BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
You ignored virtually every word that I wrote and ignored all but the last 80 Kms of that stage, all in all your response is the perfect metaphor for Brexitspatt77 said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.surrey_commuter said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.spatt77 said:
"will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per"? you don`t KNOW this? you may be right , you may be wrong but don`t know it! its a prediction based on taking no action to mitigate this! South Korea and Canada both have FTA`s with the EU where the ECJ has no jurisdiction over them.surrey_commuter said:What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference
Ask yourself this - why are the people who don’t care about an FTA with the EU so convinced that an FTA with the USA is the route to the land of milk and honey?
What you you do to mitigate no deal?
They are not legal proceedings, the EU is under no obligation to give us stuff due to precedent, we have to persuade them by showing the benefits to them of different courses of action.
What like Chris Froome`s stage 19 of the 2018 Giro? where he broke away with 80kms to go on his own went on to win?
0 -
I understand that feeling.surrey_commuter said:
You ignored virtually every word that I wrote and ignored all but the last 80 Kms of that stage, all in all your response is the perfect metaphor for Brexitspatt77 said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.surrey_commuter said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.spatt77 said:
"will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per"? you don`t KNOW this? you may be right , you may be wrong but don`t know it! its a prediction based on taking no action to mitigate this! South Korea and Canada both have FTA`s with the EU where the ECJ has no jurisdiction over them.surrey_commuter said:What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference
Ask yourself this - why are the people who don’t care about an FTA with the EU so convinced that an FTA with the USA is the route to the land of milk and honey?
What you you do to mitigate no deal?
They are not legal proceedings, the EU is under no obligation to give us stuff due to precedent, we have to persuade them by showing the benefits to them of different courses of action.
What like Chris Froome`s stage 19 of the 2018 Giro? where he broke away with 80kms to go on his own went on to win?0 -
Do you ever get the feeling thst some people are trying very hard not to understand?TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
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.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The EU?Stevo_666 said:
Do you ever get the feeling thst some people are trying very hard not to understand?TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
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.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU. 0 -
I was thinking more about certain Cake Stoppers, but very true nonthelesscoopster_the_1st said:
The EU?Stevo_666 said:
Do you ever get the feeling thst some people are trying very hard not to understand?TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
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.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
We've told them enough times in both cases. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Stevo_666 said:
I was thinking more about certain Cake Stoppers, but very true nonthelesscoopster_the_1st said:
The EU?Stevo_666 said:
Do you ever get the feeling thst some people are trying very hard not to understand?TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
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.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU. We've told them enough times in both cases.
https://youtu.be/_I35esjVolk 0 -
For the same reason they don't have to inspect them now.TheBigBean said:
The UK wouldn't be exporting autonomous vehicles to the EU, so there would be no friction. The ones with steering wheels would be waved through.rick_chasey said:
It has an impact on the friction of existing trade with the EU.TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
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.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
So, say, all the cars are built to an EU standard; then fewer papers and inspections will need to be made by EU and British customs officers regarding the trade of cars, right?
All cars adhere, so all cars will waived through.
Divergence means friction as now they'd have to check the cars have the right spec as there's a chance they may not be.
How does the EU know the ones with steering wheels aren't autonomous vehicles dressed up for show? It doesn't, perhaps it would start inspecting them, but that is the same with meeting any other regulation. Imagine the UK promised to meet some vehicle emission tests, how would the EU know at the border?
0 -
TheBigBean said:
I understand that feeling.surrey_commuter said:
You ignored virtually every word that I wrote and ignored all but the last 80 Kms of that stage, all in all your response is the perfect metaphor for Brexitspatt77 said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.surrey_commuter said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.spatt77 said:
"will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per"? you don`t KNOW this? you may be right , you may be wrong but don`t know it! its a prediction based on taking no action to mitigate this! South Korea and Canada both have FTA`s with the EU where the ECJ has no jurisdiction over them.surrey_commuter said:What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference
Ask yourself this - why are the people who don’t care about an FTA with the EU so convinced that an FTA with the USA is the route to the land of milk and honey?
What you you do to mitigate no deal?
They are not legal proceedings, the EU is under no obligation to give us stuff due to precedent, we have to persuade them by showing the benefits to them of different courses of action.
What like Chris Froome`s stage 19 of the 2018 Giro? where he broke away with 80kms to go on his own went on to win?
if it helps I understand and agree with what you are saying, I just don't see it's relevance to the discussion in hand, I accept this is my failing.0 -
the most bizarre thing about this analogy is that it ignores the fact that the UK would be free to spunk Govt money on the autonomous car which would have been in breach of EU rules on state aid.rick_chasey said:
For the same reason they don't have to inspect them now.TheBigBean said:
The UK wouldn't be exporting autonomous vehicles to the EU, so there would be no friction. The ones with steering wheels would be waved through.rick_chasey said:
It has an impact on the friction of existing trade with the EU.TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
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.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
So, say, all the cars are built to an EU standard; then fewer papers and inspections will need to be made by EU and British customs officers regarding the trade of cars, right?
All cars adhere, so all cars will waived through.
Divergence means friction as now they'd have to check the cars have the right spec as there's a chance they may not be.
How does the EU know the ones with steering wheels aren't autonomous vehicles dressed up for show? It doesn't, perhaps it would start inspecting them, but that is the same with meeting any other regulation. Imagine the UK promised to meet some vehicle emission tests, how would the EU know at the border?0 -
So the EU inspect every Tesla sold on a EU country that is not the UK at present. No like most countries they put the onus on the seller who is best placed to know if the product meets the host countries standards. For sure they check duties etc but they dont dive into the details of thousands of cars arriving on a transport ferry from Soith Korea for example. Do you think a guy checks that all toys from china sold in france meet standards. If so he is a pretty busy guy.rick_chasey said:
It has an impact on the friction of existing trade with the EU.TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
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.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
So, say, all the cars are built to an EU standard; then fewer papers and inspections will need to be made by EU and British customs officers regarding the trade of cars, right?
All cars adhere, so all cars will waived through.
Divergence means friction as now they'd have to check the cars have the right spec as there's a chance they may not be.0 -
How’s your straw man argument working out?john80 said:
So the EU inspect every Tesla sold on a EU country that is not the UK at present. No like most countries they put the onus on the seller who is best placed to know if the product meets the host countries standards. For sure they check duties etc but they dont dive into the details of thousands of cars arriving on a transport ferry from Soith Korea for example. Do you think a guy checks that all toys from china sold in france meet standards. If so he is a pretty busy guy.rick_chasey said:
It has an impact on the friction of existing trade with the EU.TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
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.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
So, say, all the cars are built to an EU standard; then fewer papers and inspections will need to be made by EU and British customs officers regarding the trade of cars, right?
All cars adhere, so all cars will waived through.
Divergence means friction as now they'd have to check the cars have the right spec as there's a chance they may not be.
0 -
The government doesn't have time to pass the legislation it needs to get brexit done before 31st Dec so they're bringing the House back in the midst of a pandemic
Or
The socialists, nationalists and Remoaners in Parliament are refusing to come back and do their jobs in a treacherous effort to thwart Brexit
As you see fit
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Isn't each vote going to take half a day or something, because they need to queue up outside Ikea?0
-
-
Parliament needs to sit otherwise the government has no moral authority to ask the rest of the country to restart. If things are inconvenient then even better as that is what the real world is also experiencing.0
-
Sorry, what?coopster_the_1st said:Parliament needs to sit otherwise the government has no moral authority to ask the rest of the country to restart. If things are inconvenient then even better as that is what the real world is also experiencing.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Apparently there's no precedent for hierarchy for voting in parliament, so if BoJo turns up late to a vote he'll have to go to the back of the queue.0
-
Anyone know what the contingency plans are for MPs who have been advised to stay at home? Either vulnerable or looking after someone who is?0
-
They'll just have to turn up and die. Hasn't Coops explained this enough times for you?rick_chasey said:Anyone know what the contingency plans are for MPs who have been advised to stay at home? Either vulnerable or looking after someone who is?
0 -
Government advice:coopster_the_1st said:Parliament needs to sit otherwise the government has no moral authority to ask the rest of the country to restart. If things are inconvenient then even better as that is what the real world is also experiencing.
- You should take all reasonable steps to help people work from home.
- Staff should work from home if at all possible.
- Objective: That everyone should work from home, unless they cannot work from home.
- Planning for the minimum number of people needed on-site to operate safely and effectively.0 -
When you think you're queuing for Harry Potter's World of Wizarding ride, but end up voting for Brexit.0
-
Pairing presumably.rick_chasey said:Anyone know what the contingency plans are for MPs who have been advised to stay at home? Either vulnerable or looking after someone who is?
0 -
The best way to change stupid rules is to get those who wrote them to live them.kingstongraham said:When you think you're queuing for Harry Potter's World of Wizarding ride, but end up voting for Brexit.
Should only take a couple of weeks of this before sensible rules start being considered/implemented. 1m social distancing instead of 2m would improve things swiftly0 -
.0
-
To be honest, your views are completely irrelevant, because your aim is quite different from those of the people writing the regulations.coopster_the_1st said:
The best way to change stupid rules is to get those who wrote them to live them.kingstongraham said:When you think you're queuing for Harry Potter's World of Wizarding ride, but end up voting for Brexit.
Should only take a couple of weeks of this before sensible rules start being considered/implemented. 1m social distancing instead of 2m would improve things swiftly0 -
Worryingly, I'm not sure that's actually truekingstongraham said:
To be honest, your views are completely irrelevant, because your aim is quite different from those of the people writing the regulations.coopster_the_1st said:
The best way to change stupid rules is to get those who wrote them to live them.kingstongraham said:When you think you're queuing for Harry Potter's World of Wizarding ride, but end up voting for Brexit.
Should only take a couple of weeks of this before sensible rules start being considered/implemented. 1m social distancing instead of 2m would improve things swiftly0 -
to be fair the principle is sound, there are a lot of people who argue the same for removing MPs DB pension schemes so they understand the trials and tribulations of DC schemes, annual allowance and lifetime allowance and the impact of frequently changing legislation.kingstongraham said:
To be honest, your views are completely irrelevant, because your aim is quite different from those of the people writing the regulations.coopster_the_1st said:
The best way to change stupid rules is to get those who wrote them to live them.kingstongraham said:When you think you're queuing for Harry Potter's World of Wizarding ride, but end up voting for Brexit.
Should only take a couple of weeks of this before sensible rules start being considered/implemented. 1m social distancing instead of 2m would improve things swiftly1 -
I've already said that the guidance is that everyone should work from home unless they cannot work from home. If they want to send a message, maybe it can be that one.surrey_commuter said:
to be fair the principle is sound, there are a lot of people who argue the same for removing MPs DB pension schemes so they understand the trials and tribulations of DC schemes, annual allowance and lifetime allowance and the impact of frequently changing legislation.kingstongraham said:
To be honest, your views are completely irrelevant, because your aim is quite different from those of the people writing the regulations.coopster_the_1st said:
The best way to change stupid rules is to get those who wrote them to live them.kingstongraham said:When you think you're queuing for Harry Potter's World of Wizarding ride, but end up voting for Brexit.
Should only take a couple of weeks of this before sensible rules start being considered/implemented. 1m social distancing instead of 2m would improve things swiftly0 -
i said the principle was sound.kingstongraham said:
I've already said that the guidance is that everyone should work from home unless they cannot work from home. If they want to send a message, maybe it can be that one.surrey_commuter said:
to be fair the principle is sound, there are a lot of people who argue the same for removing MPs DB pension schemes so they understand the trials and tribulations of DC schemes, annual allowance and lifetime allowance and the impact of frequently changing legislation.kingstongraham said:
To be honest, your views are completely irrelevant, because your aim is quite different from those of the people writing the regulations.coopster_the_1st said:
The best way to change stupid rules is to get those who wrote them to live them.kingstongraham said:When you think you're queuing for Harry Potter's World of Wizarding ride, but end up voting for Brexit.
Should only take a couple of weeks of this before sensible rules start being considered/implemented. 1m social distancing instead of 2m would improve things swiftly
In practise it is sending a message that employers can arbitrarily decide that employees attend the office0 -
Look at this nonsense
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e4b4a65e-ca60-4f4c-8774-c904bcb0b146
And even with that...
0
