BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Oh, mate.

So why do you think the EU are so keen to keep their influence over our rules? I don't think they're being charitable, do you?

What on earth was I saying pre-referendum?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Oh, mate.

So why do you think the EU are so keen to keep their influence over our rules? I don't think they're being charitable, do you?

What on earth was I saying pre-referendum?

Good point, what were you saying 4 years ago?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

rick_chasey

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

They didn't do it with Canada which is somewhat smaller than we are: ditto South Korea. Etc

They can try and we can tell them to FRO. I don't see us shifting on what is a pretty fundamental point of being able to set our own rules.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

This is not throwing up barriers as much as offering less barriers in return for the ability to interfere/exert control in future and cause problems that way. Luckily we've already spotted that rather obvious and clumsy ploy.

rick_chasey

If you want autonomy to set market rules, you can't do it as part of the single market.

If you're not single market, there are a lot of barriers and friction that get put up.

That's just how it works.

Of course, if you're a member of the EU, you can help set the rules for it......Alas...

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

If you want autonomy to set market rules, you can't do it as part of the single market.

If you're not single market, there are a lot of barriers and friction that get put up.

That's just how it works.

Of course, if you're a member of the EU, you can help set the rules for it......Alas...

probably best to exclude yourself from any international organisation

rick_chasey

Well yes, the logical end point (as I've said before) of Brexiter thinking is some Yugoslavian style autarky.

Presumably it will end in a similar balkanisation of the nation too.

rick_chasey

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that your average former labour voting Brexiter is actually articulating some kind of modern Titoism.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

They didn't do it with Canada which is somewhat smaller than we are: ditto South Korea. Etc

They can try and we can tell them to FRO. I don't see us shifting on what is a pretty fundamental point of being able to set our own rules.

What do you think might be the key differences between the UK, Canada and SK, from the EU's point of view?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

They didn't do it with Canada which is somewhat smaller than we are: ditto South Korea. Etc

They can try and we can tell them to FRO. I don't see us shifting on what is a pretty fundamental point of being able to set our own rules.

What do you think might be the key differences between the UK, Canada and SK, from the EU's point of view?

I've seen their attempt to make the UK look different on size and proximity grounds but TBH I don't see that changes any fundamentals. US is very close to Mexico and Canada and those countries have large amounts of trade but there is no EU style 'level playing field' (aka interfering in your national rule making) in that trade agreement. Ditto others such as APEC.

It appears that the EU desire to keep control of parts of UK affairs is rather unique and has no obvious justification.

Care to convince me otherwise?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

If you want autonomy to set market rules, you can't do it as part of the single market.

If you're not single market, there are a lot of barriers and friction that get put up.

That's just how it works.

Of course, if you're a member of the EU, you can help set the rules for it......Alas...

No sh!t, Sherlock...

rick_chasey

Then why are you framing it otherwise?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Then why are you framing it otherwise?

I'm wondering why you are referring to a scenario that simply isn't relevant any more.

We are clearly not staying in the single market, so not sure what point you are trying to make, unless crying over spilt milk is somehow making a point?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

They didn't do it with Canada which is somewhat smaller than we are: ditto South Korea. Etc

They can try and we can tell them to FRO. I don't see us shifting on what is a pretty fundamental point of being able to set our own rules.

What do you think might be the key differences between the UK, Canada and SK, from the EU's point of view?

I've seen their attempt to make the UK look different on size and proximity grounds but TBH I don't see that changes any fundamentals. US is very close to Mexico and Canada and those countries have large amounts of trade but there is no EU style 'level playing field' (aka interfering in your national rule making) in that trade agreement. Ditto others such as APEC.

It appears that the EU desire to keep control of parts of UK affairs is rather unique and has no obvious justification.

Care to convince me otherwise?

Says a lot if they will try something that cheeky with us that they didn't with Canada or SK. Non regression is already fairly established practice in treaties. They must think we're more of a risk.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

They didn't do it with Canada which is somewhat smaller than we are: ditto South Korea. Etc

They can try and we can tell them to FRO. I don't see us shifting on what is a pretty fundamental point of being able to set our own rules.

What do you think might be the key differences between the UK, Canada and SK, from the EU's point of view?

I've seen their attempt to make the UK look different on size and proximity grounds but TBH I don't see that changes any fundamentals. US is very close to Mexico and Canada and those countries have large amounts of trade but there is no EU style 'level playing field' (aka interfering in your national rule making) in that trade agreement. Ditto others such as APEC.

It appears that the EU desire to keep control of parts of UK affairs is rather unique and has no obvious justification.

Care to convince me otherwise?

Says a lot if they will try something that cheeky with us that they didn't with Canada or SK. Non regression is already fairly established practice in treaties. They must think we're more of a risk.

This is the first FTA where the signaturies will be diverging not converging and that brings it’s own problems

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

They didn't do it with Canada which is somewhat smaller than we are: ditto South Korea. Etc

They can try and we can tell them to FRO. I don't see us shifting on what is a pretty fundamental point of being able to set our own rules.

What do you think might be the key differences between the UK, Canada and SK, from the EU's point of view?

I've seen their attempt to make the UK look different on size and proximity grounds but TBH I don't see that changes any fundamentals. US is very close to Mexico and Canada and those countries have large amounts of trade but there is no EU style 'level playing field' (aka interfering in your national rule making) in that trade agreement. Ditto others such as APEC.

It appears that the EU desire to keep control of parts of UK affairs is rather unique and has no obvious justification.

Care to convince me otherwise?

Says a lot if they will try something that cheeky with us that they didn't with Canada or SK. Non regression is already fairly established practice in treaties. They must think we're more of a risk.

That's what they are saying, not necessarily what they are thinking. Which is pretty cheeky, although we have already spotted this and told them to jog on.

Maybe we should be equally impertinent and ask them to stick to our rules?

rjsterry

Depends what our end goal is. As this seems to be "whatevs" we obviously don't need to worry about what they want.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

They didn't do it with Canada which is somewhat smaller than we are: ditto South Korea. Etc

They can try and we can tell them to FRO. I don't see us shifting on what is a pretty fundamental point of being able to set our own rules.

What do you think might be the key differences between the UK, Canada and SK, from the EU's point of view?

I've seen their attempt to make the UK look different on size and proximity grounds but TBH I don't see that changes any fundamentals. US is very close to Mexico and Canada and those countries have large amounts of trade but there is no EU style 'level playing field' (aka interfering in your national rule making) in that trade agreement. Ditto others such as APEC.

It appears that the EU desire to keep control of parts of UK affairs is rather unique and has no obvious justification.

Care to convince me otherwise?

Says a lot if they will try something that cheeky with us that they didn't with Canada or SK. Non regression is already fairly established practice in treaties. They must think we're more of a risk.

That's what they are saying, not necessarily what they are thinking. Which is pretty cheeky, although we have already spotted this and told them to jog on.

Maybe we should be equally impertinent and ask them to stick to our rules?

The rules of the game are that the bigger party calls the shots.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

EU will make it very difficult for the UK. To which I believe you gave some response around how the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU and they would never throw up so many barriers.

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

Well quite.

Which is why we don't expect to have a trading partner have a say in our own law-making and regulations. The EU wouldn't ask that sort of influence of China or US and haven't from current FTA partners. We are no different.

I bet they would if they thought they could. We're much smaller than either so they can try to push us around a bit more.

They didn't do it with Canada which is somewhat smaller than we are: ditto South Korea. Etc

They can try and we can tell them to FRO. I don't see us shifting on what is a pretty fundamental point of being able to set our own rules.

What do you think might be the key differences between the UK, Canada and SK, from the EU's point of view?

I've seen their attempt to make the UK look different on size and proximity grounds but TBH I don't see that changes any fundamentals. US is very close to Mexico and Canada and those countries have large amounts of trade but there is no EU style 'level playing field' (aka interfering in your national rule making) in that trade agreement. Ditto others such as APEC.

It appears that the EU desire to keep control of parts of UK affairs is rather unique and has no obvious justification.

Care to convince me otherwise?

Says a lot if they will try something that cheeky with us that they didn't with Canada or SK. Non regression is already fairly established practice in treaties. They must think we're more of a risk.

That's what they are saying, not necessarily what they are thinking. Which is pretty cheeky, although we have already spotted this and told them to jog on.

Maybe we should be equally impertinent and ask them to stick to our rules?

The rules of the game are that the bigger party calls the shots.

The one with the bigger trade deficit with the other party? Possibly.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Depends what our end goal is. As this seems to be "whatevs" we obviously don't need to worry about what they want.

Our end goal is clear, and in the public domain. However it needs the Eurocrats not to behave like Eurotwats.

Jeremy.89

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Depends what our end goal is. As this seems to be "whatevs" we obviously don't need to worry about what they want.

Our end goal is clear, and in the public domain. However it needs the Eurocrats not to behave like Eurotwats.

Cake and eat it?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Then why are you framing it otherwise?

I'm wondering why you are referring to a scenario that simply isn't relevant any more.

We are clearly not staying in the single market, so not sure what point you are trying to make, unless crying over spilt milk is somehow making a point?

Because you’re framing the inevitable consequences of leaving the single market, and the subsequent proposition to avoid those consequences, as the EU trying to “interfere” and “control” U.K. policy.

When it plainly isn’t, and is a function of being outside of a single market but participating in it in varying levels.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Then why are you framing it otherwise?

I'm wondering why you are referring to a scenario that simply isn't relevant any more.

We are clearly not staying in the single market, so not sure what point you are trying to make, unless crying over spilt milk is somehow making a point?

Because you’re framing the inevitable consequences of leaving the single market, and the subsequent proposition to avoid those consequences, as the EU trying to “interfere” and “control” U.K. policy.

When it plainly isn’t, and is a function of being outside of a single market but participating in it in varying levels.

You don't seem to understand, a bit like the EU.

If we are going for a Canada style agreement or end up with WTO for that matter), there is no need for the EU to have any sort say in the other countries' internal affairs. It does not have this with Canada, Australia etc, so we should not be treated any differently.

rick_chasey

Yeah look we don’t need to re-enact the negotiations.

You can see why the EU wants close correlation with its single market?

Beyond not wanting to be undercut on their doorstep, there’s the more basic desire, that Brexiters like to point out too, to want lots of frictionless trade.

Plainly the U.K. likes the idea of undercutting and having lots of frictionless single market access/involvement but that can be cakeism for reasons I explained in my previous post.

Why is that so hard to understand?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Depends what our end goal is. As this seems to be "whatevs" we obviously don't need to worry about what they want.

Our end goal is clear, and in the public domain.

It is, and is so unambitious as to not require anything from the EU.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Depends what our end goal is. As this seems to be "whatevs" we obviously don't need to worry about what they want.

Our end goal is clear, and in the public domain.

It is, and is so unambitious as to not require anything from the EU.

Only to negotiate and agree deal based on what they clearly said was available. But if the EU keeps on backsliding and behaving unreasonably, it probably won't happen.

rick_chasey

On what points is the EU backsliding, Stevo?

You’re all slogans and hot air at the moment.