BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
...
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
0 -
Clearly it's not an objective, but we still managed to give away significant chunks of it in the past, which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
0 -
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah, I have a feeling Covid 19 is going to make Brexit look like a falling out over who runs the cake stall at the village fete.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Indeed.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
Luckily the UK isn't having to deal with both“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
We're happy to do trade deals with those that don't want to have a major say in our internal affairs in return for a mutually beneficial FTA. Which is everyone except for the EU at present. Maybe they will see sense and fall into line with the rest of the World over the next few months?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nearly all trade treaties have some form of non-regression clause. We've even asked for them in the mandate for the UK-US deal. Given we have specifically stated that the "whole point" of Brexit is divergence from EU standards, and we have a PM going around denying the reality of the WA treaty which he signed a few months ago, you can see why they might think that basic non-regression isn't enough.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
We're happy to do trade deals with those that don't want to have a major say in our internal affairs in return for a mutually beneficial FTA. Which is everyone except for the EU at present. Maybe they will see sense and fall into line with the rest of the World over the next few months?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
There must be a corollary to Godwin's law that states any news story will eventually be linked to Brexit if an online discussion continues long enough.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
0 -
-
They helped us grow our economy whilst in the EU to little detriment.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
However we have decided we wish to follow a different path so that is moot.
There was then a helpful chart showing how all the different options of parity met TM’s red lines.
We now apparently have a different set of requirements where we trade zilch in terms of regulatory alignment.
As a sovereign nation we are free to do so but, seeing as we are heavily dependent on trade for day to day needs, this seems an unrealistic position.
Unless of course we just accept that both sides are peacocking and setting out their positions.
The thing with regs is that the EU is highly regulated and they are linking access to alignment.
The US are low regs so don’t care what regs we have but, trading with them potentially undermines our standards to the detriment of our own industries. e.g farming.
We can do what the hell we like but there are both good and bad consequences of choices.
I know you are arguing based on we are Brexiting so let’s get in with it but you do realise that cake and eat it isn’t really available.
0 -
The US do care about our regs which is why they want us to relax them on hormones in beef and chlorinating chicken. They also want to bar us from doing a deal with China.morstar said:
They helped us grow our economy whilst in the EU to little detriment.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
However we have decided we wish to follow a different path so that is moot.
There was then a helpful chart showing how all the different options of parity met TM’s red lines.
We now apparently have a different set of requirements where we trade zilch in terms of regulatory alignment.
As a sovereign nation we are free to do so but, seeing as we are heavily dependent on trade for day to day needs, this seems an unrealistic position.
Unless of course we just accept that both sides are peacocking and setting out their positions.
The thing with regs is that the EU is highly regulated and they are linking access to alignment.
The US are low regs so don’t care what regs we have but, trading with them potentially undermines our standards to the detriment of our own industries. e.g farming.
We can do what the hell we like but there are both good and bad consequences of choices.
I know you are arguing based on we are Brexiting so let’s get in with it but you do realise that cake and eat it isn’t really available.
I am guessing this is the way that it is in trade negotiations
0 -
An odd thing to say.TheBigBean said:
There must be a corollary to Godwin's law that states any news story will eventually be linked to Brexit if an online discussion continues long enough.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
The joint committee hasn't met to decide which checks are required. If they go for the full Barnier of checks then presumably NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.tailwindhome said:0 -
What a choice,eh?TheBigBean said:NI will exercise its democratic right to leave the protocol one way or another.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
My point above was what constitutes reasonable. The EU demands go well beyond the normal non-regression clauses. It is also likely to be politically unacceptable, clearly.rjsterry said:
Nearly all trade treaties have some form of non-regression clause. We've even asked for them in the mandate for the UK-US deal. Given we have specifically stated that the "whole point" of Brexit is divergence from EU standards, and we have a PM going around denying the reality of the WA treaty which he signed a few months ago, you can see why they might think that basic non-regression isn't enough.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
We're happy to do trade deals with those that don't want to have a major say in our internal affairs in return for a mutually beneficial FTA. Which is everyone except for the EU at present. Maybe they will see sense and fall into line with the rest of the World over the next few months?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Quite possibly. Fasten your seatbelts on this one...rjsterry said:
Yeah, I have a feeling Covid 19 is going to make Brexit look like a falling out over who runs the cake stall at the village fete.Stevo_666 said:
Just goes to show that there are more important things than Brexit.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
FTFY.TheBigBean said:
There must be a corollary to Godwin's law that states any bad news story will eventually be linked to Brexit if an online discussion continues long enough.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah. You didn't really improve it though.Stevo_666 said:
FTFY.TheBigBean said:
There must be a corollary to Godwin's law that states any bad news story will eventually be linked to Brexit if an online discussion continues long enough.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
That's a fairly subjective question and I have suggested why they might want to go beyond typical non-regression clauses: our stated aim of divergence, which is the opposite of what happens under most trade agreements and even our proposals for a US-UK deal. Clearly all the publicity on our side makes it unlikely we'll agree to it (at least publicly) but based on Johnson's previous approach of agree to anything then sell it as something else, who knows? As always, the uncertainty is the last thing needed.Stevo_666 said:
My point above was what constitutes reasonable. The EU demands go well beyond the normal non-regression clauses. It is also likely to be politically unacceptable, clearly.rjsterry said:
Nearly all trade treaties have some form of non-regression clause. We've even asked for them in the mandate for the UK-US deal. Given we have specifically stated that the "whole point" of Brexit is divergence from EU standards, and we have a PM going around denying the reality of the WA treaty which he signed a few months ago, you can see why they might think that basic non-regression isn't enough.Stevo_666 said:
Clearly defined does not equate to reasonable.morstar said:
Yes, because either Remain, failed to convince people the benefits outweighed what we traded or...Stevo_666 said:
which is largely why we are in this situation now.morstar said:
You don’t set out with that as your objective!Stevo_666 said:
The point is why would we want to give away loads of it?tailwindhome said:
The UK has already accepted EU control over (part of) the UK.Stevo_666 said:As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
You trade some of it away for other benefits that you consider of equal or preferably greater value.
Brexit tapped into emotional arguments that bypassed economic ones or...
The benefits didn’t outweigh what we traded.
All subjective.
It’s not about what we traded so much as how much importance you assign to what we traded.
I’d argue the number of people qualifying their reasoning was quite low.
You seem to be of the opinion we are going to trade away very little in coming years. I find that highly unlikely. It will just be to a broader spread of partners and on a more ad hoc basis that the clearly defined expectations of the EU.
We're happy to do trade deals with those that don't want to have a major say in our internal affairs in return for a mutually beneficial FTA. Which is everyone except for the EU at present. Maybe they will see sense and fall into line with the rest of the World over the next few months?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
We said we didn't want a Canadian style deal - we ruled it out even as an option and it was never offered in a negotiation setting. It might, as you have claimed, been a negotiation tactic on our part but if we really wanted it then it was a pretty stupid one (which is unfortunately consistent with pretty much every single thing we have done during all the negotiations around Brexit so far). As for untrustworthiness, we have a PM who is telling businesses to ignore the customs requirements that are part and parcel of the agreement he negotiated and signed - and is reportedly asking other ministers to find ways to wriggle out of the requirements of the same agreement. How can you compare these two things and say that the EU is being untrustworthy? Regarding LPF etc It's notable that on the one side we are saying that we won't lower our food standards to get a trade agreement with the US while on the other hand we don't want to align with the EU's standards which, after all, set a minimum standard, because we want the ability to diverge.Stevo_666 said:
Untrustworthy? Who's just offered a deal then reneged on it? The EU, not us.antonyfromoz said:We have indicated that we are not to be trusted so why should they make it easy on us? Of course they want protections built into the agreement - it's not really about control but protection of the single market. It is, of course, up to the UK government to agree or not to agree with the conditions the EU are seeking. And we will have to suffer the consequences of obtaining our fantastic sovreignty.
How does controlling the areas the EU wants to control protect the single market?
As for sovereignty, its what people want and voted for. Personally I didn't vote that way but I can't see why we would want to give away control. Can you?
Also interesting to see that the pro-Brexit posts in this thread have progressed (?) from talking about the sunlit uplands awaiting us to whining that "they said we could have a Canadian deal and now they won't let us have it".0 -
And do also explain how you can have decent free trade with a single market and the regulatory environment that comes with that and yet also have regulatory divergence?rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
And do also explain how you can have decent free trade with a single market and the regulatory environment that comes with that and yet also have regulatory divergence?rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
Does every trading partner of the EU have the same regulatory framework?You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
For the things they have free trade for, yes.Longshot said:rick_chasey said:
And do also explain how you can have decent free trade with a single market and the regulatory environment that comes with that and yet also have regulatory divergence?rick_chasey said:Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.
Does every trading partner of the EU have the same regulatory framework?0 -
We could always make hand soap in the UK and maybe not have such a long supply chain leading to the situation. Don't get me wrong I think we have 3 bars of soap in the house so as long as Coronavirus does not turn into a nuclear winters duration I think we shall make it through.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
Supply chains falling apart should be a key risk in any supplier assessment. The fact that a large number of manufacturers are downgrading production figures suggest that someone has not thought through the risks of long and elaborate supply chains and assessed their risks properly.0 -
Remind me how well autarky worked out in Yugoslavia.john80 said:
We could always make hand soap in the UK and maybe not have such a long supply chain leading to the situation. Don't get me wrong I think we have 3 bars of soap in the house so as long as Coronavirus does not turn into a nuclear winters duration I think we shall make it through.tailwindhome said:The empty shelves, normally full of hand soaps and sanitizer, is a lesson in just how quickly a supply chain can fall apart.
Supply chains falling apart should be a key risk in any supplier assessment. The fact that a large number of manufacturers are downgrading production figures suggest that someone has not thought through the risks of long and elaborate supply chains and assessed their risks properly.0
