BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
john80 said:
Sounds like the EU might not be that confident they have a competitive market place if they cant handle all those little Englanders diverging from them. The fact the EU cant do a deal with a currently compliant nation kind of tells you all you need to know about the EUs confidence in its offering.
Try and see it as us currently having the perfect FTA with the EU. As you say we are currently compliant but we do not like the sovereignty cost of that compliance so want to break it. The EU has been very clear that each reduction in compliance will result in a less good trade deal.
0 -
surrey_commuter said:
Every FTA ever struck has assumed the parties are converging. How do you structure a deal when one side is insistent upon divergence?kingstongraham said:
Sorry, should have said - who said this? "Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed."surrey_commuter said:
The problem is that every other FTA in history has involved two economies converging. An FTA between two parties intent on diverging presents a whole new set of problems.kingstongraham said:
Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.
That's just a catchy soundbite though. None the converging FTAs have one country regulating the other.0 -
If you think that is just a catchy sound bite then stop and think about it.TheBigBean said:surrey_commuter said:
Every FTA ever struck has assumed the parties are converging. How do you structure a deal when one side is insistent upon divergence?kingstongraham said:
Sorry, should have said - who said this? "Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed."surrey_commuter said:
The problem is that every other FTA in history has involved two economies converging. An FTA between two parties intent on diverging presents a whole new set of problems.kingstongraham said:
Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.
That's just a catchy soundbite though. None the converging FTAs have one country regulating the other.
UK wants to impose it’s farming regs on the USA0 -
You think a UK-US trade deal would mean that farmers in the US selling to Canada need to change their ways?surrey_commuter said:
If you think that is just a catchy sound bite then stop and think about it.TheBigBean said:surrey_commuter said:
Every FTA ever struck has assumed the parties are converging. How do you structure a deal when one side is insistent upon divergence?kingstongraham said:
Sorry, should have said - who said this? "Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed."surrey_commuter said:
The problem is that every other FTA in history has involved two economies converging. An FTA between two parties intent on diverging presents a whole new set of problems.kingstongraham said:
Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.
That's just a catchy soundbite though. None the converging FTAs have one country regulating the other.
UK wants to impose it’s farming regs on the USA
0 -
This is what I have been saying for some time. What the EU want in terms of regulating the UK is unprecedented and no right minded country would agree to it.TheBigBean said:surrey_commuter said:
Every FTA ever struck has assumed the parties are converging. How do you structure a deal when one side is insistent upon divergence?kingstongraham said:
Sorry, should have said - who said this? "Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed."surrey_commuter said:
The problem is that every other FTA in history has involved two economies converging. An FTA between two parties intent on diverging presents a whole new set of problems.kingstongraham said:
Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.
That's just a catchy soundbite though. None the converging FTAs have one country regulating the other."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What the UK want in terms with trading with the EU is unprecedented and no right minded trading block would agree to it.Stevo_666 said:
This is what I have been saying for some time. What the EU want in terms of regulating the UK is unprecedented and no right minded country would agree to it.TheBigBean said:surrey_commuter said:
Every FTA ever struck has assumed the parties are converging. How do you structure a deal when one side is insistent upon divergence?kingstongraham said:
Sorry, should have said - who said this? "Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed."surrey_commuter said:
The problem is that every other FTA in history has involved two economies converging. An FTA between two parties intent on diverging presents a whole new set of problems.kingstongraham said:
Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.
That's just a catchy soundbite though. None the converging FTAs have one country regulating the other.
Both sides can play that game.0 -
I'd have thought it was quite simple really. If you want to sell to a market then you have meet their standards. If you are not willing to do that then you will not be trading.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.0 -
Not what the EU are saying though. If the UK wants to sell to that market, then internal regulations that don't directly affect those standards need to align.pblakeney said:I'd have thought it was quite simple really. If you want to sell to a market then you have meet their standards. If you are not willing to do that then you will not be trading.
0 -
I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.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.1 -
Which specific parts of our requests have not been seen in previous trade deals?Jeremy.89 said:
What the UK want in terms with trading with the EU is unprecedented and no right minded trading block would agree to it.Stevo_666 said:
This is what I have been saying for some time. What the EU want in terms of regulating the UK is unprecedented and no right minded country would agree to it.TheBigBean said:surrey_commuter said:
Every FTA ever struck has assumed the parties are converging. How do you structure a deal when one side is insistent upon divergence?kingstongraham said:
Sorry, should have said - who said this? "Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed."surrey_commuter said:
The problem is that every other FTA in history has involved two economies converging. An FTA between two parties intent on diverging presents a whole new set of problems.kingstongraham said:
Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed.
That's just a catchy soundbite though. None the converging FTAs have one country regulating the other.
Both sides can play that game."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You are confusing regulation of the UK with alignment of product standards etc. The former is the unprecedented EU request: the latter is a standard part of free trade agreements.pblakeney said:I'd have thought it was quite simple really. If you want to sell to a market then you have meet their standards. If you are not willing to do that then you will not be trading.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.0 -
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?0 -
Us to say I will swap you fish (0.8%) of GDP for services (80% of GDP)rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?0 -
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
0 -
Not even Barnier is expecting the fish as currently proposed.surrey_commuter said:
Us to say I will swap you fish (0.8%) of GDP for services (80% of GDP)rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?0 -
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.0 -
You are sounding very naive, this expected behaviour was part of the discussion on whether Brexit was a good idea. If you remember the reassurance was that they would still want to sell us Prosecco and that the German carmakers would ensure we got a good deal.TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Whether you agree with the EU or not they are very consistent, presumably because securing agreement from all is so hard.
The EU’s position was entirely predictable and should have been part of everybody’s consideration when choosing to Leave.0 -
Sure, let's criticise it. Then what?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?0 -
It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
0 -
The action has already been taken - the UK government has told the EU they can't have what they are asking for when it comes to having a say in in regulating the UK. Several times.kingstongraham said:
Sure, let's criticise it. Then what?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We will be on the hook for a £53bn bill if we extend, from the current EU fiscal stimulus measures. I'm sure this will go higher over the next few months.
No wonder the EU are being awkward and want to stop us leaving the transition period. They've only ever been interested in the UK's credit card.0 -
!ndeed, but the EU tend to listen to Blair, Clegg et al, "we`ll get a second referendum, and reverse this" that didnt really pan out for the EU either!0
-
Slightly more unified position across the country that is more accepting why no deal may happen. This in turn is more likely to bring about a deal with the EU.kingstongraham said:
Sure, let's criticise it. Then what?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
0 -
Can you not see the importance of the UK’s insisting on the right to diverge?spatt77 said:It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
0 -
The majority of the people in this country have no idea about the implications of no deal. Boris will stand in front of three Union Flags blaming it all on Brussels and boasting about how the British Bulldog did now bow before the yoke of foreign oppression and they will cheer him all the way to the poorhouse.TheBigBean said:
Slightly more unified position across the country that is more accepting why no deal may happen. This in turn is more likely to bring about a deal with the EU.kingstongraham said:
Sure, let's criticise it. Then what?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
He knows the country is populated by gullible twats so why would he need to unify anything?0 -
yes, but you can diverge whilst having mutual recognition!surrey_commuter said:
Can you not see the importance of the UK’s insisting on the right to diverge?spatt77 said:It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
0 -
What in it for the EU?spatt77 said:
yes, but you can diverge whilst having mutual recognition!surrey_commuter said:
Can you not see the importance of the UK’s insisting on the right to diverge?spatt77 said:It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
0 -
Insisting on the right to manage your own standards and laws is what all sovereign nations want as it is what they need to function as a democracy. This is different to saying we will rip up the rule book but it is pointing out that should the need arise in future if it suits their interests they will whilst weighing up cross border trade considerations. For example i will still be designing remote handling equipment to standards that are generally devised by UK, french and german experts in their field. This work will likely continue post Brexit. Ifni want to export it then i will need to meet the relevent countries standards. The idea that a country cant diverge is another EU overplay of their hand which they will rightly pay the price for.surrey_commuter said:
Can you not see the importance of the UK’s insisting on the right to diverge?spatt77 said:It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
0 -
trade! but its at the expense of the single market! its a conundrum!rick_chasey said:
What in it for the EU?spatt77 said:
yes, but you can diverge whilst having mutual recognition!surrey_commuter said:
Can you not see the importance of the UK’s insisting on the right to diverge?spatt77 said:It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
0
