BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Depends. Also as mentioned above if there are sufficient benefits to trade with or investment from the 85% of the global economy that is not the EU, then it may well be worth diverging in a way that triggers countermeasures from the 13% of the global economy that is the EU. (I reminded people about the 'little European' mentality only very recently - your view is a good example).rick_chasey said:
Sure but you *want* material difference don’t you?Stevo_666 said:
OK. Divergence is possible. Look at the conditions above.rick_chasey said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but if divergence isn’t possible without sanctions than what is the point?Stevo_666 said:
I don't think so.rick_chasey said:
Basically this I think is the realityrick_chasey said:https://ukandeu.ac.uk/british-sovereignty-run-by-europe/
Some law professor looks at the deal from a divergence perspective.
The site claims independence in the Brexit issue so take your own view.
This article explains the limits on EU 'retaliation' pretty well:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/12/30/have-economic-legal-independence-now-must-loosen-eus-chokeholds/
Quote: "Brussels will have to prove its point before an independent panel before it can retaliate. Divergence must be “material” and based on evidence of damage suffered rather than “mere conjecture”. Sanctions must be proportional. “The mechanism is exceptionally restricted in its scope,” said Prof David Collins, a WTO specialist writing for Politeia.
The thresholds are high enough that the EU cannot lash out whenever Britain takes any step to make itself more competitive."
The article also reminds us of some of the upsides."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Depends. Also as mentioned above if there are sufficient benefits to trade with or investment from the 85% of the global economy that is not the EU, then it may well be worth diverging in a way that triggers countermeasures from the 13% of the global economy that is the EU. (I reminded people about the 'little European' mentality only very recently - your view is a good example).rick_chasey said:
Sure but you *want* material difference don’t you?Stevo_666 said:
OK. Divergence is possible. Look at the conditions above.rick_chasey said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but if divergence isn’t possible without sanctions than what is the point?Stevo_666 said:
I don't think so.rick_chasey said:
Basically this I think is the realityrick_chasey said:https://ukandeu.ac.uk/british-sovereignty-run-by-europe/
Some law professor looks at the deal from a divergence perspective.
The site claims independence in the Brexit issue so take your own view.
This article explains the limits on EU 'retaliation' pretty well:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/12/30/have-economic-legal-independence-now-must-loosen-eus-chokeholds/
Quote: "Brussels will have to prove its point before an independent panel before it can retaliate. Divergence must be “material” and based on evidence of damage suffered rather than “mere conjecture”. Sanctions must be proportional. “The mechanism is exceptionally restricted in its scope,” said Prof David Collins, a WTO specialist writing for Politeia.
The thresholds are high enough that the EU cannot lash out whenever Britain takes any step to make itself more competitive."
The article also reminds us of some of the upsides.
Out of interest, why do you think the EU should bother trading with the 2% of global trade that the UK represents, if the size of market is the main consideration?0 -
Better ask the EU. Maybe their trade surplus in goods and the jobs and income that brings?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Depends. Also as mentioned above if there are sufficient benefits to trade with or investment from the 85% of the global economy that is not the EU, then it may well be worth diverging in a way that triggers countermeasures from the 13% of the global economy that is the EU. (I reminded people about the 'little European' mentality only very recently - your view is a good example).rick_chasey said:
Sure but you *want* material difference don’t you?Stevo_666 said:
OK. Divergence is possible. Look at the conditions above.rick_chasey said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but if divergence isn’t possible without sanctions than what is the point?Stevo_666 said:
I don't think so.rick_chasey said:
Basically this I think is the realityrick_chasey said:https://ukandeu.ac.uk/british-sovereignty-run-by-europe/
Some law professor looks at the deal from a divergence perspective.
The site claims independence in the Brexit issue so take your own view.
This article explains the limits on EU 'retaliation' pretty well:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/12/30/have-economic-legal-independence-now-must-loosen-eus-chokeholds/
Quote: "Brussels will have to prove its point before an independent panel before it can retaliate. Divergence must be “material” and based on evidence of damage suffered rather than “mere conjecture”. Sanctions must be proportional. “The mechanism is exceptionally restricted in its scope,” said Prof David Collins, a WTO specialist writing for Politeia.
The thresholds are high enough that the EU cannot lash out whenever Britain takes any step to make itself more competitive."
The article also reminds us of some of the upsides.
Out of interest, why do you think the EU should bother trading with the 2% of global trade that the UK represents, if the size of market is the main consideration?
Also if they didn't see a material competitive threat, why did the EU put so much effort into trying to get these provisions into the trade agreement?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Geographical proximity, language, and being a relatively affluent market concentrated in a relatively small area are likely factors.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Depends. Also as mentioned above if there are sufficient benefits to trade with or investment from the 85% of the global economy that is not the EU, then it may well be worth diverging in a way that triggers countermeasures from the 13% of the global economy that is the EU. (I reminded people about the 'little European' mentality only very recently - your view is a good example).rick_chasey said:
Sure but you *want* material difference don’t you?Stevo_666 said:
OK. Divergence is possible. Look at the conditions above.rick_chasey said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but if divergence isn’t possible without sanctions than what is the point?Stevo_666 said:
I don't think so.rick_chasey said:
Basically this I think is the realityrick_chasey said:https://ukandeu.ac.uk/british-sovereignty-run-by-europe/
Some law professor looks at the deal from a divergence perspective.
The site claims independence in the Brexit issue so take your own view.
This article explains the limits on EU 'retaliation' pretty well:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/12/30/have-economic-legal-independence-now-must-loosen-eus-chokeholds/
Quote: "Brussels will have to prove its point before an independent panel before it can retaliate. Divergence must be “material” and based on evidence of damage suffered rather than “mere conjecture”. Sanctions must be proportional. “The mechanism is exceptionally restricted in its scope,” said Prof David Collins, a WTO specialist writing for Politeia.
The thresholds are high enough that the EU cannot lash out whenever Britain takes any step to make itself more competitive."
The article also reminds us of some of the upsides.
Out of interest, why do you think the EU should bother trading with the 2% of global trade that the UK represents, if the size of market is the main consideration?0 -
It's less poor, but describing it as affluent is just nuts. Depends what measure you use, but Eurostat gives the following figures for GDP per capita PPS (indexed to EU28 =100) UK: 90, Bulgaria: 49, Cornwall: 68. On that measure Cornwall is closer to Bulgaria than the rest of the UK. Cornwall was not in the bottom 20 regions but it is pretty far down the list. By the way Inner London West is the region with by a country mile the highest GDP per capita PPS at 623.ballysmate said:rjsterry said:
They did allocate vastly more money to Bulgaria. There is no 'instead'. Cornwall is not affluent by any measure.ballysmate said:rick_chasey said:
Honestly thought you of all people wouldn’t go down the politics of envy route.ballysmate said:
As I said to Elbowpangolin said:
Ultimately I guess this issue comes down to whether you trust the EU or our Govt more to distribute funds.ballysmate said:
It would have been our choice where to spend our money.elbowloh said:But would that money have ever got spent in Cornwall, we all know the government's funds go to London and the SE right. Next it's the northern powerhouse, no room at the inn for the SW. With the EU funding projects can go direct to the EU and apply for the money.
Actually scratch that, as the answer is too obvious.
For too many, it comes down to the warm fuzzy feeling that WE got to choose, without giving a rats censored what the decision actually was.
Some people on here always feel that the EU have a better idea of where to spend its contributions. But it all depends on your perspective.
Elbow thinks that the SE gets more than its share. He may or may not be right.
Imagine if you were a resident of rural Bulgaria and you saw the EU lavish money on the comparatively affluent Cornwall. Would you not have similar feelings of injustice?
Just pointing out that the larger the area, the more chance there is of a region being in more need than yours and thereby more deserving.
Now it could be that regions of Bulgaria and Romania were more deserving of grants than Cornwall, but the EU made the political decision to allocate money to affluent Cornwall instead.
Do people still think the EU is better at targeting its resources according to need?
I would think Cornwall is comparatively affluent to large areas of Bulgaria.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
0
-
RJS
I am not fussed on labouring the point, but you do seem to have managed to grasp the meaning of the word "comparatively" which I used in my posts.
ie Poor Bulgarians are able to see funds going to "comparatively" affluent Cornwall.0 -
You could always of course ignore my post which explains the criteria for getting the funding Cornwall got.ballysmate said:RJS
I am not fussed on labouring the point, but you do seem to have managed to grasp the meaning of the word "comparatively" which I used in my posts.
ie Poor Bulgarians are able to see funds going to "comparatively" affluent Cornwall.0 -
I thought it was my explanation post that he was ignoringrick_chasey said:
You could always of course ignore my post which explains the criteria for getting the funding Cornwall got.ballysmate said:RJS
I am not fussed on labouring the point, but you do seem to have managed to grasp the meaning of the word "comparatively" which I used in my posts.
ie Poor Bulgarians are able to see funds going to "comparatively" affluent Cornwall.0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Better ask the EU. Maybe their trade surplus in goods and the jobs and income that brings?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Depends. Also as mentioned above if there are sufficient benefits to trade with or investment from the 85% of the global economy that is not the EU, then it may well be worth diverging in a way that triggers countermeasures from the 13% of the global economy that is the EU. (I reminded people about the 'little European' mentality only very recently - your view is a good example).rick_chasey said:
Sure but you *want* material difference don’t you?Stevo_666 said:
OK. Divergence is possible. Look at the conditions above.rick_chasey said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but if divergence isn’t possible without sanctions than what is the point?Stevo_666 said:
I don't think so.rick_chasey said:
Basically this I think is the realityrick_chasey said:https://ukandeu.ac.uk/british-sovereignty-run-by-europe/
Some law professor looks at the deal from a divergence perspective.
The site claims independence in the Brexit issue so take your own view.
This article explains the limits on EU 'retaliation' pretty well:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/12/30/have-economic-legal-independence-now-must-loosen-eus-chokeholds/
Quote: "Brussels will have to prove its point before an independent panel before it can retaliate. Divergence must be “material” and based on evidence of damage suffered rather than “mere conjecture”. Sanctions must be proportional. “The mechanism is exceptionally restricted in its scope,” said Prof David Collins, a WTO specialist writing for Politeia.
The thresholds are high enough that the EU cannot lash out whenever Britain takes any step to make itself more competitive."
The article also reminds us of some of the upsides.
Out of interest, why do you think the EU should bother trading with the 2% of global trade that the UK represents, if the size of market is the main consideration?
Also if they didn't see a material competitive threat, why did the EU put so much effort into trying to get these provisions into the trade agreement?
In other words, whatever the reasons are , it's also for other reasons than % size of global economy, as KG says.
Having said that, of course, the EU have also been pursuing other global markets, hence their Japan and China deals, for instance. It never was an either/or for the UK as part of the EU.0 -
I read that article you posted a few pages ago. Far be it from me to contradict a Singaporean law professor, but there is a two stage test - substantial (or is it significant?) changes and material differences. If there are two words used in a legal document normally you would interpret those words differently. He didn't actually argue otherwise, but suggested that you couldn't have one without the other, which is more or less saying the same thing.rick_chasey said:
Sure but you *want* material difference don’t you?Stevo_666 said:
OK. Divergence is possible. Look at the conditions above.rick_chasey said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but if divergence isn’t possible without sanctions than what is the point?Stevo_666 said:
I don't think so.rick_chasey said:
Basically this I think is the realityrick_chasey said:https://ukandeu.ac.uk/british-sovereignty-run-by-europe/
Some law professor looks at the deal from a divergence perspective.
The site claims independence in the Brexit issue so take your own view.
This article explains the limits on EU 'retaliation' pretty well:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/12/30/have-economic-legal-independence-now-must-loosen-eus-chokeholds/
Quote: "Brussels will have to prove its point before an independent panel before it can retaliate. Divergence must be “material” and based on evidence of damage suffered rather than “mere conjecture”. Sanctions must be proportional. “The mechanism is exceptionally restricted in its scope,” said Prof David Collins, a WTO specialist writing for Politeia.
The thresholds are high enough that the EU cannot lash out whenever Britain takes any step to make itself more competitive."
The article also reminds us of some of the upsides.
There is bound to be a correlation of course, but the UK will be constantly looking for insignificant changes that make a material difference.
And if I've understood correctly, for any trade deal or policy change that breaches these requirements, there will be a cost-benefit analysis against the sanctions that would be imposed by the EU.1 -
Yes that’s right. My point is that is fairly limiting.
For me the logic of not having a comprehensive trade deal and give up the benefits of heavy integration (which are not immaterial) is to allow for differentiation (and more “control”) so anything that limits that seems to defeat the point of the exercise.0 -
I'm not sure it is a bad thing to be dragged along by the EU.rick_chasey said:Yes that’s right. My point is that is fairly limiting.
For me the logic of not having a comprehensive trade deal and give up the benefits of heavy integration (which are not immaterial) is to allow for differentiation (and more “control”) so anything that limits that seems to defeat the point of the exercise.
Here is a question I can't be bother to try to answer for myself? What is in the trade deal about taxation? Are the UK still bound by limits on what it can do with corporation tax and VAT?0 -
Barnier being touted as front runner to be a nominee for French presidential election following his successful conclusion of the brexit negotiation. Sounds like both sides are satisfied that it's only mud.0
-
Yes, I got it. Poor Bulgarians can see that the slightly less poor inhabitants of Cornwall receive substantially less EU funding than they do themselves.ballysmate said:RJS
I am not fussed on labouring the point, but you do seem to have managed to grasp the meaning of the word "comparatively" which I used in my posts.
ie Poor Bulgarians are able to see funds going to "comparatively" affluent Cornwall.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/future-relationship-trade-deal/level-playing-fieldFirst.Aspect said:
I'm not sure it is a bad thing to be dragged along by the EU.rick_chasey said:Yes that’s right. My point is that is fairly limiting.
For me the logic of not having a comprehensive trade deal and give up the benefits of heavy integration (which are not immaterial) is to allow for differentiation (and more “control”) so anything that limits that seems to defeat the point of the exercise.
Here is a question I can't be bother to try to answer for myself? What is in the trade deal about taxation? Are the UK still bound by limits on what it can do with corporation tax and VAT?
Scroll down to the section on taxation.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That will become very prevalent.ddraver said:A lot of the businesses who haven't realised there is a customs border in the irish sea tomorrow morning suddenly coming out of the woodwork...
Only learnt today about the issues surrounding COO rules so looks like we'll be paying duty after all.0 -
Are you suggesting the EU uses money wisely? may I remind you the EU spends 114 million euros a year and contributes a estimated 19,000 tonnes of Co2 emissions moving from Brussels to Strasbourg every month!pangolin said:
Ultimately I guess this issue comes down to whether you trust the EU or our Govt more to distribute funds.ballysmate said:
It would have been our choice where to spend our money.elbowloh said:But would that money have ever got spent in Cornwall, we all know the government's funds go to London and the SE right. Next it's the northern powerhouse, no room at the inn for the SW. With the EU funding projects can go direct to the EU and apply for the money.
Actually scratch that, as the answer is too obvious.
For too many, it comes down to the warm fuzzy feeling that WE got to choose, without giving a rats censored what the decision actually was.4 -
Possibly.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Better ask the EU. Maybe their trade surplus in goods and the jobs and income that brings?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Depends. Also as mentioned above if there are sufficient benefits to trade with or investment from the 85% of the global economy that is not the EU, then it may well be worth diverging in a way that triggers countermeasures from the 13% of the global economy that is the EU. (I reminded people about the 'little European' mentality only very recently - your view is a good example).rick_chasey said:
Sure but you *want* material difference don’t you?Stevo_666 said:
OK. Divergence is possible. Look at the conditions above.rick_chasey said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but if divergence isn’t possible without sanctions than what is the point?Stevo_666 said:
I don't think so.rick_chasey said:
Basically this I think is the realityrick_chasey said:https://ukandeu.ac.uk/british-sovereignty-run-by-europe/
Some law professor looks at the deal from a divergence perspective.
The site claims independence in the Brexit issue so take your own view.
This article explains the limits on EU 'retaliation' pretty well:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/12/30/have-economic-legal-independence-now-must-loosen-eus-chokeholds/
Quote: "Brussels will have to prove its point before an independent panel before it can retaliate. Divergence must be “material” and based on evidence of damage suffered rather than “mere conjecture”. Sanctions must be proportional. “The mechanism is exceptionally restricted in its scope,” said Prof David Collins, a WTO specialist writing for Politeia.
The thresholds are high enough that the EU cannot lash out whenever Britain takes any step to make itself more competitive."
The article also reminds us of some of the upsides.
Out of interest, why do you think the EU should bother trading with the 2% of global trade that the UK represents, if the size of market is the main consideration?
Also if they didn't see a material competitive threat, why did the EU put so much effort into trying to get these provisions into the trade agreement?
In other words, whatever the reasons are , it's also for other reasons than % size of global economy, as KG says.
Having said that, of course, the EU have also been pursuing other global markets, hence their Japan and China deals, for instance. It never was an either/or for the UK as part of the EU.
We have signed around 20 of our own since leaving, including with Japan. Plenty more to come, including some where the EU has no such agreement, such as the USA. Brexit seems to have made us more global in outlook again, which is good."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Its already been explained to you that these potential limits are pretty loose and the game can be played to maximise our advantage. So it doesn't defeat the point of the exercise, although I'm sure you would like it to - which is really why you are saying this.rick_chasey said:Yes that’s right. My point is that is fairly limiting.
For me the logic of not having a comprehensive trade deal and give up the benefits of heavy integration (which are not immaterial) is to allow for differentiation (and more “control”) so anything that limits that seems to defeat the point of the exercise.
In the meantime, there's the rest of the world..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Thought you weren't talking brexit any more.0
-
There's still 6 hours leftkingstongraham said:Thought you weren't talking brexit any more.
https://youtu.be/9jK-NcRmVcw "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]2 -
I am keeping an eye on Facebook for which loonatics are having a Brexit party. There has got to be a few going down.0
-
It's all relative. They spend it more wisely than Boris. As I said it's about whether you think ultimately the overriding motives (for grants/funding in this case) are good, or are to line your mates pockets.spatt77 said:
Are you suggesting the EU uses money wisely? may I remind you the EU spends 114 million euros a year and contributes a estimated 19,000 tonnes of Co2 emissions moving from Brussels to Strasbourg every month!pangolin said:
Ultimately I guess this issue comes down to whether you trust the EU or our Govt more to distribute funds.ballysmate said:
It would have been our choice where to spend our money.elbowloh said:But would that money have ever got spent in Cornwall, we all know the government's funds go to London and the SE right. Next it's the northern powerhouse, no room at the inn for the SW. With the EU funding projects can go direct to the EU and apply for the money.
Actually scratch that, as the answer is too obvious.
For too many, it comes down to the warm fuzzy feeling that WE got to choose, without giving a rats censored what the decision actually was.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Stanley Johnson is applying for French Citizenship...left the forum March 20230
-
Now needing to go through passport control from the UK to Gibraltar, but not from Spain. That's progress.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 -
He's a remainer!ugo.santalucia said:Stanley Johnson is applying for French Citizenship...
0 -
Can you finally admit to being a brexiter from the start?Stevo_666 said:
There's still 6 hours leftkingstongraham said:Thought you weren't talking brexit any more.
https://youtu.be/9jK-NcRmVcw0 -
Here's the 30TheBigBean said:
EU26 = EU27 - Irelandsurrey_commuter said:
Who are your EU26?TheBigBean said:
Some of this is factually incorrect. The 25% cut is phased in over five years as opposed to starting after five years. Also, UK services didn't have complete access before, and it's hard for the EU to prevent a service being contracted in the UK and worked on in the UK. Plus I'm intrigued about the 30th Country. I have EU26, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. Andorra?ddraver said:
I assume they mean EEA
Seems it's 26+EFTA(Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein)+Switzerland
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
