Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

BREXIT 2020 - Bye Bye Brussels. It's Been a Blast.🇬🇧

1142614271429143114321459

Posts

  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,186
    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    Nope, 30 June is the deadline by which any extension to the transition period must be made. We have the option to extend to end of 2021 or 2022; if neither is chosen, it ends on 31 Dec this year. Negotiations can still take place after 30 June.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267
    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    morstar said:

    It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
    You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
    Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
    EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

    Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

    Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

    Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

    It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.
    Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to
    in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

    Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.


    do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
    Where did I mention SM access?
    what do you think they are negotiating?
    Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.

    The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?
    what barriers are we looking to put up for access to our market? it had completely passed me by that was part of the negotiations

    Barnier's letter spelled out what they considered to be unreasonable, we are cherry picking from several different FTAs.
    Each FTA is different so this is a far cry from the 'cherry picking' that was used to describe wanting some combination of the '4 freedoms' that are apparently indivisible. In fact it makes sense to look at what has worked or we think will work well in other FTA's and apply them to our circumstances.

    So Barnier's allegation of cherry picking is disingenuous.
    We are not asking to replicate one FTA we are cherry picking bits from several. It is not a legal argument we are having, we need to persuade them why it is in their best interests.

    They have repeatedly said they regret the arrangement they have with Switzerland so we do appear (knowingly?) to be steering down a blind alley.

    Do you think we will leave with a FTA?

    FWIW it is worth I have pretty much switched off as I think both sides have accepted the possibility of no deal and are going through the motions.
    Given that whatever we come up with will largely already have been seen in previous agreements, its almost inevitable the someone will raise the 'cherry picking' allegation. This is just sensible application of previous experience rather than any attempt to pick from some 'indivisible' thing like the 4 freedoms.

    The EU know fine well the benefits of a deal but they appear to be insisting that they effectively have a material a say in UK internal affairs using the 'level playing field' excuse. Which is pretty unique compared to other trade deals and looks like the main sticking point.

    What we are asking for is no different fundamentally to other EU trade deals with Japan, S. Korea, Canada etc. And with the same degree of control over each other as in those deals.

    No idea what will happen: I said last year that a deal was a 50/50 and it is maybe a bit less now IMO.
    it is not any old body raising the cherry picking argument it is the EU
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,186

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    morstar said:

    It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
    You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
    Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
    EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

    Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

    Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

    Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

    It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.
    Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to
    in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

    Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.


    do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
    Where did I mention SM access?
    what do you think they are negotiating?
    Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.

    The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?
    what barriers are we looking to put up for access to our market? it had completely passed me by that was part of the negotiations

    Barnier's letter spelled out what they considered to be unreasonable, we are cherry picking from several different FTAs.
    Each FTA is different so this is a far cry from the 'cherry picking' that was used to describe wanting some combination of the '4 freedoms' that are apparently indivisible. In fact it makes sense to look at what has worked or we think will work well in other FTA's and apply them to our circumstances.

    So Barnier's allegation of cherry picking is disingenuous.
    We are not asking to replicate one FTA we are cherry picking bits from several. It is not a legal argument we are having, we need to persuade them why it is in their best interests.

    They have repeatedly said they regret the arrangement they have with Switzerland so we do appear (knowingly?) to be steering down a blind alley.

    Do you think we will leave with a FTA?

    FWIW it is worth I have pretty much switched off as I think both sides have accepted the possibility of no deal and are going through the motions.
    Given that whatever we come up with will largely already have been seen in previous agreements, its almost inevitable the someone will raise the 'cherry picking' allegation. This is just sensible application of previous experience rather than any attempt to pick from some 'indivisible' thing like the 4 freedoms.

    The EU know fine well the benefits of a deal but they appear to be insisting that they effectively have a material a say in UK internal affairs using the 'level playing field' excuse. Which is pretty unique compared to other trade deals and looks like the main sticking point.

    What we are asking for is no different fundamentally to other EU trade deals with Japan, S. Korea, Canada etc. And with the same degree of control over each other as in those deals.

    No idea what will happen: I said last year that a deal was a 50/50 and it is maybe a bit less now IMO.
    it is not any old body raising the cherry picking argument it is the EU
    It doesn't make the position right.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267
    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267
    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    morstar said:

    It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
    You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
    Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
    EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

    Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

    Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

    Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

    It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.
    Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to
    in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

    Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.


    do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
    Where did I mention SM access?
    what do you think they are negotiating?
    Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.

    The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?
    what barriers are we looking to put up for access to our market? it had completely passed me by that was part of the negotiations

    Barnier's letter spelled out what they considered to be unreasonable, we are cherry picking from several different FTAs.
    Each FTA is different so this is a far cry from the 'cherry picking' that was used to describe wanting some combination of the '4 freedoms' that are apparently indivisible. In fact it makes sense to look at what has worked or we think will work well in other FTA's and apply them to our circumstances.

    So Barnier's allegation of cherry picking is disingenuous.
    We are not asking to replicate one FTA we are cherry picking bits from several. It is not a legal argument we are having, we need to persuade them why it is in their best interests.

    They have repeatedly said they regret the arrangement they have with Switzerland so we do appear (knowingly?) to be steering down a blind alley.

    Do you think we will leave with a FTA?

    FWIW it is worth I have pretty much switched off as I think both sides have accepted the possibility of no deal and are going through the motions.
    Given that whatever we come up with will largely already have been seen in previous agreements, its almost inevitable the someone will raise the 'cherry picking' allegation. This is just sensible application of previous experience rather than any attempt to pick from some 'indivisible' thing like the 4 freedoms.

    The EU know fine well the benefits of a deal but they appear to be insisting that they effectively have a material a say in UK internal affairs using the 'level playing field' excuse. Which is pretty unique compared to other trade deals and looks like the main sticking point.

    What we are asking for is no different fundamentally to other EU trade deals with Japan, S. Korea, Canada etc. And with the same degree of control over each other as in those deals.

    No idea what will happen: I said last year that a deal was a 50/50 and it is maybe a bit less now IMO.
    it is not any old body raising the cherry picking argument it is the EU
    It doesn't make the position right.
    it is not a legal argument about right or wrong, it is what they are prepared to give us. In fairness our negotiators seem to be making the same mistake of treating it as a legal argument rather than using persuasion.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,186

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    morstar said:

    It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
    You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
    Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
    EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.

    Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.

    Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.

    Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.

    It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.
    Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not to
    in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.

    Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.


    do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
    Where did I mention SM access?
    what do you think they are negotiating?
    Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.

    The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?
    what barriers are we looking to put up for access to our market? it had completely passed me by that was part of the negotiations

    Barnier's letter spelled out what they considered to be unreasonable, we are cherry picking from several different FTAs.
    Each FTA is different so this is a far cry from the 'cherry picking' that was used to describe wanting some combination of the '4 freedoms' that are apparently indivisible. In fact it makes sense to look at what has worked or we think will work well in other FTA's and apply them to our circumstances.

    So Barnier's allegation of cherry picking is disingenuous.
    We are not asking to replicate one FTA we are cherry picking bits from several. It is not a legal argument we are having, we need to persuade them why it is in their best interests.

    They have repeatedly said they regret the arrangement they have with Switzerland so we do appear (knowingly?) to be steering down a blind alley.

    Do you think we will leave with a FTA?

    FWIW it is worth I have pretty much switched off as I think both sides have accepted the possibility of no deal and are going through the motions.
    Given that whatever we come up with will largely already have been seen in previous agreements, its almost inevitable the someone will raise the 'cherry picking' allegation. This is just sensible application of previous experience rather than any attempt to pick from some 'indivisible' thing like the 4 freedoms.

    The EU know fine well the benefits of a deal but they appear to be insisting that they effectively have a material a say in UK internal affairs using the 'level playing field' excuse. Which is pretty unique compared to other trade deals and looks like the main sticking point.

    What we are asking for is no different fundamentally to other EU trade deals with Japan, S. Korea, Canada etc. And with the same degree of control over each other as in those deals.

    No idea what will happen: I said last year that a deal was a 50/50 and it is maybe a bit less now IMO.
    it is not any old body raising the cherry picking argument it is the EU
    It doesn't make the position right.
    it is not a legal argument about right or wrong, it is what they are prepared to give us. In fairness our negotiators seem to be making the same mistake of treating it as a legal argument rather than using persuasion.
    We don't really know what was said in the discussions though, do we. Or indeed what the EU may or may not have said to persuade us to agree to something.

    It takes two to tango, as they say.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,385
    edited 24 May

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    Here is a previous quote from 3 years ago. We've not moved on very much.
    At least everyone is consistent.
    pblakeney said:

    One assumption could be that they need more time to do a proper job.

    Another assumption could be that they want the negotiations to fail.

    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,606

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    I thought there were benefits to it being done as part of the WA?
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 14,593

    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,481 Lives Here

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,606

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    They're not bare bones deals with deadlines?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,481 Lives Here
    edited 27 May

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    They're not bare bones deals with deadlines?
    So you think they were just fannying about latex glove regulations for 8 years during the Canada - EU deal?

    It’s the political differences that make it last for 8 years.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,606

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    They're not bare bones deals with deadlines?
    So you think they were just fannying about latex glove regulations for 8 years during the Canada - EU deal?

    It’s the political differences that make it last for 8 years.
    Largely, yes. It is also not a bare bones deal. Negotiation always fills the time available.

  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267
    So the first deadline will be June 18th when our fvckwit joins the end of a meeting of EU leaders, if there is no hope of a deal they could abandon the talks.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,481 Lives Here
    edited 27 May

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    They're not bare bones deals with deadlines?
    So you think they were just fannying about latex glove regulations for 8 years during the Canada - EU deal?

    It’s the political differences that make it last for 8 years.
    Largely, yes. It is also not a bare bones deal. Negotiation always fills the time available.

    Hah that’s laughable.

    Go read anyone who’s been in those negs.

    Its the opposite. The reason the people who do this for living keep saying it’s not enough time is because it isn’t.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,186
    edited 27 May

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267
    Stevo_666 said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    And?
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,606

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    They're not bare bones deals with deadlines?
    So you think they were just fannying about latex glove regulations for 8 years during the Canada - EU deal?

    It’s the political differences that make it last for 8 years.
    Largely, yes. It is also not a bare bones deal. Negotiation always fills the time available.

    Hah that’s laughable.

    Go read anyone who’s been in those negs.

    Its the opposite. The reason the people who do this for living keep saying it’s not enough time is because it isn’t.
    Why did you ask for an opinion if yours was predetermined? Why do you consistently ignore the bare bones element?
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,606

    Stevo_666 said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    And?
    Barnier doesn't even believe in the fishing rights he is trying to secure. Nor do most EU countries, and yet he has to keep trying until those EU countries that do become more realistic. I can see how that makes EU trade deals quite a bit slower.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,385

    Stevo_666 said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    And?
    Barnier doesn't even believe in the fishing rights he is trying to secure. Nor do most EU countries, and yet he has to keep trying until those EU countries that do become more realistic. I can see how that makes EU trade deals quite a bit slower.
    I think that is what Rick is saying. It will take too long.
    We've spent 4 years dicking around while the clock was ticking.

    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 9,606
    pblakeney said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    And?
    Barnier doesn't even believe in the fishing rights he is trying to secure. Nor do most EU countries, and yet he has to keep trying until those EU countries that do become more realistic. I can see how that makes EU trade deals quite a bit slower.
    I think that is what Rick is saying. It will take too long.
    We've spent 4 years dicking around while the clock was ticking.

    Rick was responding to my statement that a bare bones deal could be done with the commission only and not involve the full EU27 approval process, and therefore could be done quickly. This being Cake Stop he ignored the bare bones bit and argued that a comprehensive all singing all dancing one would be painfully slow.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,481 Lives Here
    edited 28 May
    Because it's the bare bones bit that takes the longest. All the experienced trade negotiators say it is the political to and fro is what takes time.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 40,186

    Stevo_666 said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    And?
    It could have impacted the time taken to get deals done.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 47,481 Lives Here
    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    And?
    It could have impacted the time taken to get deals done.
    But this is a deal with the EU?
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267
    Stevo_666 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    And?
    It could have impacted the time taken to get deals done.
    sorry I thought you were referring to the UK/EU FTA
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267
    pblakeney said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pblakeney said:

    pblakeney said:

    Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
    Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.

    The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whatever
    Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.
    Certainly looked that way from the progress...
    No deal looking more certain in that case.
    it will take 6 months to get the legislation through the different national parliaments so end of June is when you give up, conclude a deal or ask for an extension.

    As I say we do not act like somebody who wants a deal.
    I think a bare bones trade deal can be done by the commission without the requirement for national parliaments. As bells and whistles are added, it requires national parliaments. This is one of the reasons the UK doesn't want one agreement to cover everything.
    So what was it about every single other trade deal that took years to agree?
    The EU was the common factor in all of those...
    And?
    Barnier doesn't even believe in the fishing rights he is trying to secure. Nor do most EU countries, and yet he has to keep trying until those EU countries that do become more realistic. I can see how that makes EU trade deals quite a bit slower.
    I think that is what Rick is saying. It will take too long.
    We've spent 4 years dicking around while the clock was ticking.

    they refused to negotiate a FTA with an EU member.

    Our biggest mistake was triggering A50 without any idea what we wanted and trying to get the EU to discuss what was acceptable to them
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 11,385
    Our biggest mistake was not knowing what we* were voting for.

    *We as a nation.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 9,631
    Like old times in here.
    and then the next thing you know
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 10,267
    just need Brexiteers to point out that nearly all foreign direct investment goes to the UK and that shows that we don't need to be in the EU

    oh wait a minute an EY annual report shows that France is top for the first time ever
Sign In or Register to comment.