.


“Can” have an impact? Sure.

“Must” have an impact? Nope.

A101 wrote:
It’s well known that Johnson’s predecessor agreed to a bad deal with the EU which left very little room to move than which was compounded by a hostile Parliament and EU who thought Johnson could not work the problems


May’s Government, which technically was the UK Government, agreed to a deal.

Which is to say: Technically, this was always a negotiation between the EU and the UK Government. Not between the EU and May or the EU and Johnson.

A101 wrote:
Fundamental difference between May’s deal and Johnson was the May’s backstop provision in which we were never going to have independent parliamentary and judicial sovereignty with the UK tied to the EU/ECJ in perpetuity.


Whatever you said above doesn’t technically apply to the UK of GB and NI. It only applies to GB.

A101 wrote:
Johnson’s deal has given the NI Parliament the ability to consent which is an important element within the GFA, its ability for NI to consent whether or not to remain in lockstep with the EU or leave. And with the Johnsons revised agreement remaining parts of the UK will leaving EU rule. Very big difference


Or Johnson put a border between GB and NI, to the apparent displeasure of his erstwhile Unionist Allies, while May refused to. I think you’ll find many Northern Irelanders who think Johnson threw NI unionists under the bus to keep his English Brexiteers happy.

A101 wrote:
Remember no one gave him a chance in hell on renegotiating the WA. Only real problem it didn’t go far enough due to domestic shenanigans


Ah, yes, the lionization of Johnson. Which assumes - contradictorily - that only Johnson could sway the EU, and that the EU has no free agency.

Technically, Johnson only got what the EU was willing to give him - a border between NI and GB. And that too, only after RoI was satisfied.

This brexiteer habit of treating it as a “victory”, rather than EU flexibility, with the follow-on assumption that Johnson can bring the EU to heel whenever he wants, is the reason the talks have hit an impasse. Brexiteers appear to have mistaken EU flexibility for weakness.

A101 wrote:
He went down a different path due to circumstances, remember the bias speaker of the house gave every chance for pro remain to stop Brexit, which then passed the bill if no agreement is reached then parliament has to vote on a no deal withdrawal in which he knew that he did not have the numbers at that point in time

But I agree he could have stop the withdrawal agreement becoming law after he won his landslide majority. But he didn’t as it was his intention to negotiate a fair and equitable trade deal with the EU,but as we have seen from the negotiations both sides are far apart on where they want to be.


For Brexiteers, it’s always somebody else’s fault, isn’t it?

A101 wrote:
Of course it’s out of context for statistical purposes, the EU is a trading block and negotiates trade as a single block when it suits, but when it doesn’t you are each individual nations. What do you want to be individual’s or indivisible?


Yes, the benefits of being a fairly loose trading union. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance among Brexiteers right now. “What do you mean they all run their own embassies?” France is both an independent sovereign nation that exports to Germany, and a co-member in a larger union, along with Germany, that makes it easier for France to export to Germany. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

As an aside, a group of individuals can be indivisible. ‘Technically’, etc. The two are not, nor have they ever been, mutually exclusive. Examples abound. Like the UK - an indivisible union of four individual nations.

A101 wrote:
Negotiations are along the same line everywhere whether political or private treaty. Once again there is no backsliding as I pointed out it’s just Barnier interpretation. The EU wants to use its rule book going forward into the future and the UK just goes along with, no sane country in the world does that without opt outs even Norway has those available to use if needed. The disagreement in regards to sect 77 as M Barnier pointed out is regulatory alignment now and in the future.


The EU disagrees, and given that it’s one of the two parties in this negotiation, that’s a problem.

Want Norway-style opt outs? Sign up for a Norway-style deal.

A101 wrote:
Technically I am right in my interpretation.

adverb
technically: according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly.


Technically, you are correct.

Although, as demonstrated above, questions remain about how technically accurate the rest of your assumptions are.

A101 wrote:
The hypotheticals described have vastly different potential outcomes, if the UK adopted the EU rule book and any future rule into domestic law it can have negative consequences, the hypothetical that you brought would not breech the SM as the product is banned from the EU market it would not even reach continental EU or for that matter NI. The EU already deals with countries that have different stands in which the businesses importing into the EU have to be certified


Only if border checks are in place.

Regulatory alignment is aimed at reducing or eliminating border checks (see NI-RoI). If sub-standard goods (technically speaking) enter the UK and can benefit from the relatively less stringent border checks that the UK is seeking, then that is a problem for the EU.

The alternative is very careful scrutiny of everything entering the EU and NI, which is more painful for businesses, and more costly for both sides. Thats what we’re heading for if there isn’t a certain level of regulatory alignment.

A101 wrote:
That’s far from the case but we all know that EU rules/ regulations are not set and forget they are reviewed and updated from time to time.

My view is the same as yours as you described earlier no one knows what’s going to happen in the future and if we signed up to a regulatory alignment to maintain standards the UK cannot move its own rules unilaterally as it sees fit nor hypothetically if we wanted to increase those standards to a higher level than the EU because regulatory alignment will put a stop to it.


Indeed.

Our view only differs insofar as Brexiteers think the EU will be driven by malice going forward, while I think it will be driven by pragmatism. The corresponding implication is that brexiteers think the EU will act irrationally with respect to economics and trade, while I think they will act rationally, which will - on balance - be good for everyone in the EU, and those with close relationships with it - Switzerland, Norway etc. Even the UK, if it so chooses.

Obviously I’m not alone here. Technically almost half the UK agrees with this view.

A101 wrote:
It’s not ignoring the fact at all you seem to think that the UK must enter into vassalage state with the EU when we also are an independent nation. Brexit is about being in control of our own judicial and regulatory system not tying it up again with the EU. The EU is free to change its laws just like the UK, under regulatory alignment we will not have that option.


Technically, that’s not accurate. The UK was an independent nation and an equal member of the EU while it was in the EU. It walked away.

Now it’s an independent nation that is not a member of the EU. However, it wants to benefit (to some degree) from easy access to the biggest asset of the EU - the single market. But, given that the UK is not a member, the EU is putting conditions for that access.

Worth noting that the EU does not propose taking control of all of the UK’s laws as your technically imprecise language suggests (technically speaking - or otherwise - it never has). It’s proposing regulatory alignment on specific areas that it views as being critical to the integrity of its biggest asset. - the single market (ie maintain labour standards, environmental standards, state aid rules). It is not, for example, seeking to dictate UK criminal or education or defence law.

A101 wrote:
My concerns are 100% justifiable, and so far you or anyone else on the forum has convinced me otherwise.


In fairness to us all, mankind has long struggled to convince dogmatists, religious or otherwise, that their technically irrational articles of faith are, well, technically irrational. Some people continue to believe the world is flat. Others believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. This is less a reflection of ones ability to convince another, than it is a reflection of the inherent dangers of ideology and dogmatism.

That said, you haven’t, technically, demonstrated that EU behaviour - on balance - is damaging to those closest to it (Norway, Switzerland etc). Unless you believe Switzerland and Norway are thoroughly irrational actors (notwithstanding the fact they technically have higher quality of life indicators than the UK), their experience contradicts your assertions.

A101 wrote:
Well let me put it this way: those on this forum say because the EU is larger because of its population and economic size as a whole than the UK that the UK has no options but follow and fall into regulatory alignment.

China has a both larger economy and population than the EU, would you be willing to incorporate Chinese law as domestic EU law via regulatory alignment just to secure a trade deal with China ?


That line of argument doesn’t - technically - work.

As a general rule, the party with the highest standard doesn’t have to adjust to the lower standard for the simple reason that - technically - it already meets the lower standards by virtue of being, well, a higher standard.

But that aside, it depends on how much ease of access one party is seeking - or willing to provide - to the other party.

If the UK wants to go to lower standards, it loses some ease of access. If it intends to go for higher standards, it might as well go into full alignment because then the EU regulations have no bearing - they will be met anyway.

Therein lies the crux: if the UK isn’t going to adopt lower standards - that is to say - if it intends to maintain the same or higher standards, then why the fuss about regulatory alignment when it will align by default anyway?

The only logical answer is that it intends to undercut EU standards, as a result of which the EU is seeking guarantees.

This has always been a very simple and straightforward issue.

A101 wrote:
As I said before EU protectionism has been talked about long before Brexit really gather steam, it’s nothing new.

Funny how you’re facts haven’t countered any argument about protectionism and as pointed out Cecilia Malmström agrees that the EU is protectionist, can’t get more damming evidence than from EU’s own trade commissioner from 2014 to 2019.


None of that - technically - changes the fact that any EU trade protectionism that the UK will face after leaving the EU is a direct consequence of Brexiteer labour protectionism. If the latter protectionists hadn’t prevailed, the former would not happen. That is to say, the UK would still have had full access to the single market - no scope for EU protectionism.

Which makes the sight of Brexiteers criticizing anybody else’s protectionism seem farcical - you know, “protectionist angry at other protectionists for being equally protectionist.” Glass houses etc.

As an aside, I’ve never denied that the EU is protectionist. Literally every country is. This is just a fact. That’s why countries spend years negotiating trade deals. That’s why EU nations created a trading bloc.

A101 wrote:
Obviously you didn’t read the post in full yesterday, nor the link to an article titled “Six reasons why ‘Norway Plus’ is an unlikely Brexit outcome”


Why should I rely on somebody not involved in the negotiations speculating, rather than any official communication from one party or the other? If it’s true, surely it must be out there.

As I recall, all options were on the table at the beginning. Probably still are. I can’t imagine the EU refusing to discuss a Norway type deal even now. Can you?


:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:
Where's the like button ?? Very good post !

I think this is key :
ElPistolero wrote:
Our view only differs insofar as Brexiteers think the EU will be driven by malice going forward, while I think it will be driven by pragmatism.

Because A101 have insisted so much on the trap he thought the Backstop was, when it was simply as you say : the technical result of pragmatism, after May found an intra UK border inacceptable...
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:04 am

So, surely now is the time when all those car manufacturers jump in and force the EU to sign an FTA on the UK's terms to protect their export markets? :roll:

ElPistolero wrote:
Cue cognitive dissonance as Brexiteers applaud reneging on previous commitments that they made, while simultaneously accusing the EU of negotiating in bad faith.



Relevant:

Image

How do people not see through this?

A101 wrote:
If the UK made a law that the EU didn’t like and was against its own interests you would be happy to do so?


Go ask Norway and Switzerland what it's like. Remember, you did have input in said future laws until the end of Jan....

Dutchy wrote:
Or do you want the UK to flood the internal EU market with crap, made by overworked, underpaid, in dangerous labor surroundings UK workers all the while polluting the environment?


That's exactly what we voted for!

Signed,

A brexiteer near you :lol:
First to fly the 787-9
 
LJ
Posts: 5255
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:25 pm

Seems that the UK can forget about the EU helping its service industry. Next to Finance and Legal, it seems that Barnier squashed UKs idea to remain a hub for testing and certification of EU compliance...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/london-not-european-financial-hub-154730496.html
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:26 pm

Rightly so.

Brexiteers are starting to reap the lies they sowed. Unfortunately the two thirds of the country who didn't vote leave will have to suffer it too.
 
olle
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:01 am

LJ wrote:
Seems that the UK can forget about the EU helping its service industry. Next to Finance and Legal, it seems that Barnier squashed UKs idea to remain a hub for testing and certification of EU compliance...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/london-not-european-financial-hub-154730496.html



No surprise for anyone?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3999
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:49 pm

The yahoo link above notes that a sovereign political body is going to want certain essential services to take place within its own borders. This should seem obvious. Unfortunately the UK as a member was doing a substantial, in some even more of those services. The EU needs to repatriate those services.

Much, but not all of the UK hinterlands resented the power and prosperity of the big city, but generally failed to realize that that same power and prosperity made a major contribution to the prosperity and viability of those hinterlands. This particular dynamic was very obvious living in the hinterlands of Washington State, and the often naked hate they expressed about Seattle. Oblivious that what little prosperity we had was supported by taxes from the big city. The county repeatedly pursued anti-business policies.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:33 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
posting your lengthy posts on virtual outcomes virtually nobody reads through any longer


No argument from me there...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11465
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:08 pm

ChrisKen wrote:
Rightly so.

Brexiteers are starting to reap the lies they sowed. Unfortunately the two thirds of the country who didn't vote leave will have to suffer it too.


Lots of people voted for no to the very broad question put to them. Lot's of people voted "yes" without knowing what it would entail. Lots of folks didn't vote at all, unfortunately for. them, they should have voted.

As said before, these monumental decisions should not be taken by a simple majority, one time. Too sensitive of manipulation and figures, as has been shown. But that is all in the past now.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:16 am

Dutchy wrote:
ChrisKen wrote:
Rightly so.

Brexiteers are starting to reap the lies they sowed. Unfortunately the two thirds of the country who didn't vote leave will have to suffer it too.


Lots of people voted for no to the very broad question put to them. Lot's of people voted "yes" without knowing what it would entail. Lots of folks didn't vote at all, unfortunately for. them, they should have voted.

As said before, these monumental decisions should not be taken by a simple majority, one time. Too sensitive of manipulation and figures, as has been shown. But that is all in the past now.


Well actully from what I can see the only difference between holding a referenda in the Netherlands compared to the United Kingdom is the threshold of a minimum 30% turnout as long as that’s meet 50%+1 of the turnout is the majority unless it is legislated for a different criteria.

The Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement is a case in point in that only 32.28% turnout

Unlike in Australia where it is written in its Constitution any alteration to the constitution by law can only be achieved by a referenda which has to pass by a double majority, in other words the majority of the population eligible to vote and also a majority of the States. Any Non - constitutional poll are conducted via plebiscites which are advisory in nature

Australian Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1977
States.................Majority For..............Carried
3:3........................62.22%.......................No
 
LJ
Posts: 5255
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:50 am

A101 wrote:
Well actully from what I can see the only difference between holding a referenda in the Netherlands compared to the United Kingdom is the threshold of a minimum 30% turnout as long as that’s meet 50%+1 of the turnout is the majority unless it is legislated for a different criteria.

The Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement is a case in point in that only 32.28% turnout


Did the Dutch government follow the referendum result on the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement? Answer: No it didn't. What did the Dutch government do? Realise that referenda can be manipulated for other reasons and forbid referenda on any international agreement (and much more) and upped the barriers to start a referendum. Hence why we'll not have a referndum on CETA in The Netherlands (which would be turned down) The Dutch referendum on referendum the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement is a classic example on what happens when you have an angry population, a well organised campaign against the government (and uses an issue just to make a point) and a government who didn't promote the benefits or the proposed issue at stake (and thought that either people would not vote or vote for it).
 
JJJ
Posts: 3618
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:40 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
ChrisKen wrote:
Rightly so.

Brexiteers are starting to reap the lies they sowed. Unfortunately the two thirds of the country who didn't vote leave will have to suffer it too.


Lots of people voted for no to the very broad question put to them. Lot's of people voted "yes" without knowing what it would entail. Lots of folks didn't vote at all, unfortunately for. them, they should have voted.

As said before, these monumental decisions should not be taken by a simple majority, one time. Too sensitive of manipulation and figures, as has been shown. But that is all in the past now.


Well actully from what I can see the only difference between holding a referenda in the Netherlands compared to the United Kingdom is the threshold of a minimum 30% turnout as long as that’s meet 50%+1 of the turnout is the majority unless it is legislated for a different criteria.

The Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement is a case in point in that only 32.28% turnout

Unlike in Australia where it is written in its Constitution any alteration to the constitution by law can only be achieved by a referenda which has to pass by a double majority, in other words the majority of the population eligible to vote and also a majority of the States. Any Non - constitutional poll are conducted via plebiscites which are advisory in nature

Australian Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1977
States.................Majority For..............Carried
3:3........................62.22%.......................No


You're conflating two different things now. Because in most countries referendums are advisory, but indeed any constitutional change needs some kind of reinforced parliamentary majority.

In Spain they need a 3/5 majority on both houses of Parliament, The aggravated procedure (for major changes including the first key articles or a total rewrite) need a 2/3 majority, the immediate celebration of new elections after which the new government has to pass them again with a 2/3 majority and then on to a referendum (simple majority).
 
olle
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:23 am

UK economy fell 20% in April...
America first...
Anti globalisation...
Trade war with China..
No passporting for London financial district...

What a timing for Brexit!
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:30 am

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Lots of people voted for no to the very broad question put to them. Lot's of people voted "yes" without knowing what it would entail. Lots of folks didn't vote at all, unfortunately for. them, they should have voted.

As said before, these monumental decisions should not be taken by a simple majority, one time. Too sensitive of manipulation and figures, as has been shown. But that is all in the past now.


Well actully from what I can see the only difference between holding a referenda in the Netherlands compared to the United Kingdom is the threshold of a minimum 30% turnout as long as that’s meet 50%+1 of the turnout is the majority unless it is legislated for a different criteria.

The Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement is a case in point in that only 32.28% turnout

Unlike in Australia where it is written in its Constitution any alteration to the constitution by law can only be achieved by a referenda which has to pass by a double majority, in other words the majority of the population eligible to vote and also a majority of the States. Any Non - constitutional poll are conducted via plebiscites which are advisory in nature

Australian Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1977
States.................Majority For..............Carried
3:3........................62.22%.......................No


You're conflating two different things now. Because in most countries referendums are advisory, but indeed any constitutional change needs some kind of reinforced parliamentary majority.

In Spain they need a 3/5 majority on both houses of Parliament, The aggravated procedure (for major changes including the first key articles or a total rewrite) need a 2/3 majority, the immediate celebration of new elections after which the new government has to pass them again with a 2/3 majority and then on to a referendum (simple majority).



Nope read Dutchy’s original post, he was specifically objecting to the UK referenda process that it’s results were accepted by a simple majority, he was alluding to the need for something so important such as Brexit that it should have a higher level of majority support, my reply was to show that the Netherlands have the same criteria to achieve the majority result, but on the proviso of a minimum of 30% turnout.

You have actully taken it out of context by bring up the parliamentary process prior to the electorate vote on the referenda. Using the Dutch referenda on the Ukraine–European Union Agreement was to show that the result can be considered on such a low turnout if it fell below the 30% the result either way would be null and void

The Australian example I used was simple to show a process to achieve a higher standard. All the Australian referenda example that I used was the use of a double majority, if you actully take note of the result there was a clear majority of the eligible vote voted yes to the change (62.22%.) but because they could not get a majority of the states to agree 3/6 it didn’t pass the double majority which the threshold is 4-6

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill :banghead:
 
vc10
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:33 am

I have kept a eye on the postings on this subject for many a year now and what amazes me is why so many EU members are worried about what the UK does as throughout this topic the Mainland Europeans have told everybody that the UK does not matter
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:40 am

olle wrote:
UK economy fell 20% in April...
America first...
Anti globalisation...
Trade war with China..
No passporting for London financial district...

What a timing for Brexit!


Yes unfortunate timing yes everyone has been caught on the hop by this event.

German industrial output plunged by 17.9% in April (the biggest drop since records began in 1991), due to coronavirus shutting down Europe’s biggest economy.
The auto industry reported the sharpest plunge of 74.6% (month on month basis).
Exports plunged far more than expectations by 24% in April, while imports dropped 16.5% due to drying up of demand amid coronavirus lockdown.


Everyone is in the same boat across the globe over the last few months
 
JJJ
Posts: 3618
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:01 am

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:

Well actully from what I can see the only difference between holding a referenda in the Netherlands compared to the United Kingdom is the threshold of a minimum 30% turnout as long as that’s meet 50%+1 of the turnout is the majority unless it is legislated for a different criteria.

The Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement is a case in point in that only 32.28% turnout

Unlike in Australia where it is written in its Constitution any alteration to the constitution by law can only be achieved by a referenda which has to pass by a double majority, in other words the majority of the population eligible to vote and also a majority of the States. Any Non - constitutional poll are conducted via plebiscites which are advisory in nature

Australian Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1977
States.................Majority For..............Carried
3:3........................62.22%.......................No


You're conflating two different things now. Because in most countries referendums are advisory, but indeed any constitutional change needs some kind of reinforced parliamentary majority.

In Spain they need a 3/5 majority on both houses of Parliament, The aggravated procedure (for major changes including the first key articles or a total rewrite) need a 2/3 majority, the immediate celebration of new elections after which the new government has to pass them again with a 2/3 majority and then on to a referendum (simple majority).



Nope read Dutchy’s original post, he was specifically objecting to the UK referenda process that it’s results were accepted by a simple majority, he was alluding to the need for something so important such as Brexit that it should have a higher level of majority support, my reply was to show that the Netherlands have the same criteria to achieve the majority result, but on the proviso of a minimum of 30% turnout.


You're still missing the point that Dutch referendums are advisory.

The Netherlands still ratified a Ukraine Association Agreement a few months later, despite the referendum saying no.

Constitutional changes in the Netherlands are explicitly forbidden to be put to a referendum.
 
olle
Posts: 1893
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:03 am

Of course that is the truth. It seems like economy is recovering the last few weeks. At least in Sweden

https://www.avanza.se/placera/telegram/ ... dbank.html
---------------------------

SWEDEN
CARD TRANSACTIONS INCREASED FROM APRIL BOTTEN - SWEDBANK (Direct)
2020-05-18 08:25
STOCKHOLM (Nyhetsbyrån Direkt) Card transaction data for the period up to and including 12 May indicate that Swedish consumption has recovered since the bottom in mid-April. However, consumption is still clearly lower than the same period last year.

Swedbank writes this in an analysis on Monday.

"Total consumption excluding food declined by 20 percent during the period May 6 to May 12, compared with the same period last year. Including food purchases, the decline was 9 percent," the bank writes.

In addition to food, the expenditure on home electronics is around 30 per cent, while furniture and renovations show an increase of about 20 per cent compared to last year. At the same time, hotels, restaurants and entertainment show a loss of between 20 and 40 percent.

Travel-related operations continue to operate in a very subdued environment. This includes public transport and taxis, Swedbank continues.
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:12 am

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

You're conflating two different things now. Because in most countries referendums are advisory, but indeed any constitutional change needs some kind of reinforced parliamentary majority.

In Spain they need a 3/5 majority on both houses of Parliament, The aggravated procedure (for major changes including the first key articles or a total rewrite) need a 2/3 majority, the immediate celebration of new elections after which the new government has to pass them again with a 2/3 majority and then on to a referendum (simple majority).



Nope read Dutchy’s original post, he was specifically objecting to the UK referenda process that it’s results were accepted by a simple majority, he was alluding to the need for something so important such as Brexit that it should have a higher level of majority support, my reply was to show that the Netherlands have the same criteria to achieve the majority result, but on the proviso of a minimum of 30% turnout.


You're still missing the point that Dutch referendums are advisory.

The Netherlands still ratified a Ukraine Association Agreement a few months later, despite the referendum saying no.

Constitutional changes in the Netherlands are explicitly forbidden to be put to a referendum.



Nope the one and only point I'm bring up is that the results of referendum is 50%+1 I'm not debating reason for the referenda, just that the UK and Dutch referenda are broadly very similar
 
JJJ
Posts: 3618
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:55 am

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:


Nope read Dutchy’s original post, he was specifically objecting to the UK referenda process that it’s results were accepted by a simple majority, he was alluding to the need for something so important such as Brexit that it should have a higher level of majority support, my reply was to show that the Netherlands have the same criteria to achieve the majority result, but on the proviso of a minimum of 30% turnout.


You're still missing the point that Dutch referendums are advisory.

The Netherlands still ratified a Ukraine Association Agreement a few months later, despite the referendum saying no.

Constitutional changes in the Netherlands are explicitly forbidden to be put to a referendum.



Nope the one and only point I'm bring up is that the results of referendum is 50%+1 I'm not debating reason for the referenda, just that the UK and Dutch referenda are broadly very similar


The whole point Dutchy is making is that referendums are the wrong tool to settle complicated overarching political issues with a simple yes/no vote.

If the Dutch had gone on saying "the people have spoken" and refused to move on and compromise on the Ukraine issue you'd have a point.
 
A101
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:59 am

JJJ wrote:

The whole point Dutchy is making is that referendums are the wrong tool to settle complicated overarching political issues with a simple yes/no vote.



So what are you suggesting should happen if a complex change like this happens?


JJJ wrote:

If the Dutch had gone on saying "the people have spoken" and refused to move on and compromise on the Ukraine issue you'd have a point.




So what do you think the result meant, if the Government thinks that the electorate should have a say on an important issue but because it’s non-binding the Government can do the opposite if it so desires as it didn’t like the result, what’s the point of giving the electorate a say in the first place. Numerous option polls could have achieve the result to a degree. They haven’t exactly been reliable of late
 
Reinhardt
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:40 am

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

The whole point Dutchy is making is that referendums are the wrong tool to settle complicated overarching political issues with a simple yes/no vote.



So what are you suggesting should happen if a complex change like this happens?


JJJ wrote:

If the Dutch had gone on saying "the people have spoken" and refused to move on and compromise on the Ukraine issue you'd have a point.




So what do you think the result meant, if the Government thinks that the electorate should have a say on an important issue but because it’s non-binding the Government can do the opposite if it so desires as it didn’t like the result, what’s the point of giving the electorate a say in the first place. Numerous option polls could have achieve the result to a degree. They haven’t exactly been reliable of late


Because it gives the Govenment at the time an idea of the level of feeling for a particular topic. That feeling being turnout and the result. You can't run a Govenment by asking the people all the time what they want. We elect representatives who we feel represent us best, our ideals values etc. They won't always do what you want, and if they don't you can vote them out next time. But by having descision made about massive structural country wide topics that most of the public cleary have no clue about is dangerous.

Personally I wouldn't have had a problem with a super marjority vote on Brexit but really it should never have been asked of the public and should have remained something that was part of a parties official manifesto.There was no remote majority for Brexit in the public or in the HOC prior to Cameron calling the vote.
 
LJ
Posts: 5255
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 12, 2020 3:12 pm

Gove confirmed that there won't be an extension of the transition period.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-gove-eu-extension-brexit-113321434.html

In addition, no full border checks on goods till July 2021 (to ensure that UK customs can cope with it).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/12/brexit-full-border-controls-on-goods-entering-uk-will-not-apply-until-july-2021

Thus, if anyone is smart, smuggle your stuff into the UK in the first few months. However, as the EU will impose border checks, the lorries will end up waiting in line at Dover.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, airboeingbus, airtechy, anrec80, BN747, einsteinboricua, N583JB, skyservice_330, Tugger and 25 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos