Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

You're confusing a limited certification regime for foreign exporters with the fantasy of actual mutual recognition of each others' standards, which is simply not the case and which the UK can't get either.

No confusion at at all, that’s why I’m for divergence

So you deliberately want to make life as difficult, miserable and expensive as possible for UK businesses interacting with the outside world.

That explains your vote for Brexit and your support for BoJo's crash-out Brexit, but what for exactly?

By now this is not fun and games any more but increasingly about hard and substantial consequences, and no benefits in sight at all.

Sovereignty:the ability for the UK to make its own rules and standards as an independent nation

A101

I thought that a massive trade deal with the US was going to happen shortly.

If the PM and President are not even talking to each other....

bennett123 wrote:

A101

I thought that a massive trade deal with the US was going to happen shortly.

If the PM and President are not even talking to each other....

Crikey it’s only been just over a week since we can officially start negotiations, Rome wasn’t built in a day


And it certainly doesn’t mean we are going to agree on everything, it’s not the first time trumpy has had a row with a foreign leader on the phone about something he dosnt like and won’t most likely be the last

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

You're confusing a limited certification regime for foreign exporters with the fantasy of actual mutual recognition of each others' standards, which is simply not the case and which the UK can't get either.

No confusion at at all, that’s why I’m for divergence

So you deliberately want to make life as difficult, miserable and expensive as possible for UK businesses interacting with the outside world.

That explains your vote for Brexit and your support for BoJo's crash-out Brexit, but what for exactly?

By now this is not fun and games any more but increasingly about hard and substantial consequences, and no benefits in sight at all.

But A101 will be down under, and in the end, he will not experience the good or more likey the bad. In the end, he is an outsider arguing for something he has no part in.

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

No confusion at at all, that’s why I’m for divergence

So you deliberately want to make life as difficult, miserable and expensive as possible for UK businesses interacting with the outside world.

That explains your vote for Brexit and your support for BoJo's crash-out Brexit, but what for exactly?

By now this is not fun and games any more but increasingly about hard and substantial consequences, and no benefits in sight at all.

Sovereignty:the ability for the UK to make its own rules and standards as an independent nation

But that's not a goal on itself, it's just a mean... for what exactly?

Note how the UK Gov couldn't name a single rule it wants to diverge on, has been asking British industry for help and they couldn't name a single one either... so now they are having this popular imput...

Shouldn't this give away this need for divergence is something purely theoretical, rather than practically oriented?

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

So you deliberately want to make life as difficult, miserable and expensive as possible for UK businesses interacting with the outside world.

That explains your vote for Brexit and your support for BoJo's crash-out Brexit, but what for exactly?

By now this is not fun and games any more but increasingly about hard and substantial consequences, and no benefits in sight at all.

Sovereignty:the ability for the UK to make its own rules and standards as an independent nation

But that's not a goal on itself, it's just a mean... for what exactly?

Note how the UK Gov couldn't name a single rule it wants to diverge on, has been asking British industry for help and they couldn't name a single one either... so now they are having this popular imput...

Shouldn't this give away this need for divergence is something purely theoretical, rather than practically oriented?

it is feeling orientated, nothing more.

I think what is interesting is the environment that UK has found itself was a total under estimentation.

Both "make USA" great again and the standardization is two sides of the same coin.

EU needed common standards to make SM work. To allow products from spain to be sold in France Italy and sweden. It solved a very practical problem of makin italy great again meaning products in italy shall be produced in italy etc without major investments.

Experts understood this, including the brittish. General public will not understand it directly.

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

So you deliberately want to make life as difficult, miserable and expensive as possible for UK businesses interacting with the outside world.

That explains your vote for Brexit and your support for BoJo's crash-out Brexit, but what for exactly?

By now this is not fun and games any more but increasingly about hard and substantial consequences, and no benefits in sight at all.

Sovereignty:the ability for the UK to make its own rules and standards as an independent nation

But that's not a goal on itself, it's just a mean... for what exactly?

Note how the UK Gov couldn't name a single rule it wants to diverge on, has been asking British industry for help and they couldn't name a single one either... so now they are having this popular imput...

Shouldn't this give away this need for divergence is something purely theoretical, rather than practically oriented?

Divergence doesn’t mean we have to change our standards right now, divergence can also take the form of not accepting any future legislation that the EU might implement in the future in any specific area, something the likes of when Canada, Brazil, Singapore, Argentina and Australia have done from some EU financial regulations as it was not in their interests to do so with the EU remove some equivalence in that area.

By the way I use express as source here while some people have problem accept bbc, theguardian an politico as sources.

When express consider what normal is a remainer point of together with the same story in some of the othe ealier mentioned not even a brexiteer can dismiss it...

Dutchy wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

No confusion at at all, that’s why I’m for divergence

So you deliberately want to make life as difficult, miserable and expensive as possible for UK businesses interacting with the outside world.

That explains your vote for Brexit and your support for BoJo's crash-out Brexit, but what for exactly?

By now this is not fun and games any more but increasingly about hard and substantial consequences, and no benefits in sight at all.

But A101 will be down under, and in the end, he will not experience the good or more likey the bad. In the end, he is an outsider arguing for something he has no part in.

I imagine Dutchy will be saying the same thing when’s he’s

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Sovereignty:the ability for the UK to make its own rules and standards as an independent nation

But that's not a goal on itself, it's just a mean... for what exactly?

Note how the UK Gov couldn't name a single rule it wants to diverge on, has been asking British industry for help and they couldn't name a single one either... so now they are having this popular imput...

Shouldn't this give away this need for divergence is something purely theoretical, rather than practically oriented?

Divergence doesn’t mean we have to change our standards right now, divergence can also take the form of not accepting any future legislation that the EU might implement in the future in any specific area, something the likes of when Canada, Brazil, Singapore, Argentina and Australia have done from some EU financial regulations as it was not in their interests to do so with the EU remove some equivalence in that area.

So you cannot name ten things and yet you are ok with it that your vote, something you fiercely advocate, has the cost to the UK economy £222 Billion worth it? Can't you see the irony in that?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Klaus wrote:

So you deliberately want to make life as difficult, miserable and expensive as possible for UK businesses interacting with the outside world.

That explains your vote for Brexit and your support for BoJo's crash-out Brexit, but what for exactly?

By now this is not fun and games any more but increasingly about hard and substantial consequences, and no benefits in sight at all.

But A101 will be down under, and in the end, he will not experience the good or more likey the bad. In the end, he is an outsider arguing for something he has no part in.

I imagine Dutchy will be saying the same thing when’s he’s

It is good to remind ourselves that you are effectively an outsider to this. Gives the right perspective to your arguments.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

But that's not a goal on itself, it's just a mean... for what exactly?

Note how the UK Gov couldn't name a single rule it wants to diverge on, has been asking British industry for help and they couldn't name a single one either... so now they are having this popular imput...

Shouldn't this give away this need for divergence is something purely theoretical, rather than practically oriented?

Divergence doesn’t mean we have to change our standards right now, divergence can also take the form of not accepting any future legislation that the EU might implement in the future in any specific area, something the likes of when Canada, Brazil, Singapore, Argentina and Australia have done from some EU financial regulations as it was not in their interests to do so with the EU remove some equivalence in that area.

So you cannot name ten things and yet you are ok with it that your vote, something you fiercely advocate, has the cost to the UK economy £222 Billion worth it? Can't you see the irony in that?

Who said I had too make such a list?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Divergence doesn’t mean we have to change our standards right now, divergence can also take the form of not accepting any future legislation that the EU might implement in the future in any specific area, something the likes of when Canada, Brazil, Singapore, Argentina and Australia have done from some EU financial regulations as it was not in their interests to do so with the EU remove some equivalence in that area.

So you cannot name ten things and yet you are ok with it that your vote, something you fiercely advocate, has the cost to the UK economy £222 Billion worth it? Can't you see the irony in that?

Who said I had too make such a list?

I said you can't, I don't say you have to.

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Sovereignty:the ability for the UK to make its own rules and standards as an independent nation

But that's not a goal on itself, it's just a mean... for what exactly?

Note how the UK Gov couldn't name a single rule it wants to diverge on, has been asking British industry for help and they couldn't name a single one either... so now they are having this popular imput...

Shouldn't this give away this need for divergence is something purely theoretical, rather than practically oriented?

Divergence doesn’t mean we have to change our standards right now, divergence can also take the form of not accepting any future legislation that the EU might implement in the future in any specific area, something the likes of when Canada, Brazil, Singapore, Argentina and Australia have done from some EU financial regulations as it was not in their interests to do so with the EU remove some equivalence in that area.

If UK wants the ability to diverge in certain area the mechanism that needs to be put in place must be considered as if UK already diverged.
That's why it would be beneficial to actually identify the area where it would want to diverge in the future and the one where alignment, or at least no regression, will remain.

An interesting thing in all the negotiation wants to conduct at the same time is the different message delivered to different audiences.

To Japan. Japan relies on the UK as an entry point to the EU market. Not having it would be nearly catastrophic for Japan, so the the message to Japan : Don't worry, we'll get an agreement, we are all interested by that.
https://in.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... NKCN20205F

Raab also sought to ease Japanese concern that the EU exit could result in trade friction with the rest of Europe. Japanese manufacturers such as Nissan Motor Co (7201.T) built plants in Britain because it offered a convenient gateway to the EU.

There is, Raab predicted, enough political will in both the EU and Britain to conclude a deal that will decide their future relationship before a transition period finishes at the end of the year.

While the mesage to UK citizens and EU : We're tough, we can do Australian (no) deal
You know, some kind of frictionful trade deal.

At some point something will have to be delivered, and the two position aren't compatible. Which one will it be ? I have my idea.

A101 wrote:

Sovereignty:the ability for the UK to make its own rules and standards as an independent nation

The UK always had that, and actually to a much greater degree than it could outside of the EU, because for almost half a century the UK was actually able to influence or even veto the rules of the continent with its own while maintaining its own freedom to make domestic rules apart from the common ones, while right now it has completely lost that ability and even after the end of the transition the UK will just have to live with the rules the other countries are making around it without any influence or even a veto which you voted to destroy.

You have actually voted to destroy exactly that which you are claiming as your motivation, and as we've seen in these discussions that choice was based on just not knowing anything about the actual EU and the actual power and influence the UK once had in it.

But now as a consequence of your own choice the UK has already thrown away much of its actual sovereignty and the illusions peddled by the likes of BoJo and Nigel have been crumpling like origami paper on contact with actual reality and will continue to do so.

But you're off to Australia (out of the frying pan, into the fire!), so the chaos you've caused will be for other, mostly younger britons to actually live with, which seems to be a theme around here.

UK need to understand thst they are suddenly the exwife. For the wellbeing of the common children we want her yo jave a deasent life but we will not pay her bills nor be interrsted in the future fate of her except were we have common interests the children

UK need to realize that from now on EU will be kind where it suits common interests or were we get something in exchange for something else. It will also be one package. We make one agreement. If parts of this agreement is nroken the whole agreement is broken.

Spot on article by the telegraph: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... -hand/amp/

The EU is panicking and rightly so, there will be a HUGE dispute on how other smaller countries will have to pay more into the budget.

Arion640 wrote:

Spot on article by the telegraph: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... -hand/amp/

The EU is panicking and rightly so, there will be a HUGE dispute on how other smaller countries will have to pay more into the budget.

Panicking ! nothing less !
I'm not sure what future MFN discussion have to do with Brexit now UK is out but whatever, sorry to break this to you but UK contribution will be as difficult to redistribute as the UK MEP seats were.
Of course it will be tough internal negotiation, as usual, and rightfully so. Business as usual for EU.

First title : "It is becoming desperately clear that the EU has no actual negotiation strategy"
Are we talking the same EU whos negotiator in chief released its mandate request to EU CO the first business day after Brexit ?

The problem is not UK making its own rules, the red flag is that they brag that they want to make rules that undercut EU rules while expecting the EU to let theses products unfettered EU access.

It seems that the UK expects that playing the victim card will get them a free pass.

Arion640 wrote:

Spot on article by the telegraph: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... -hand/amp/

The EU is panicking and rightly so, there will be a HUGE dispute on how other smaller countries will have to pay more into the budget.

I can see why some in Britain are fired up for Brexit with a bombardment of articles with these lies.

Arion640 wrote:

Spot on article by the telegraph: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... -hand/amp/

The EU is panicking and rightly so, there will be a HUGE dispute on how other smaller countries will have to pay more into the budget.

Panicking is a very big word...

There is discussions like there always been.some countries like sweden holland is paying more then others per capita andof course will not want to pay more, some like germany and until now uk have got discounts, and some like denmark and poland get big net payments mostly because farming and of course do not want tohave less payments.

The tactics has been to use increased payments from all members to while not in number of euros decreasing the amounts but use the increasing contributions to invest in more interesting areas.

With the exit of UK of course that calculation changed. One was first the threat that UK left during one budget period disabling already agreed flows.

In the new budget the discussion is if the budget contributions shall remain on close 1% or increased to close 1.2%. The first number means that the proposed budget means deceased payments if the payments to incease competiness of EU must be met with decrease of for example farming support.
The 1.2% number means that allcountries need to pay more. Some part is met because countries like Poland today has much bigger GDP and will be much less net recirver then today.some will be met by germany loses their discounts. Some will be met by the biggest contributers per capita like sweden will pay more.

But this for example sweden as a small country gains so much because the standardization in the SM. Sweden export industry can get access un restricted to all markets in EU that it never had before. Sweden has thanks to this been one of the big benitting country of the SM and EU.

Grizzly410 wrote:

An interesting thing in all the negotiation wants to conduct at the same time is the different message delivered to different audiences.

To Japan. Japan relies on the UK as an entry point to the EU market. Not having it would be nearly catastrophic for Japan, so the the message to Japan : Don't worry, we'll get an agreement, we are all interested by that.

While the mesage to UK citizens and EU : We're tough, we can do Australian (no) deal
You know, some kind of frictionful trade deal.

At some point something will have to be delivered, and the two position aren't compatible. Which one will it be ? I have my idea.

Hence why I would not be surprised if Japan and other countries wait with signiing a trade agreement with the UK until it finalised the one with the EU. Or they sign under certain conditions regarding the UK - EU relation. No deal with the EU will most likely mean no deal with Japan and certain other countries. They're not stupid.

Grizzly410 wrote:

First title : "It is becoming desperately clear that the EU has no actual negotiation strategy"
Are we talking the same EU whos negotiator in chief released its mandate request to EU CO the first business day after Brexit ?

I think that the reporters are unable to read powerpoint presentations from the EU, or The Telegraph has blocked all access towards EU websites for their reporters. Then agian, why do we bother? If the British think they have the upper hand, why not letting them believe it? It's ultimately the end result (after being accepted by all EU governments + some regional governments) which counts.

LJ wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

First title : "It is becoming desperately clear that the EU has no actual negotiation strategy"
Are we talking the same EU whos negotiator in chief released its mandate request to EU CO the first business day after Brexit ?

I think that the reporters are unable to read powerpoint presentations from the EU, or The Telegraph has blocked all access towards EU websites for their reporters. Then agian, why do we bother? If the British think they have the upper hand, why not letting them believe it? It's ultimately the end result (after being accepted by all EU governments + some regional governments) which counts.

This strategy works for a few month.. In october if the Tory / UK backed ideas about having an FTA approved in the end of 2020 the truth will be obvious for all of us....

This reminds me back in 2016 when non EU members here on A.net said that negotiate A50 and having an FTA in 24 month would be impossible.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Sovereignty:the ability for the UK to make its own rules and standards as an independent nation

The UK always had that, and actually to a much greater degree than it could outside of the EU, because for almost half a century the UK was actually able to influence or even veto the rules of the continent with its own while maintaining its own freedom to make domestic rules apart from the common ones, while right now it has completely lost that ability and even after the end of the transition the UK will just have to live with the rules the other countries are making around it without any influence or even a veto which you voted to destroy.

I was about to reply exactly the same thing, but you did so already..

Allow me to add that the whole discussion about the economical benefit of Brexit is something that even Brexiteers timidly have admitted is something fabricated 'post factum', and that the business case for it will not be there anytime soon, if ever. (JRM estimated it at what? 50 years? That's a nice way to shift any blame for the lack of success till he's well gone)

Brexit was essentially about Britain's self-created immigration chaos, fueled by the ludicrous decision of successive British governments NOT to be willing to limit the influx of EU workers from the eastern memberstates when they could do so after their accession, combined with the very relax immigration policies for immigrants from the ex-colonies.

It created a Britain where cheap labour forces are abundant (a dream for employers), but where wages are stagnant because of it (a nightmare for employees): this gave both Labour and the Tories happy and wealthy party sponsors and it allowed the government to offset the appalling low productivity of the British economy through its low production costs, thus avoiding the need to invest more tax money on better education, more training, and costly apprenticeships...
Low taxes for businesses and citizens: everybody loved it!
It worked all so well on paper and in the spreadsheets for so many years, but the visual results on the streets were bewildering!

It's why DC utimately tried to negotiate a permanent hard limit to EU migration and got some sort of an emergency brake mechanism in 2016, and why TM spent 6 months after the referendum and before her Lancaster House speech trying to seperate the 4 freedoms: both knew very well that the 3 other freedoms were a real pitty to lose and impossible to reproduce through any sort of a FTA with the EU or even any other country in the world. The EU however said 'no cherry picking' and only then did the whole idea of a Global Britain came to the foreground, even if TM herself never believed in it herself.

'Global Britain' is all about damage control: trying to replace as much as possible of all that will be lost.

Klaus wrote:

The UK always had that, and actually to a much greater degree than it could outside of the EU, because for almost half a century the UK was actually able to influence or even veto the rules of the continent with its own while maintaining its own freedom to make domestic rules apart from the common ones, while right now it has completely lost that ability and even after the end of the transition the UK will just have to live with the rules the other countries are making around it without any influence or even a veto which you voted to destroy.

Well actually not much has changed than being in that respect.

There may have been influence on matters but that also stand for all members and is very debatable to what extent it achieves. As to the national veto it’s fairly hollow threat in the EU.

The more mundane legislative that become common law within nation states only needs a simple majority to pass, so effectively there is no veto unless a number of like minded nations band together.

Klaus wrote:

You have actually voted to destroy exactly that which you are claiming as your motivation, and as we've seen in these discussions that choice was based on just not knowing anything about the actual EU and the actual power and influence the UK once had in it.

Really we saw the power of the UK back in 2011 when the UK used its Veto, it’s an illusion

Klaus wrote:

But now as a consequence of your own choice the UK has already thrown away much of its actual sovereignty and the illusions peddled by the likes of BoJo and Nigel have been crumpling like origami paper on contact with actual reality and will continue to do so.

Wrong, we will have regained our full sovereignty by have full autonomy once vassalage end in December, no longer will theUK be subjected to EU ECJ and ECHR rulings except in NI

Klaus wrote:

But you're off to Australia (out of the frying pan, into the fire!), so the chaos you've caused will be for other, mostly younger britons to actually live with, which seems to be a theme around here.

Look a Dutchy MKII clone

Arion640 wrote:

Spot on article by the telegraph: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... -hand/amp/

The EU is panicking

Uh, in a word: No.

But clearly the Telegraph is, because they have been ramming a bunch of lies down their readers' throats and those lies are unraveling now on actual contact with the hard reality (just like all the rest of Brexit), so it's either coming clean about their own lies throughout all these years, or "simply" ratchet their lies up by another notch.

That tactic just can't fail with a readership as gullible as this, can it...?

and rightly so, there will be a HUGE dispute on how other smaller countries will have to pay more into the budget.

You mean the perfectly normal debates which happen on every round of multi-annual budget negotiations pretty much at the same level as they're happening now, too?

Your propaganda rags are indeed sweating and panicking, that much is sure, and they actually have reason to fear getting found out!

A101 wrote:

Wrong, we will have regained our full sovereignty by have full autonomy once vassalage end in December, no longer will theUK be subjected to EU ECJ and ECHR rulings except in NI

OMG you still don't get ECHR is not an EU institution ?? You didn't left it !

Indeed, the confusion is widespread because the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is based in Strasbourg, France where the European Parliament has its seat too, and so it may sound as if it's an EU court, but the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), aka the European Court of Justice (ECJ), is based in Luxemburg. Only the latter is thus an EU institution, with the first an institution of the Council of Europe: both have nothing to do with each other!

Britain is very much subjected to ECHR rulings today and will remain so well beyond December since Britain is NOT leaving the Council of Europe, which is a completely different organisation to the EU and -again- should not be confused with the European Council, which is the formal meeting of all PMs and Heads of State of all EU member states.

In short:
the ECHR is NOT the CJEU (aka ECJ)
the Council of Europe is NOT the European Council

Personally I'm waiting the first case where the ECHR hands a verdict down to the UK and the British press finds out much to its surprise the 2 are not the same indeed and Britain is still subjected to its rulings, because politicians haven't spent any time explaining this widespread misconception each time it got quoted by a Brexiteer as one of the advantages of Brexit to the point they even used it to their advantage by suggesting no more verdicts would come from European judges, also on matters which fall well outside of the ECJ competences yet well within the competence of the ECHR...this is wrong!

Since some people are clearly in urgent need of some reading to understand what supranational European court is retaining competence over the UK and which isn't, where it derives its power from, as well as what it does: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... -rights-uk

Am I correct in thinking Britain and the EU are still "married" and that they have only finally agreed to "divorce"? So things are still basically status quo (however with no new investments by each entity into the other) and the process now is divestiture and separation and how that will proceed and look once all is said and done?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Am I correct in thinking Britain and the EU are still "married" and that they have only finally agreed to "divorce"? So things are still basically status quo (however with no new investments by each entity into the other) and the process now is divestiture and separation and how that will proceed and look once all is said and done?

Tugg

They are status quo until the end of the year to help business and people transition but the UK has actually left the EU.

It’s a soft exit so far basically.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Wrong, we will have regained our full sovereignty by have full autonomy once vassalage end in December, no longer will theUK be subjected to EU ECJ and ECHR rulings except in NI

OMG you still don't get ECHR is not an EU institution ?? You didn't left it !

To be a member of the EU one has to be a part of the ECHR under EU law, once we leave the vassalage of the EU we can either quit the ECHR or form an independent body set in the UK, and one of the fundamental reasons for the EU insisting on a LPF for a trade deal as we are no longer bound by EU charter of fundamental rights

Arion640 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Am I correct in thinking Britain and the EU are still "married" and that they have only finally agreed to "divorce"? So things are still basically status quo (however with no new investments by each entity into the other) and the process now is divestiture and separation and how that will proceed and look once all is said and done?

Tugg

They are status quo until the end of the year to help business and people transition but the UK has actually left the EU.

It’s a soft exit so far basically.

Exactly, divorce is acted and the phase that just started (The Transition Period) brings us to the future relationship, which have to be negotiated in the short timeframe for its new way of working is able to operate on jan 1st 2021, unless TP extention... Meanwhile, there will be no visible administrative/procedural/legal change.

I personally don't rule out a UK gov calling for a TP extention before july deadline.
They may rebrand it "implementation period", this term was previously equally used with TP by Brexit leaders (IRC the WA mention both terms, or was it only TM WA?), to sell it for British audience. Today the idea seems crazy, but a lot will happen in the 5 months to come.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Wrong, we will have regained our full sovereignty by have full autonomy once vassalage end in December, no longer will theUK be subjected to EU ECJ and ECHR rulings except in NI

OMG you still don't get ECHR is not an EU institution ?? You didn't left it !

To be a member of the EU one has to be a part of the ECHR under EU law, once we leave the vassalage of the EU we can either quit the ECHR or form an independent body set in the UK, and one of the fundamental reasons for the EU insisting on a LPF for a trade deal as we are no longer bound by EU charter of fundamental rights

So you want out of the Council of Europe too? So from 47 states to 46. Fine why not. Makes it easier to abuse human rights in Britain. May I ask why though? Don't you like your human rights you enjoy?

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Wrong, we will have regained our full sovereignty by have full autonomy once vassalage end in December, no longer will theUK be subjected to EU ECJ and ECHR rulings except in NI

OMG you still don't get ECHR is not an EU institution ?? You didn't left it !

To be a member of the EU one has to be a part of the ECHR under EU law, once we leave the vassalage of the EU we can either quit the ECHR or form an independent body set in the UK, and one of the fundamental reasons for the EU insisting on a LPF for a trade deal as we are no longer bound by EU charter of fundamental rights

UK could withdraw its ECHR membership too if it wants, of course. But there is currently no plan to do so.
Therefore your "in December, no longer will the UK be subjected to ECHR rulings" is... a lie.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

OMG you still don't get ECHR is not an EU institution ?? You didn't left it !

To be a member of the EU one has to be a part of the ECHR under EU law, once we leave the vassalage of the EU we can either quit the ECHR or form an independent body set in the UK, and one of the fundamental reasons for the EU insisting on a LPF for a trade deal as we are no longer bound by EU charter of fundamental rights

UK could withdraw its ECHR membership too if it wants, of course. But there is currently no plan to do so.
Therefore your "in December, no longer will the UK be subjected to ECHR rulings" is... a lie.

It’s not December yet is it!


There’s no shortage of articles out there of various ministers calling for the UK to leave the ECHR including the remain pinup girl Theresa May. Johnson is already in a fight about convicted terrorist on deportation and early parole in that it may contravene ECHR, we have already had the stouch years ago on prisoner voting rights and how the UK defied the ECHR ruling under HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The EU is even so worried about it that they have said that it will suspend judicial/law enforcement cooperation if the UK leaves the ECHR, just because it not offical policy yet does not mean we won’t leave it in December

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

To be a member of the EU one has to be a part of the ECHR under EU law, once we leave the vassalage of the EU we can either quit the ECHR or form an independent body set in the UK, and one of the fundamental reasons for the EU insisting on a LPF for a trade deal as we are no longer bound by EU charter of fundamental rights

UK could withdraw its ECHR membership too if it wants, of course. But there is currently no plan to do so.
Therefore your "in December, no longer will the UK be subjected to ECHR rulings" is... a lie.

It’s not December yet is it!


There’s no shortage of articles out there of various ministers calling for the UK to leave the ECHR including the remain pinup girl Theresa May. Johnson is already in a fight about convicted terrorist on deportation and early parole in that it may contravene ECHR, we have already had the stouch years ago on prisoner voting rights and how the UK defied the ECHR ruling under HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The EU is even so worried about it that they have said that it will suspend judicial/law enforcement cooperation if the UK leaves the ECHR, just because it not offical policy yet does not mean we won’t leave it in December

You affirmed UK WILL be out of ECHR juridiction next december when it's a very light "could".
Period.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Am I correct in thinking Britain and the EU are still "married" and that they have only finally agreed to "divorce"? So things are still basically status quo (however with no new investments by each entity into the other) and the process now is divestiture and separation and how that will proceed and look once all is said and done?

Tugg

They are status quo until the end of the year to help business and people transition but the UK has actually left the EU.

It’s a soft exit so far basically.

Exactly, divorce is acted and the phase that just started (The Transition Period) brings us to the future relationship, which have to be negotiated in the short timeframe for its new way of working is able to operate on jan 1st 2021, unless TP extention... Meanwhile, there will be no visible administrative/procedural/legal change.

I personally don't rule out a UK gov calling for a TP extention before july deadline.
They may rebrand it "implementation period", this term was previously equally used with TP by Brexit leaders (IRC the WA mention both terms, or was it only TM WA?), to sell it for British audience. Today the idea seems crazy, but a lot will happen in the 5 months to come.

If it needs to be extended it will be a last minute extension to put maximum pressure on the EU.

Interesting, but looks like they’ll be heading home anyway.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirr ... 458944.amp

Arion640 wrote:

If it needs to be extended it will be a last minute extension to put maximum pressure on the EU.

That pressure is almost exclusively on the UK, though.

This absurd self-limitation is basically BoJo holding a gun to his own head and making demands to an unimpressed Michel Barnier.

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

If it needs to be extended it will be a last minute extension to put maximum pressure on the EU.

That pressure is almost exclusively on the UK, though.

This absurd self-limitation is basically BoJo holding a gun to his own head and making demands to an unimpressed Michel Barnier.

I don’t think there is any pressure on the UK side to extend, as the whole point of stopping vassalage in December is stopping the payments to the EU and stopping the EU retaining control over the legislative functions of parliament and returning supreme power to the Judiciary.

Just because no agreement is reached by December does not mean talks will finish, I read somewhere of the bare minimum that the EU/UK could scrape together as an interim agreement untill a comprehensive one can be agreed to, I thought I saved it but can’t find it now.

Looks like Romain Leick has a basic understanding of why the UK left the EU

https://www.spiegel.de/international/eu ... b632f2-amp

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

To be a member of the EU one has to be a part of the ECHR under EU law, once we leave the vassalage of the EU we can either quit the ECHR or form an independent body set in the UK, and one of the fundamental reasons for the EU insisting on a LPF for a trade deal as we are no longer bound by EU charter of fundamental rights

UK could withdraw its ECHR membership too if it wants, of course. But there is currently no plan to do so.
Therefore your "in December, no longer will the UK be subjected to ECHR rulings" is... a lie.

It’s not December yet is it!


There’s no shortage of articles out there of various ministers calling for the UK to leave the ECHR including the remain pinup girl Theresa May. Johnson is already in a fight about convicted terrorist on deportation and early parole in that it may contravene ECHR, we have already had the stouch years ago on prisoner voting rights and how the UK defied the ECHR ruling under HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The EU is even so worried about it that they have said that it will suspend judicial/law enforcement cooperation if the UK leaves the ECHR, just because it not offical policy yet does not mean we won’t leave it in December

In that case no need to waste time on (pretending to) negotiate a FTA with the EU: respect for human rights is a fundamental prerequisite for any FTA with the EU, and being a signatory to the ECHR is the benchmark for European countries willing to have a deal with the EU...

With each post you make, it just shows you have absolutely NO knowledge of the way the EU works, what it is and what it stands for, something widespread amongst Brexiteers btw. It's going to prove a fatal weakness of theirs not knowing their adversary: the conflicting things they ask for are simply not on offer, together and they never will, no matter how many times they try to convince themselves of how much Europe needs the UK.

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

UK could withdraw its ECHR membership too if it wants, of course. But there is currently no plan to do so.
Therefore your "in December, no longer will the UK be subjected to ECHR rulings" is... a lie.

It’s not December yet is it!


There’s no shortage of articles out there of various ministers calling for the UK to leave the ECHR including the remain pinup girl Theresa May. Johnson is already in a fight about convicted terrorist on deportation and early parole in that it may contravene ECHR, we have already had the stouch years ago on prisoner voting rights and how the UK defied the ECHR ruling under HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The EU is even so worried about it that they have said that it will suspend judicial/law enforcement cooperation if the UK leaves the ECHR, just because it not offical policy yet does not mean we won’t leave it in December

In that case no need to waste time on (pretending to) negotiate a FTA with the EU: respect for human rights is a fundamental prerequisite for any FTA with the EU, and being a signatory to the ECHR is the benchmark for European countries willing to have a deal with the EU...

With each post you make, it just shows you have absolutely NO knowledge of the way the EU works, what it is and what it stands for, something widespread amongst Brexiteers btw. It's going to prove a fatal weakness of theirs not knowing their adversary: the conflicting things they ask for are simply not on offer, together and they never will, no matter how many times they try to convince themselves of how much Europe needs the UK.

Maybe you are right, we should stop the dog and pony show agree to a very basic association agreement and move on.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Am I correct in thinking Britain and the EU are still "married" and that they have only finally agreed to "divorce"? So things are still basically status quo (however with no new investments by each entity into the other) and the process now is divestiture and separation and how that will proceed and look once all is said and done?

Tugg

They are status quo until the end of the year to help business and people transition but the UK has actually left the EU.

It’s a soft exit so far basically.

Exactly, divorce is acted and the phase that just started (The Transition Period) brings us to the future relationship, which have to be negotiated in the short timeframe for its new way of working is able to operate on jan 1st 2021, unless TP extention... Meanwhile, there will be no visible administrative/procedural/legal change.

That depends in which industry you're working. In work in the financial industry and my employer annouced that it will return its EUR business back to the EU before the deadline of April 1st 2020 (which will result in 40 FTE coming back to the mainland). The same will apply to many financial firms which need to clear Euros (including UK firms). As such the assumption that there is currently "no change" depends on the line of business and if regulation is part of the Transition Period.

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

If it needs to be extended it will be a last minute extension to put maximum pressure on the EU.

That pressure is almost exclusively on the UK, though.

This absurd self-limitation is basically BoJo holding a gun to his own head and making demands to an unimpressed Michel Barnier.

If you believe Boris and Michel actually lead these discussions then i’m afraid you don’t know much about the workings of government. There’s a team of civil servants running it on both sides.

Watch yes minister.

LJ wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

They are status quo until the end of the year to help business and people transition but the UK has actually left the EU.

It’s a soft exit so far basically.

Exactly, divorce is acted and the phase that just started (The Transition Period) brings us to the future relationship, which have to be negotiated in the short timeframe for its new way of working is able to operate on jan 1st 2021, unless TP extention... Meanwhile, there will be no visible administrative/procedural/legal change.

That depends in which industry you're working. In work in the financial industry and my employer annouced that it will return its EUR business back to the EU before the deadline of April 1st 2020 (which will result in 40 FTE coming back to the mainland). The same will apply to many financial firms which need to clear Euros (including UK firms). As such the assumption that there is currently "no change" depends on the line of business and if regulation is part of the Transition Period.

A n umber of functions France and Germany has been fighting for many years to be inside the Euro area. UK has always used its veto that no longer exists.

EU is not stupid. It will take its time but high paid jobs that can quit easily over a 10 year period move back to EU? Some will like this case be forced to move, while some will over time slowly be presented with offers they cannot refuse to move when the time is right and disruption for EU customers is low.

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s not December yet is it!


There’s no shortage of articles out there of various ministers calling for the UK to leave the ECHR including the remain pinup girl Theresa May. Johnson is already in a fight about convicted terrorist on deportation and early parole in that it may contravene ECHR, we have already had the stouch years ago on prisoner voting rights and how the UK defied the ECHR ruling under HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The EU is even so worried about it that they have said that it will suspend judicial/law enforcement cooperation if the UK leaves the ECHR, just because it not offical policy yet does not mean we won’t leave it in December

In that case no need to waste time on (pretending to) negotiate a FTA with the EU: respect for human rights is a fundamental prerequisite for any FTA with the EU, and being a signatory to the ECHR is the benchmark for European countries willing to have a deal with the EU...

With each post you make, it just shows you have absolutely NO knowledge of the way the EU works, what it is and what it stands for, something widespread amongst Brexiteers btw. It's going to prove a fatal weakness of theirs not knowing their adversary: the conflicting things they ask for are simply not on offer, together and they never will, no matter how many times they try to convince themselves of how much Europe needs the UK.

Maybe you are right, we should stop the dog and pony show agree to a very basic association agreement and move on.

Well, isn't that what has slowly been happening?

From DC's failed attempt to split the 4 freedoms from within the EU prior to the referendum,
over TM's retry of that from the outside after the referendum, via her 'frictionless ambitious FTA' aimed for in the Lancaster House speech
and now BoJo's 'zero tariffs, zero quotas agreement' without willing to sign up to a level playing field?

At each turn the UK had to go for the next lower level on the benefit scale because it leant it can't have its cake and eat it at the same time.
You have to wonder why the UK keeps on trying like you've noticed yourself?
Could it possibly be because it knows deep down that as it sinks lower on that now notorious scale the EU has presented them with at the beginning of 2017, the cost of it all becomes ever higher to the point even there's no more denying it is no longer offsetable through better deals with third countries like is now pretended????

Remember it's really not the EU which has been telling the UK what option to pick: it's very much the UK who's been completely unable to chose what it wants and accept the full consequences of that choice, constantly coming back to the same old square one marked "cherrypicking" after it took one further step down than it originially had intended, hoping this would somehow show resolve and scare the Europeans into letting it have its way now. It's not going to happen, that much is now a given.

Holding a knife to your own troath and threatening to cut it, after having aready cut off an arm and a leg without any attempt to stop you, is probably not going to make much of an impression either...

olle wrote:

LJ wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Exactly, divorce is acted and the phase that just started (The Transition Period) brings us to the future relationship, which have to be negotiated in the short timeframe for its new way of working is able to operate on jan 1st 2021, unless TP extention... Meanwhile, there will be no visible administrative/procedural/legal change.

That depends in which industry you're working. In work in the financial industry and my employer annouced that it will return its EUR business back to the EU before the deadline of April 1st 2020 (which will result in 40 FTE coming back to the mainland). The same will apply to many financial firms which need to clear Euros (including UK firms). As such the assumption that there is currently "no change" depends on the line of business and if regulation is part of the Transition Period.

A number of functions France and Germany has been fighting for many years to be inside the Euro area. UK has always used its veto that no longer exists.

EU is not stupid. It will take its time but high paid jobs that can quit easily over a 10 year period move back to EU? Some will like this case be forced to move, while some will over time slowly be presented with offers they cannot refuse to move when the time is right and disruption for EU customers is low.

Well, it is well documented that the ECB has always wanted euro clearing to be performed within the eurozone in order to have maximum oversight over these financial operations and has repeatedly legislated in that way; the UK systematically objected to it of course to protect the position of the City and went to the ECJ because it is not explictly written in the TEU and the ECJ has ruled in its favour: clearing could thus be done everywhere in the EU, even outside of the eurozone.

Now, with the UK out of the EU, the protection of the ECJ ruling will be removed at the end of the transition period, meaning that the ECB would have to somehow change its rules to allow euroclearing to continue to be performed in London, meaning it would not only have to renegade on its own historical objectives of having euroclearing performed within the eurozone, it would even have to agree to relax it further so euro clearing could continue to take place outside of the EU now!

Guess what the new ECB rules will say on euro clearing and what massive impact that will have on the turn over of the City of London once the new rules take effect?
In terms of FTE, the hit is going to be modest, but in terms of GDB, it's potentially massive, with knock on effects on the UK's economic ranking and its credit ratings, especially in view of the spending spray the tories plan to make good for the decade of austerity.