olle wrote:

Express writes that japan demands place of origin canot be uk if EU or other non uk content is too high. That means that market access with 0 quota tarrif will be limited.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... eal-brexit

Actually this is something fairly common sense and is a significant issue for smaller manufacturing and exporting nations in today's globalised world.

Any FTA between 2 nations generally deals with 'their' products only, not those of third countries exported via them; that is something not very difficult to understand I'd think, since no nation wants to give another nation the right to act as its low or even tax free import platform whereas direct import might be taxed much higher. A FTA can not become a backdoor of course!

The problem is that with integrated products, they are never 100% originating in the country alone: that's why minimum content levels or orgin are set in FTAs.
Tthe smaller the nation, the more likely it is that a (too) large part is actually composed of elements sources from third countries first. British manufacturing is not on the same level as German manufacturing for instance and is mostly limited to just the final assembly: those goods may be considered 'made in Britain' by a proud UK government in their economic PR, but for most FTAs they would not quallify as British at all and thus not be covered by any British FTA, be it with Japan or others...

Don't tell us the UK government didn't know it did not suffice to just box imported goods in the UK and add a sticker 'made in Global UK' to their wrapping to make them British exports, did they?
ROTFL

Olddog wrote:

Are you for real ? Now that the UK has left you want us to learn english to make your life easier? What about you try to learn some basic sentences in the language of the country you want to go or visit ?

It is quite useful having a lingua franca and I am pretty certain that the most commonly learnt foreign language within the non-anglophone EU countries is English.

Just as a thought: choosing a language that avoids any rivalry between Spanish and French might be quite a clever move.

Now is the time for the EU to designate 3 official languages, Spanish, French and German.
All pilots entering the EU sphere of influence must communicate in one of those languages, not hard to do since pilots from Europe have been forced to learn English to operate into the airspace of English speaking countries.
The EU is economically as large or larger, so no reason why setting up such a requirement is beyond the realm of possibility, if an airline does not want to train its pilots they can fly elsewhere, they will miss out not the EU. How is this different than any other Standard a country or trading bloc sets up and demands that trade partners acknowledge and adhere to?

And yet France and Spain exist without that for centuries with way less problems than with UK or Germany!

Rather than going that way I'd suggest to refresh one guillotine and solve the UK monarchy problem

art wrote:

I do not know the detail of M Macron's position but I do think it is economic nonsense to put at risk the welfare of French industries such as wine and auto production by arguing about whether a non-EU country should forego its rights to control of fishing in waters under its control.

Neither Johnson here nor leading EU politicians there seem to recognise that they are heading for a lose-lose outcome when a situation not so far from the status quo ante should be easy to achieve.

During the election EU was clear about that they expected a loose loose situation without doubt. But what they also say is that they are willing to loose for not loosing SM and CU. That would cause much more damage then a hard Brexit.

It is UK and brexiteers that has been presenting the new bright future and everything else is project fear.

olle wrote:

But the positiv is that uk hss its first FTA ready to sign if it wants already tomorrow!

Japan to uk. We are bigger then you and you look desperate...

If that were the actual case, the FTA’s would already be signed sealed and delivered. But that’s not the case is it the UK isn’t just rolling over to get a FTA just for perceptions sake.

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

But the positiv is that uk hss its first FTA ready to sign if it wants already tomorrow!

Japan to uk. We are bigger then you and you look desperate...

If that were the actual case, the FTA’s would already be signed sealed and delivered. But that’s not the case is it the UK isn’t just rolling over to get a FTA just for perceptions sake.

These's still some time to play around, so UK is fighting by all its force to avoid this sobering outcome indeed, but time is just not on its side.

Just like with the EU, the question will ultimately be: does the UK bow to most of the Japanese demands, or will it fail to secure even a simple trade continuation deal?

It's going to be the same uphill battle with basically everybody the UK approaches: the EU, Japan, Korea (they only want a sign a trade continuation deal limited in time even so as to keep pressure up for the real FTA which should come later!), Canada ('we just have to wait' comment).

"The day after Brexit, we hold all the cards and can chose whatever we want", right?

ROTFL

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

But the positiv is that uk hss its first FTA ready to sign if it wants already tomorrow!

Japan to uk. We are bigger then you and you look desperate...

If that were the actual case, the FTA’s would already be signed sealed and delivered. But that’s not the case is it the UK isn’t just rolling over to get a FTA just for perceptions sake.

These's still some time to play around, so UK is fighting by all its force to avoid this sobering outcome indeed, but time is just not on its side.

Just like with the EU, the question will ultimately be: does the UK bow to most of the Japanese demands, or will it fall to secure even a simple trade continuation deal?

It's going to be the same game with everybody: the EU, Japan, Korea (they only want a sign a trade continuation deal limited in time even so as to keep pressure up for the real FTA which should come later!), Canada ('we just have to wait' comment).

"The day after Brexit, we hold all the cards and can chose whatever we want", right?

ROTFL

These nations are in the same boat along with the EU in dealing with trade with the UK, the only difference is the UK is dealing with more nations at once than a single negotiation. Everyone is going to try and take any advantage that they can see, but in the end it’s up to the UK if they accept the demand or stand firm ride the wave or take a header

A101 wrote:

These nations are in the same boat along with the EU in dealing with trade with the UK, the only difference is the UK is dealing with more nations at once than a single negotiation. Everyone is going to try and take any advantage that they can see, but in the end it’s up to the UK if they accept the demand or stand firm ride the wave or take a header

They're actually waiting for the UK's deal with the EU before they're making any substantial efforts, because that is what it all depends on for them.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

These nations are in the same boat along with the EU in dealing with trade with the UK, the only difference is the UK is dealing with more nations at once than a single negotiation. Everyone is going to try and take any advantage that they can see, but in the end it’s up to the UK if they accept the demand or stand firm ride the wave or take a header

They're actually waiting for the UK's deal with the EU before they're making any substantial efforts, because that is what it all depends on for them.

Well no, the EU is just another trade agreement that wants to deal with trade with the UK. They may look at other agreements that they can use to enhance its own. But at the end of the day they just see others as competitors in the UK market if they were waiting on the outcome of EU/UK trade agreement they would not have started negotiations to begin with until after January 1

A101 wrote:

Well no, the EU is just another trade agreement that wants to deal with trade with the UK. They may look at other agreements that they can use to enhance its own. But at the end of the day they just see others as competitors in the UK market if they were waiting on the outcome of EU/UK trade agreement they would not have started negotiations to begin with until after January 1

The UK's value as a trade partner for these other countries largely depends on what relationship the UK will have with the EU.

Also, they won't or even can't give the UK any better terms than they gave to the EU, so what the UK has just thrown away is the maximum ceiling to be achieved anyway.

In addition to that, the rules of origin in such new deals will bite the UK hard for all products which actually aren't made primarily in the UK alone.

So don't set your hopes too high.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well no, the EU is just another trade agreement that wants to deal with trade with the UK. They may look at other agreements that they can use to enhance its own. But at the end of the day they just see others as competitors in the UK market if they were waiting on the outcome of EU/UK trade agreement they would not have started negotiations to begin with until after January 1

The UK's value as a trade partner for these other countries largely depends on what relationship the UK will have with the EU.

Also, they won't or even can't give the UK any better terms than they gave to the EU, so what the UK has just thrown away is the maximum ceiling to be achieved anyway.

In addition to that, the rules of origin in such new deals will bite the UK hard for all products which actually aren't made primarily in the UK alone.

So don't set your hopes too high.

We are not asking for better terms, we are asking fair terms as a independent nation. The EU is deamanding more of the UK than any other nation for a FTA

Klaus wrote:

Also, they won't or even can't give the UK any better terms than they gave to the EU, so what the UK has just thrown away is the maximum ceiling to be achieved anyway.

Yeah, I forgot about that nasty little article in every trade deal the EU has: you give us the best deal, or no deal. So yeah, besides all the deals the UK supposed to have right now (which at best are equal to the EU deal and probably much worse) and all the deals they have thrown out of the window by Brexit. So again, were. is the promised growth coming from?

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well no, the EU is just another trade agreement that wants to deal with trade with the UK. They may look at other agreements that they can use to enhance its own. But at the end of the day they just see others as competitors in the UK market if they were waiting on the outcome of EU/UK trade agreement they would not have started negotiations to begin with until after January 1

The UK's value as a trade partner for these other countries largely depends on what relationship the UK will have with the EU.

Also, they won't or even can't give the UK any better terms than they gave to the EU, so what the UK has just thrown away is the maximum ceiling to be achieved anyway.

In addition to that, the rules of origin in such new deals will bite the UK hard for all products which actually aren't made primarily in the UK alone.

So don't set your hopes too high.

We are not asking for better terms, we are asking fair terms as a independent nation. The EU is deamanding more of the UK than any other nation for a FTA

Not asking better terms?
UK demands more of EU than any other nation for an FTA ! No tariffs, no quotas!
EU is just asking fair terms for this demand...

Since there is talks about the rules of origin in relation to a potential UK Japan deal, I find this graphic interesting to understand the actual level of made in UK . (hope I'll manage to share it)

https://www.linkpicture.com/view.php?img=LPic5f23542b5b5391713369549

Edit : (I didn't, you'll have to follow the link)

A101 wrote:

We are not asking for better terms, we are asking fair terms as a independent nation. The EU is deamanding more of the UK than any other nation for a FTA

For one thing, the UK is asking for preferential access to the single market and for its benefits without sticking to the obligations which only make the single market possible, effectively reserving the right to act unfairly against all the other participants of the single market who enjoy no such privileges (not even the member countries do!).

For another, the UK demands to control the EU27's rules and regulations via a bilaterally binding equivalence declaration.

According to the UK, the rules of the EU single market should also no longer be under the supervision of the ECJ as far as the UK is concerned, affording it an effectively extrajudicial special privilege and destroying the legal consistency of the single market and with it the rule of law.

The UK also demands full unilateral control of its fishing grounds but at the same time full access to the EU's single market for the fish landed by UK fishers.

And so on.

Those demands are completely delusional in combination, but even just by themselves.

And they only reinforce the EU27's conclusion that a deal like the one the UK is demanding would be far, far worse than no deal at all, so Barnier is operating on the assumption that it's either that or the UK will have to make substantial concessions in order to escape the harsh consequences of no deal which would be far more severe for the isolated UK than for the united EU27.

The EU is already in a semi-comfortable fallback position with our Brexit preparations in a pretty good place by now; It's the UK who's out in the storm with the water chest-high and further rising without any meaningful preparations for what they seem to be pursuing politically.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

We are not asking for better terms, we are asking fair terms as a independent nation. The EU is deamanding more of the UK than any other nation for a FTA

For one thing, the UK is asking for preferential access to the single market and for its benefits without sticking to the obligations which only make the single market possible, effectively reserving the right to act unfairly against all the other participants of the single market who enjoy no such privileges (not even the member countries do!).

For another, the UK demands to control the EU27's rules and regulations via a bilaterally binding equivalence declaration.

According to the UK, the rules of the EU single market should also no longer be under the supervision of the ECJ as far as the UK is concerned, affording it an effectively extrajudicial special privilege and destroying the legal consistency of the single market and with it the rule of law.

The UK also demands full unilateral control of its fishing grounds but at the same time full access to the EU's single market for the fish landed by UK fishers.

And so on.

Those demands are completely delusional in combination, but even just by themselves.

And they only reinforce the EU27's conclusion that a deal like the one the UK is demanding would be far, far worse than no deal at all, so Barnier is operating on the assumption that it's either that or the UK will have to make substantial concessions in order to escape the harsh consequences of no deal which would be far more severe for the isolated UK than for the united EU27.

The EU is already in a semi-comfortable fallback position with our Brexit preparations in a pretty good place by now; It's the UK who's out in the storm with the water chest-high and further rising without any meaningful preparations for what they seem to be pursuing politically.

So what’s new, been over this ground before it’s like any negotiations start high and land somewhere around the middle, exactly what the EU are doing with the UK

But there are places where you don’t move and those are that’s where we are now

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

We are not asking for better terms, we are asking fair terms as a independent nation. The EU is deamanding more of the UK than any other nation for a FTA

For one thing, the UK is asking for preferential access to the single market and for its benefits without sticking to the obligations which only make the single market possible, effectively reserving the right to act unfairly against all the other participants of the single market who enjoy no such privileges (not even the member countries do!).

For another, the UK demands to control the EU27's rules and regulations via a bilaterally binding equivalence declaration.

According to the UK, the rules of the EU single market should also no longer be under the supervision of the ECJ as far as the UK is concerned, affording it an effectively extrajudicial special privilege and destroying the legal consistency of the single market and with it the rule of law.

The UK also demands full unilateral control of its fishing grounds but at the same time full access to the EU's single market for the fish landed by UK fishers.

And so on.

Those demands are completely delusional in combination, but even just by themselves.

And they only reinforce the EU27's conclusion that a deal like the one the UK is demanding would be far, far worse than no deal at all, so Barnier is operating on the assumption that it's either that or the UK will have to make substantial concessions in order to escape the harsh consequences of no deal which would be far more severe for the isolated UK than for the united EU27.

The EU is already in a semi-comfortable fallback position with our Brexit preparations in a pretty good place by now; It's the UK who's out in the storm with the water chest-high and further rising without any meaningful preparations for what they seem to be pursuing politically.

So what’s new, been over this ground before it’s like any negotiations start high and land somewhere around the middle, exactly what the EU are doing with the UK

But there are places where you don’t move and those are that’s where we are now

Yes that exactly what is happening... there are places where you do not go. This is the center of the whole UK relation with EU over long time.

UK could send veto every time EU went into directions US or UK did not want it to go and by threaten to leave it could get special agreements.

UK had a membership in EU like no other EU nation.

Then suddenly brexiteers said that UK could get whatever they wanted and EU would accept whatever. Without paying it could get even more special agreements.

Cameron tried time after time until suddenly EU27 said no. Other nations started to ask for similar and that would mean different rules inside the market making it useless.

Now UK left and the arch brexiteer davis and johnsson under ms may said the infamous word that this negotiations will be the most easy in the hostory.

Now UK is outside close any FTA, put its long term relation with US on risk by becoming less important in Europe, with EU becoming more federal a EU army on the way perhaps a weaker standing in Nato as well.

I think history will look at brexit as the final end of UK empire dreams and international influance.

When you read that:https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/brexit-firms-have-neither-the-time-nor-resources-to-prepare-for-a-non-negotiated-eu-exit/31/07/

“A deal that supports the UK’s world leading services firms and keeps UK exporters free from red tape, costs and new trade barriers is paramount as the UK takes its all-important steps towards recovery.”

You have to wonder what she is smoking if she is still thinks that the EU will not work to replace them.....

Olddog wrote:

When you read that:https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/brexit-firms-have-neither-the-time-nor-resources-to-prepare-for-a-non-negotiated-eu-exit/31/07/

“A deal that supports the UK’s world leading services firms and keeps UK exporters free from red tape, costs and new trade barriers is paramount as the UK takes its all-important steps towards recovery.”

You have to wonder what she is smoking if she is still thinks that the EU will not work to replace them.....

I think this is center of the fish dispute. Macron can show off fighting for french fishing while in reality he want to get as many financial services out of london as possible. Som come to dublin, some to frankfurt and some to paris.

The extensions has made this process going on for some time meaning that when EU companies request services there will probably be services that already moved inside EU27 by now as alternative.

Computers has changed everything today you do not need everything on one place.

Olddog wrote:

Are you for real ? Now that the UK has left you want us to learn english to make your life easier? What about you try to learn some basic sentences in the language of the country you want to go or visit ?

Who is suggesting that? It is nonsense for any English speakers demand others learn or speak English (outside of our nation).

I quite agree, it is respectful and good to engage in the language of the nation you are visiting.

That said the British are traditionally poor at learning second languages.

Our second language is Polish I believe, following the number of our Polish friends that have joined us in the UK.

AeroVega wrote:

Whoah, who said anything about ditching your native language? I think an official common language is necessary for European integration to be successful, but that does not mean that there is no place for regional languages. I would be perfectly happen if that common language would be Spanish or German or French, but English is obviously the most pragmatic choice. It's really not such a crazy idea.

There are already 20+ official languages of the EU, but only 3 working languages of the EU Commission (English, German and French). Among them English is already the language in which most actual work gets done.

Making English official wouldn't accomplish anything at all because the EU institutions are already speaking English as a lingua franca for the most part and outside of the EU institutions no one will care what the official language of the EU is.

As someone put it, the unofficial language of the EU is bad English, and that's how it's going to remain for the long run.

JJJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Whoah, who said anything about ditching your native language? I think an official common language is necessary for European integration to be successful, but that does not mean that there is no place for regional languages. I would be perfectly happen if that common language would be Spanish or German or French, but English is obviously the most pragmatic choice. It's really not such a crazy idea.

There are already 20+ official languages of the EU, but only 3 working languages of the EU Commission (English, German and French). Among them English is already the language in which most actual work gets done.

Making English official wouldn't accomplish anything at all because the EU institutions are already speaking English as a lingua franca for the most part and outside of the EU institutions no one will care what the official language of the EU is.

As someone put it, the unofficial language of the EU is bad English, and that's how it's going to remain for the long run.

I ones in my career had a manager with a classical cambridge english. He complaned abouit my simple english, and while I had been studying at a US university and the english was well enough for survival and a working career outside Uk I learned a lot.

I think the bad EU english and the "bad" USA based english will be dominant. UK english or queens english will come in backwater.

This will also be an effect of the UK univesrities being excluded from the Erasmus programs and EU universities offering classes using bad EU english.

A101 wrote:

So what’s new, been over this ground before it’s like any negotiations start high and land somewhere around the middle, exactly what the EU are doing with the UK

But there are places where you don’t move and those are that’s where we are now

The integrity of the foundations of the EU has never been up for compromise; The brexiters just ignored all the warnings and claimed that they could easily get lots of extra-special exemptions and they now have to acknowledge that none of that is actually coming true.

Dutchy wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

So if you take the current UK GDP of 2.21 Trillion as base and lose the growth the treasury predicts we could lose you are looking at somewhere between £108,290,000,000 (4.9%) £148,070,000,000 (6.7%) growith or more if and when the GDP increases?

Could you attribute it to the correct person, please, thanks.

A101 doesn't seem to subscribe to these kinds of analyses, so in the end we would never know what the economic success or failure of Brexit actually is, because there isn't a paralel universe - as far as we know - were Brexit didn't happen to compare it against. I will and have accepted the number of £ 130bn now and. £ 200bn at years end.

Sorry - quoted the wrong person!

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

So what’s new, been over this ground before it’s like any negotiations start high and land somewhere around the middle, exactly what the EU are doing with the UK

But there are places where you don’t move and those are that’s where we are now

The integrity of the foundations of the EU has never been up for compromise; The brexiters just ignored all the warnings and claimed that they could easily get lots of extra-special exemptions and they now have to acknowledge that none of that is actually coming true.

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

A101 wrote:

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

Hmmmm, asking for access to a market of 450million is not the same as to ask for access to a marked of 66million. Here you demonstrate the fundamental flaw in your argument. The UK isn't the same size (=economic strength) as the EU and that's why the Brexit fails to deliver because it is built upon a faulty assumption (or even on "they need us more, than we need them" kind of utter bull).

So actually you demonstrate that you are indeed asking to compromise the integrity of the single market.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

Hmmmm, asking for access to a market of 450million is not the same as to ask for access to a marked of 66million. Here you demonstrate the fundamental flaw in your argument. The UK isn't the same size (=economic strength) as the EU and that's why the Brexit fails to deliver because it is built upon a faulty assumption (or even on "they need us more, than we need them" kind of utter bull).

So actually you demonstrate that you are indeed asking to compromise the integrity of the single market.

Entering a market is no different from either the EU or little ole NZ as we saw recently with NZ push back against the EU. Access is no different wether it’s a population of 450m or 5 million access still has to be negotiated and agreed

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

So what’s new, been over this ground before it’s like any negotiations start high and land somewhere around the middle, exactly what the EU are doing with the UK

But there are places where you don’t move and those are that’s where we are now

The integrity of the foundations of the EU has never been up for compromise; The brexiters just ignored all the warnings and claimed that they could easily get lots of extra-special exemptions and they now have to acknowledge that none of that is actually coming true.

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

IMO demanding a "no tariff, no quota" deal without level playing field arrangement is very much demanding to compromise the SM....

The Agreement should provide liberalised market access for trade in goods. The provisions on market access should be comprehensive and ensure there are no tariffs, fees, charges and quantitative restrictions on trade in manufactured and agricultural goods between the UK and the EU, where goods meet the relevant rules of origin; and should ensure that Special Agricultural Safeguards are not applied to goods traded between the parties.

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

Of course that's a double way street, but I would dare to say that EU is aware of that when mentionning a LPF iis a necessary condition for a Free Trade Area in the negotiation mandate

The envisaged partnership should aim at establishing a free trade area ensuring no tariffs, fees, charges having equivalent effect or quantitative restrictions across all sectors provided that a level playing field is ensured through robust commitments, as set out in Section 15 of this Part.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... ctives.pdf

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

Hmmmm, asking for access to a market of 450million is not the same as to ask for access to a marked of 66million. Here you demonstrate the fundamental flaw in your argument. The UK isn't the same size (=economic strength) as the EU and that's why the Brexit fails to deliver because it is built upon a faulty assumption (or even on "they need us more, than we need them" kind of utter bull).

So actually you demonstrate that you are indeed asking to compromise the integrity of the single market.

Entering a market is no different from either the EU or little ole NZ as we saw recently with NZ push back against the EU. Access is no different wether it’s a population of 450m or 5 million access still has to be negotiated and agreed

Yes, nobody said it hasn't to be negotiated and agreed to. So you are reacting to something which literally nobody made any statement in the contrary. Actually the past 8 threads and this one, is full comments on the negotiations. So why did you mention this?

All I said was that the UK isn't equal to the EU and thus isn't treated like that. You proposed that they are equal and should be treated the same and that isn't a realistic scenario.

Don't know the specific circumstances of NZ because you only made a statement with no context and no link to it, but fine. Look, if the UK doesn't want a trade deal, fine than don't have one, I do not really care anymore, but if Britain wants a trade deal it has to regonize that it is the smaller party and has to observe the rules they themselves have made. If Britain wants something else: no trade deal. It is so simple.

You seem to have made the choice for yourself, now the UK government has to made the same and give up the charade. Do a trade deal and accept the conditions, or don't and everybody can prepare for a no-deal brexit and a no-deal UK for the foreseeable future, say the next 5 years at least.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

The integrity of the foundations of the EU has never been up for compromise; The brexiters just ignored all the warnings and claimed that they could easily get lots of extra-special exemptions and they now have to acknowledge that none of that is actually coming true.

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

IMO demanding a "no tariff, no quota" deal without level playing field arrangement is very much demanding to compromise the SM....

The Agreement should provide liberalised market access for trade in goods. The provisions on market access should be comprehensive and ensure there are no tariffs, fees, charges and quantitative restrictions on trade in manufactured and agricultural goods between the UK and the EU, where goods meet the relevant rules of origin; and should ensure that Special Agricultural Safeguards are not applied to goods traded between the parties.

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

Of course that's a double way street, but I would dare to say that EU is aware of that when mentionning a LPF iis a necessary condition for a Free Trade Area in the negotiation mandate

The envisaged partnership should aim at establishing a free trade area ensuring no tariffs, fees, charges having equivalent effect or quantitative restrictions across all sectors provided that a level playing field is ensured through robust commitments, as set out in Section 15 of this Part.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... ctives.pdf

There is a fundamental difference in demanding a LPF that recognition of domestic laws are equivalent to ones own and demanding an LPF that enshrines EU law into UK domestic law in perpetuity and demanding judicial oversight in a non independent way by using the ECJ as the arbitrator of the agreement.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, nobody said it hasn't to be negotiated and agreed to. So you are reacting to something which literally nobody made any statement in the contrary. Actually the past 8 threads and this one, is full comments on the negotiations. So why did you mention this?
All I said was that the UK isn't equal to the EU and thus isn't treated like that. You proposed that they are equal and should be treated the same and that isn't a realistic scenario.
Don't know the specific circumstances of NZ because you only made a statement with no context and no link to it, but fine. Look, if the UK doesn't want a trade deal, fine than don't have one, I do not really care anymore, but if Britain wants a trade deal it has to regonize that it is the smaller party and has to observe the rules they themselves have made. If Britain wants something else: no trade deal. It is so simple.
You seem to have made the choice for yourself, now the UK government has to made the same and give up the charade. Do a trade deal and accept the conditions, or don't and everybody can prepare for a no-deal brexit and a no-deal UK for the foreseeable future, say the next 5 years at least.

You are conflating the two issues, negotiating for more access to the single market and asking for a trade agreement is not one and the same.

Trade agreements means opening markets to other nations and here everyone starts as equal regardless of own perceived mass and size of market, essentially trade agreements are just another form of bartering in one’s own strengths and weakness

For the EU its needs to continue growth no matter how small the nation the EU wants that growth to expand its own economy because sooner or later to rely on your own internal population will result in negative growth in a 1st world economy.

The NZ context has been brought up before within the Brexit threads if you happen to have missed that I suggest you read back within the forum threads.
You seem to be mistaking that because the EU is such a large market combined that it gives it the right to dictate how another nation must put in place certain EU law into domestic rules, we all know that we have to follow the rules and regulations for importing into the EU but that is also the same for the EU importing into smaller nations.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

Hmmmm, asking for access to a market of 450million is not the same as to ask for access to a marked of 66million. Here you demonstrate the fundamental flaw in your argument. The UK isn't the same size (=economic strength) as the EU and that's why the Brexit fails to deliver because it is built upon a faulty assumption (or even on "they need us more, than we need them" kind of utter bull).

So actually you demonstrate that you are indeed asking to compromise the integrity of the single market.

UK wants much more. It wants freedom of movement for groups like financial services, music industry etc.

It wants access for financial services and passporting.

what EU and UK now talks about is downlizing ambitions to what you mention 0 tarrif 0 quota border controls etc.

Going from a full membership to something much more basic will hurt.

olle wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

Hmmmm, asking for access to a market of 450million is not the same as to ask for access to a marked of 66million. Here you demonstrate the fundamental flaw in your argument. The UK isn't the same size (=economic strength) as the EU and that's why the Brexit fails to deliver because it is built upon a faulty assumption (or even on "they need us more, than we need them" kind of utter bull).

So actually you demonstrate that you are indeed asking to compromise the integrity of the single market.

UK wants much more. It wants freedom of movement for groups like financial services, music industry etc.

It wants access for financial services and passporting.

what EU and UK now talks about is downlizing ambitions to what you mention 0 tarrif 0 quota border controls etc.

Going from a full membership to something much more basic will hurt.

Rehashed again like we are asking for something extra.

FOM has been brought up before, both the EU/UK are signatory to WTO mode 4 which means

Mode 4 refers to the presence of persons of one WTO member in the territory of another for the purpose of providing a service. It does not concern persons seeking access to the employment market in the host member, nor does it affect measures regarding citizenship,

Just means you need a working visa so we know whom is coming and going for what purpose

A101 wrote:

Trade agreements means opening markets to other nations and here everyone starts as equal regardless of own perceived mass and size of market, essentially trade agreements are just another form of bartering in one’s own strengths and weakness

Nope, they do not star as equals, or you mean that weaknesses is the smaller size for the UK and strength of the EU is the bigger size. Then sure, why not, they are "equals".

A101 wrote:

The NZ context has been brought up before within the Brexit threads if you happen to have missed that I suggest you read back within the forum threads.
You seem to be mistaking that because the EU is such a large market combined that it gives it the right to dictate how another nation must put in place certain EU law into domestic rules, we all know that we have to follow the rules and regulations for importing into the EU but that is also the same for the EU importing into smaller nations.

If you think the NZ example is very relevant, then I suggest you repost it. And my I further speculate that you are the one that brought it up? Not going to 8 threads with hundreds of post just to see if you are right or not. But like I said, the EU is quite done with Brexit, no more exemptions, no more cherry-picking, so the UK is just another, by choice, 3rd country for the EU, So if they want a trade deal with the EU, fine, than the conditions are well known, if the UK doesn't want to observe them, also fine, UK's choice but no trade agreement than But don't compain about the consequences, it is all on the Brexiteers and their wishes not being part of the EU anymore. I think it is a stupid, unnescisary and very expensive discission - 200bn at years end and counting -, but every person and country is entitled to make their own mistakes.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Are you for real ? Now that the UK has left you want us to learn english to make your life easier? What about you try to learn some basic sentences in the language of the country you want to go or visit ?

Who is suggesting that? It is nonsense for any English speakers demand others learn or speak English (outside of our nation).

I quite agree, it is respectful and good to engage in the language of the nation you are visiting..

Freedom of movement is not about visiting another country, it is about settling in another country and making a sustained contribution to that country's economy.

Countries that are now demanding access to foreign EU tax payer's wallets should instead focus on becoming more competitive. One way would be to adopt English as an official language to make it easier for foreign talent to settle there, as explained in https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/second-o ... a-spratte/

The ironic thing is that after Brexit it will still be much easier for skilled EU citizens to settle in and contribute to the economic growth of the UK than any other non-English speaking EU country.

Yes it is the brexiter theory. Ask your people to learn english so england can more easily attract skilled worker trained and educated at others expenses.

But we will see who will move to the UK without the EU funds to back them, being structural funds, agricultural funds or research funds.

We will count our eggs at the end of the end of the war with the City and UK financial services.

Olddog wrote:

We will count our eggs at the end of the end of the war with the City and UK financial services.

Wow must be true what Cameron said

'Brexit' could trigger World War Three, warns David Cameron

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b ... ar-7928607

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

We will count our eggs at the end of the end of the war with the City and UK financial services.

Wow must be true what Cameron said

'Brexit' could trigger World War Three, warns David Cameron

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b ... ar-7928607

A war means that there need to be 2 strong will to engage... In this the EU interest becomes to walk away. Then Brexit England has its Britannia ship and Empire 2.

EU and EU27 gave up. The only thing we hear is that UK wants a no deal and it seems to go to something that is closer to no deal then Canada EU FTA. After that EU and UK competes on the markets. Still friends but living under the same roof, with the children grown up and soon leave on their own (The 39 Billion will after 2022 mostly be paid and UK financial services and automative industry moved to EU or Japan).

this will happen slowly when a new car model is suddenly not produced where the old was, airbus change wing on A320, european companies opens finance center in Frankfurt etc.

olle wrote:

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

We will count our eggs at the end of the end of the war with the City and UK financial services.

Wow must be true what Cameron said

'Brexit' could trigger World War Three, warns David Cameron

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b ... ar-7928607

A war means that there need to be 2 strong will to engage... In this the EU interest becomes to walk away. Then Brexit England has its Britannia ship and Empire 2.

EU and EU27 gave up. The only thing we hear is that UK wants a no deal and it seems to go to something that is closer to no deal then Canada EU FTA. After that EU and UK competes on the markets. Still friends but living under the same roof, with the children grown up and soon leave on their own (The 39 Billion will after 2022 mostly be paid and UK financial services and automative industry moved to EU or Japan).

Yes, so said and so unnecessary, but indeed if that is the wish of one party, then ok, their choice. We will probably welcome them back, but not on the. same terms as they. have now.`the price of fake sence of "independent" is quite high. The unichorn must be really something to strive for.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Trade agreements means opening markets to other nations and here everyone starts as equal regardless of own perceived mass and size of market, essentially trade agreements are just another form of bartering in one’s own strengths and weakness

Nope, they do not star as equals, or you mean that weaknesses is the smaller size for the UK and strength of the EU is the bigger size. Then sure, why not, they are "equals".

If a nation was starting from a position of weakness in trade talks then there is no incentive to start the trade talks in the first place is there.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

The NZ context has been brought up before within the Brexit threads if you happen to have missed that I suggest you read back within the forum threads.

if you think the NZ example is very relevant, then I suggest you repost it

I believe the NZ piece is relevant to context of the discussion, hence why EU/NZ started negotiations

Dutchy wrote:

But like I said, the EU is quite done with Brexit,

Correct Brexit is done and dusted on the 31st January 2020

Dutchy wrote:

no more exemptions, no more cherry-picking, so the UK is just another, by choice, 3rd country for the EU, So if they want a trade deal with the EU, fine, than the conditions are well known, if the UK doesn't want to observe them, also fine, UK's choice but no trade agreement

Well Barnier must think differently he’s still negotiating; if that was the EU position negotiations would have finished in the last round of talks.

Dutchy wrote:

But don't compain about the consequences

What you perceive as complaining, is see as standing our ground and refuting EU spin for the media.

Dutchy wrote:

it is all on the Brexiteers and their wishes not being part of the EU anymore. I think it is a stupid, unnescisary and very expensive discission - 200bn at years end and counting

Yes I’m very happy to no longer be part of the EU; and at £4.4 billion in March 2020 is very good value

Dutchy wrote:

but every person and country is entitled to make their own mistakes.

Yep I agree; it was a mistake to join in the first place. Brexit is just the remedy for that mistake.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Trade agreements means opening markets to other nations and here everyone starts as equal regardless of own perceived mass and size of market, essentially trade agreements are just another form of bartering in one’s own strengths and weakness

Nope, they do not star as equals, or you mean that weaknesses is the smaller size for the UK and strength of the EU is the bigger size. Then sure, why not, they are "equals".

If a nation was starting from a position of weakness in trade talks then there is no incentive to start the trade talks in the first place is there.

Ok, then your advice to the UK government should stop all trade talks immediately. The consensus is, except with die-hard Brexiteers, that GB is they negotiating from a position of weakness because they just gave up all their trade deals, with the EU27 and with all associated trade deal GB was part of because of the EU.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

The NZ context has been brought up before within the Brexit threads if you happen to have missed that I suggest you read back within the forum threads.

if you think the NZ example is very relevant, then I suggest you repost it

I believe the NZ piece is relevant to context of the discussion, hence why EU/NZ started negotiations

Fine, give us context. You only say that it is relevant, not what is relevant and what the issues are. Not in the habit to believe people who did not deserve it in the first place.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But like I said, the EU is quite done with Brexit,

Correct Brexit is done and dusted on the 31st January 2020

Really? No correct interpretation, but what is actually being said. Alright. The EU is quite done with the UK and the aftermath of Brexit.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

no more exemptions, no more cherry-picking, so the UK is just another, by choice, 3rd country for the EU, So if they want a trade deal with the EU, fine, than the conditions are well known, if the UK doesn't want to observe them, also fine, UK's choice but no trade agreement

Well Barnier must think differently he’s still negotiating; if that was the EU position negotiations would have finished in the last round of talks.

Barnier's point of view - or better the EU's point of vier, Barnier is just a civil servant - remains the same. So yeah, they are talking, but really? Negotiation? Neh not really. The UK government still wants the impossible. So to put it in the language you understand: no deal is better than a bad deal.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But don't compain about the consequences

What you perceive as complaining, is see as standing our ground and refuting EU spin for the media.

Consequences are not truly felt yet. So I was talking in the future tense, not what is happening now. So you misinterpreted it.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

it is all on the Brexiteers and their wishes not being part of the EU anymore. I think it is a stupid, unnescisary and very expensive discission - 200bn at years end and counting

Yes I’m very happy to no longer be part of the EU; and at £4.4 billion in March 2020 is very good value

Yes, the key of a Rolls Royce cost around £100, good value, very flashy and yet classy at the same time, to show around. But I do not think anyone looking at the bigger picture of buying a Rolls Royce will say it is good value, now do you?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

but every person and country is entitled to make their own mistakes.

Yep I agree; it was a mistake to join in the first place. Brexit is just the remedy for that mistake.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

No one has asked you to compromise the integrity of the SM. All the UK has done is ask for things in the FTA in it’s interests. If the UK were to get quota free access to the EU it would be the same in return for the EU. If there are quotas in place for the UK that also would have to be reciprocated or are you expecting it only to be one way traffic just like the intent in regards to fisheries. The EU is expecting the status quo just to get a FTA. That’s no different to what the UK are doing asking for things in its interests.

IMO demanding a "no tariff, no quota" deal without level playing field arrangement is very much demanding to compromise the SM....

The Agreement should provide liberalised market access for trade in goods. The provisions on market access should be comprehensive and ensure there are no tariffs, fees, charges and quantitative restrictions on trade in manufactured and agricultural goods between the UK and the EU, where goods meet the relevant rules of origin; and should ensure that Special Agricultural Safeguards are not applied to goods traded between the parties.

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

Of course that's a double way street, but I would dare to say that EU is aware of that when mentionning a LPF iis a necessary condition for a Free Trade Area in the negotiation mandate

The envisaged partnership should aim at establishing a free trade area ensuring no tariffs, fees, charges having equivalent effect or quantitative restrictions across all sectors provided that a level playing field is ensured through robust commitments, as set out in Section 15 of this Part.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... ctives.pdf

There is a fundamental difference in demanding a LPF that recognition of domestic laws are equivalent to ones own and demanding an LPF that enshrines EU law into UK domestic law in perpetuity and demanding judicial oversight in a non independent way by using the ECJ as the arbitrator of the agreement.

It already have been discussed in here that Barnier indicated there could be a compromise here, LPF could take the form on recognition of UK standard if the mecanism was robust enough. He showed compromise was possible regarding the arbitrator too....
I stand by my statement, demanding a "no tariff, no quota" deal without level playing field arrangement is very much demanding to compromise the SM.

Anyway no tariffs no quota is saying to the EU could you please be stupid enough to let us continue being the main gateway for fraudulent chinese products escaping VAT and customs duties? Pretty please ?

Just a reminder: https://www.politico.eu/article/brussel ... ms-duties/

Grizzly410 wrote:

It already have been discussed in here that Barnier indicated there could be a compromise here, LPF could take the form on recognition of UK standard if the mecanism was robust enough. He showed compromise was possible regarding the arbitrator too....
I stand by my statement, demanding a "no tariff, no quota" deal without level playing field arrangement is very much demanding to compromise the SM.

All imports to the EU are following EU law/regulations; tariffs and quotas do not infringe on the SM it only reduces trade barriers between nations. The Unites States currently has different national standards to the EU across many segments i do not see the EU stopping imports from the US, but there are trade barriers in place in the form tariffs and quotas


Barnier might have said it, but he still gets his instructions from the EU27 and the last I heard that they were not changing his mandate which included the LPF provisions

Olddog wrote:

Anyway no tariffs no quota is saying to the EU could you please be stupid enough to let us continue being the main gateway for fraudulent chinese products escaping VAT and customs duties? Pretty please ?

Just a reminder: https://www.politico.eu/article/brussel ... ms-duties/

0 tariff 0 quota will as I assume be connected with country of origin meaning that the product need a % of Uk content into it. To bring components from Japan put it together in UK, or bringing Chinese products and relabel them will not count.

This is exactly why the FTA Japan UK is in dire straits or do not bring much value to UK. If UK purchase components from EU put some extra value on it or relabel them Japan will not accept this as a UK product.

An FTA without understanding the details do not bring much value to UK...

I agree Olle but why do you think that the UK wants to find an arbitration panel so obnoxious ? After how many days do you expect the UK to try to cheat on the rules and hope for a procedure that could last for years? Not talking about the wto because it is a dead walking body....

As a reminder, when stating facts please always provide a link to your source or the post will be deleted. If you are stating your opinion please make it clear that it is your opinion. Thanks.

The 200 billion is calculated assuming UK maintained the same growth compared to G7 as Uk has years before A50 and Brexit election compared after. Before A50 the growth was higher then rest of G7 after lower.

If the same growth compared the rest of G7 had been maintained the number of 200 billion came up. Considering that before the election UK brexiteers used to show that outside EU Uk would have got evcen higher growth if it would not have been EU member I think this is relevant. Uk slowed down after A50 was executed no doubt.

Then we can of course speculate why the growth in UK became lower the period 2016 to 2020....

Olddog wrote:

I agree Olle but why do you think that the UK wants to find an arbitration panel so obnoxious ? After how many days do you expect the UK to try to cheat on the rules and hope for a procedure that could last for years? Not talking about the wto because it is a dead walking body....

In this case Japan or EU can say that we do not accept a specific product. UK can then take this to WTO or the organisation that is supposed to do a judgement depending what is said in the FTA.

In the case of EU or Japan this seems to be of low risk today while WTO as mentioned is not working anymore while all judges is not present. UK will be depending on a functional WTO. If WTO starts to work during 2022 or 2026 is something I cannot say

I believe that UK will soon recognize that the problem will not be tariffs nor quotas.. The problem will be time consuming border and countries in France Netherlands and Belgium. The less trust the more time and cost will it be.

This will be considered by EU customers.

Ask Norway, they have a much closer relation then UK now will have and Norwegian companies complains over the most open border in the world between Norway and Sweden.

I even consider that ROI and NI will use the ferries that EU will start between ROI and EU in order to avoid the UK EU border mess, and it might mean that many UK companies perhaps prefer to open in NI exactly like Norwegian companies opens in Sweden in order to avoid that their companies see the mess.

One friend of mine selling RFID tags went to I think it was Birmingham and their supplier there. They asked how it will be after 2021 with customs declarations. The answer was that do not worry! We open in Netherlands right now.