BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
-
That sounds like The Daily Telegraph which I think you pay money for.Stevo_666 said:
The whole thread is a bit boring these days tbh. Just the same old stuff from the same people on a repeating loop. Although I will drop in from time to time to see how the whingeathon is going
0 -
kingstongraham said:
That sounds like The Daily Telegraph which I think you pay money for.Stevo_666 said:
The whole thread is a bit boring these days tbh. Just the same old stuff from the same people on a repeating loop. Although I will drop in from time to time to see how the whingeathon is going
You forget, KG, only 'lefties' whinge; 'righties' just make constructive criticism and objective observation.0 -
I may be wrong but I don’t think Rick was being rude. If you consider the DT to be the mouth piece of the Tory Party then SteveO interprets it for us.focuszing723 said:
It get's a bit boring just fighting the same biased corner. Why don't you both agree to flip sides and argue from the opposite perspective?rick_chasey said:
I find Stevo’s logic a useful insight into the logic.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Through the prism of cakeism everything that doesn’t benefit Britain is EU outright hostility.
I don't know if it's a feigned or a real childish ego-centrism.
It was all about sovereignty and now it’s done anything the EU does that isn’t in the UK’s interest is cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Take the efforts to wrestle large chunks of FS off London.
I mean, the EU has a history of playing hardball with Switzerland on this topic but all Stevo can see is “making this more expensive for themselves” rather than a longer term play to have some sovereignty over the services the EU uses.
I too find it interesting as I only know one sane Brexit supporter and he does not think it is going as well as it could have.
0 -
I take the DT's invoking of war analogies as an indicator of weakness of argument as much as anything else... hardly implies quiet confidence of their position.0
-
Not sure where I read it but the plausible explanation is that the long term Brexiteers only cared about leaving and the short term band wagon jumpers did not know enough to care. The latter are now realising the implications of leaving the CU and SM, once they realise it is not teething problems it will be interesting to see whether they try and improve things or fall into line behind “fvck business”0
-
I read this - and apparently the EU is finished because the UK did better at vaccines.
And this one says that the EU is being unreasonable because "The Withdrawal Agreement was clear that the Protocol would in time be “superseded” and the Political Declaration also referenced “alternative arrangements”." and they haven't agreed any after 2 months.
I guess it's worth reading if you accept it operates in a fantasy land as much as The Guardian's Owen Jones, but with some influence on those in power.0 -
The UK Govt seems to still be in campaign mode so say and do anything to hit a target with no thought for the consequences. I see it a bit like Rick’s justification for bankrupting yourself today to avoid certain failure tomorrow.0
-
Oh no, they both give as good as they get. Just that fighting from the opposite side might give a more balanced understanding. Personally I'm all for the UK, I live here, but by the same token I don't want to see the EU fail. I think that would lead to even greater problems in the long run.surrey_commuter said:
I may be wrong but I don’t think Rick was being rude. If you consider the DT to be the mouth piece of the Tory Party then SteveO interprets it for us.focuszing723 said:
It get's a bit boring just fighting the same biased corner. Why don't you both agree to flip sides and argue from the opposite perspective?rick_chasey said:
I find Stevo’s logic a useful insight into the logic.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Through the prism of cakeism everything that doesn’t benefit Britain is EU outright hostility.
I don't know if it's a feigned or a real childish ego-centrism.
It was all about sovereignty and now it’s done anything the EU does that isn’t in the UK’s interest is cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Take the efforts to wrestle large chunks of FS off London.
I mean, the EU has a history of playing hardball with Switzerland on this topic but all Stevo can see is “making this more expensive for themselves” rather than a longer term play to have some sovereignty over the services the EU uses.
I too find it interesting as I only know one sane Brexit supporter and he does not think it is going as well as it could have.
I fully understand the UK leaving will always be an example to other European Countries to do the same, so it shouldn't be a walk in the park. We have to fight our own corner too now though, such is life.
0 -
kingstongraham said:
And this one says that the EU is being unreasonable because "The Withdrawal Agreement was clear that the Protocol would in time be “superseded” and the Political Declaration also referenced “alternative arrangements”." and they haven't agreed any after 2 months.
What IDS has written there simply isn't true.
From the same article - this isn't true either
His government literally changed the NI Act 1998 to include a new consent mechanism
"The EU also agreed that the Northern Irish Assembly would have to consent to any changes. Under the Good Friday Agreement, and the settled practice of the Assembly, that would mean both communities, unionist and nationalist would have to consent to any new border.
This bit isn't true either
" I recall a positive meeting that Owen Paterson and I had with Michel Barnier on the topic of “mutual enforcement”. This idea, which came off the back of a proposal put forward by an official in the European Commission, essentially involves both sides accepting responsibility for not allowing the leakage of untaxed or unregulated goods across the shared border with internal mechanisms to achieve this.
Initially this was greeted with great interest. "
Well, in fairness, he may recall this version of events - but that don't make it so.
Nope, this bit isn't true either.
"Now we must hold the EU to its commitments to the Good Friday Agreement and to working for alternatives to the Irish Sea Border"
This bit is just fucking hilarious
"We can sort this out once and for all because, unlike the previous government’s weakness, Boris Johnson’s administration has the strength to revisit the unworkable mess of the Protocol. "
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I once tried to argue in favour of Brexit but did not last a day. I place no value on sovereignty so to me it is an astounding act of stupidity.focuszing723 said:
Oh no, they both give as good as they get. Just that fighting from the opposite side might give a more balanced understanding. Personally I'm all for the UK, I live here, but by the same token I don't want to see the EU fail. I think that would lead to even greater problems in the long run.surrey_commuter said:
I may be wrong but I don’t think Rick was being rude. If you consider the DT to be the mouth piece of the Tory Party then SteveO interprets it for us.focuszing723 said:
It get's a bit boring just fighting the same biased corner. Why don't you both agree to flip sides and argue from the opposite perspective?rick_chasey said:
I find Stevo’s logic a useful insight into the logic.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Through the prism of cakeism everything that doesn’t benefit Britain is EU outright hostility.
I don't know if it's a feigned or a real childish ego-centrism.
It was all about sovereignty and now it’s done anything the EU does that isn’t in the UK’s interest is cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Take the efforts to wrestle large chunks of FS off London.
I mean, the EU has a history of playing hardball with Switzerland on this topic but all Stevo can see is “making this more expensive for themselves” rather than a longer term play to have some sovereignty over the services the EU uses.
I too find it interesting as I only know one sane Brexit supporter and he does not think it is going as well as it could have.
I fully understand the UK leaving will always be an example to other European Countries to do the same, so it shouldn't be a walk in the park. We have to fight our own corner too now though, such is life.
Not sure the relevance of being all for the UK. The Brexit band wagon jumpers who sold out their country for personal gain should be tried for treason. I have a lot less (if any) animosity for the true believers.
We are not being punished, we are being as the third country that we chose to be. We chose not to fight our own corner and instead to fvck business.0 -
Griping that the EU is playing hardball after Brexit is f*cking painful though.focuszing723 said:
Oh no, they both give as good as they get. Just that fighting from the opposite side might give a more balanced understanding. Personally I'm all for the UK, I live here, but by the same token I don't want to see the EU fail. I think that would lead to even greater problems in the long run.surrey_commuter said:
I may be wrong but I don’t think Rick was being rude. If you consider the DT to be the mouth piece of the Tory Party then SteveO interprets it for us.focuszing723 said:
It get's a bit boring just fighting the same biased corner. Why don't you both agree to flip sides and argue from the opposite perspective?rick_chasey said:
I find Stevo’s logic a useful insight into the logic.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Through the prism of cakeism everything that doesn’t benefit Britain is EU outright hostility.
I don't know if it's a feigned or a real childish ego-centrism.
It was all about sovereignty and now it’s done anything the EU does that isn’t in the UK’s interest is cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Take the efforts to wrestle large chunks of FS off London.
I mean, the EU has a history of playing hardball with Switzerland on this topic but all Stevo can see is “making this more expensive for themselves” rather than a longer term play to have some sovereignty over the services the EU uses.
I too find it interesting as I only know one sane Brexit supporter and he does not think it is going as well as it could have.
I fully understand the UK leaving will always be an example to other European Countries to do the same, so it shouldn't be a walk in the park. We have to fight our own corner too now though, such is life.0 -
And a lack of understanding that if they agreed to turn a blind eye they would have to do so for all 3rd countries.rick_chasey said:
Griping that the EU is playing hardball after Brexit is f*cking painful though.focuszing723 said:
Oh no, they both give as good as they get. Just that fighting from the opposite side might give a more balanced understanding. Personally I'm all for the UK, I live here, but by the same token I don't want to see the EU fail. I think that would lead to even greater problems in the long run.surrey_commuter said:
I may be wrong but I don’t think Rick was being rude. If you consider the DT to be the mouth piece of the Tory Party then SteveO interprets it for us.focuszing723 said:
It get's a bit boring just fighting the same biased corner. Why don't you both agree to flip sides and argue from the opposite perspective?rick_chasey said:
I find Stevo’s logic a useful insight into the logic.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:Through the prism of cakeism everything that doesn’t benefit Britain is EU outright hostility.
I don't know if it's a feigned or a real childish ego-centrism.
It was all about sovereignty and now it’s done anything the EU does that isn’t in the UK’s interest is cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Take the efforts to wrestle large chunks of FS off London.
I mean, the EU has a history of playing hardball with Switzerland on this topic but all Stevo can see is “making this more expensive for themselves” rather than a longer term play to have some sovereignty over the services the EU uses.
I too find it interesting as I only know one sane Brexit supporter and he does not think it is going as well as it could have.
I fully understand the UK leaving will always be an example to other European Countries to do the same, so it shouldn't be a walk in the park. We have to fight our own corner too now though, such is life.
It is a shame we could not have practiced with a couple of warm up trade deals.0 -
You're being taken to court for breaching the Act of Union
Hope you're happy with yourselves.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
is this the DUP being the DUP?tailwindhome said:You're being taken to court for breaching the Act of Union
Hope you're happy with yourselves.0 -
We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.0
-
So we told the other bloke to punch us in the face, after much checking and concern that he was sure it was what we wanted, he punched us in the face.
Your suggestion to get back at him is to punch ourselves in the balls..?
(Pure Brexit! Johnson will love it! 🙄)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
john80 said:
We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
So trade wars it is then. Do you notch this up as a Benefit of Brexit?0 -
If it stops us also importing water from Fiji, I'm all in favour.john80 said:We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
0 -
kingstongraham said:
If it stops us also importing water from Fiji, I'm all in favour.john80 said:We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
Perhaps Johnson could get a pipe installed for that as part of a nice shiny new trade deal with Fiji ... could get whoever builds the tunnel to Northern Ireland to add a bit to the quote.0 -
We are an independent state dealing with a group of countries that want to impose non tariff barriers for their benefit and the UK's disadvantage. Is it unreasonable to in response say produce a rule that only bottles water bottled in the UK to UK standards by UK owned companies paying tax in the UK should be allowed. It makes as much sense as the shellfish rule? There are literally a hundred things that we could target to show the point without making any material difference to a British person unless that is you just can't live without Evian.briantrumpet said:john80 said:We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
So trade wars it is then. Do you notch this up as a Benefit of Brexit?
If we take the old USA they have imposed tariffs on Whisky prior to us leaving the EU as punishment for the EU's prior action. They have not removed those tariffs from a friendly state that has not imposed tariffs and wants more reciprocal trade. Is it not reasonable to expect these to be removed in a sensible timeframe. If they are not is it not reasonable to impose some punishment for that lack of flexibility? For sure consumers don't win from trade wars however sometimes there has to be some pain for some gain unless your plan is to persuade them with kind words for the next 20 years.
The rules of the game have changed so I would suggest that not defending the UK's interests as an independent state to get to where you want to be is at best naive.0 -
-
This is a rule that the EU has for all non-EU countries where an overriding agreement is not included in a trade deal. Which it isn't for the UK.john80 said:
We are an independent state dealing with a group of countries that want to impose non tariff barriers for their benefit and the UK's disadvantage. Is it unreasonable to in response say produce a rule that only bottles water bottled in the UK to UK standards by UK owned companies paying tax in the UK should be allowed. It makes as much sense as the shellfish rule? There are literally a hundred things that we could target to show the point without making any material difference to a British person unless that is you just can't live without Evian.briantrumpet said:john80 said:We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
So trade wars it is then. Do you notch this up as a Benefit of Brexit?
If we take the old USA they have imposed tariffs on Whisky prior to us leaving the EU as punishment for the EU's prior action. They have not removed those tariffs from a friendly state that has not imposed tariffs and wants more reciprocal trade. Is it not reasonable to expect these to be removed in a sensible timeframe. If they are not is it not reasonable to impose some punishment for that lack of flexibility? For sure consumers don't win from trade wars however sometimes there has to be some pain for some gain unless your plan is to persuade them with kind words for the next 20 years.
The rules of the game have changed so I would suggest that not defending the UK's interests as an independent state to get to where you want to be is at best naive.
As I understand it, under WTO rules, if we wanted to impose a similar requirement on bottled water, it would need to be imposed for imports to the UK from all countries.
The tariffs the USA imposed followed a ruling from the WTO on a trade dispute regarding Airbus. If we want to do that under the same rules, we'd need a ruling from the WTO.0 -
I am not pro trade wars as the consumer pays. However I am also not pro being a doormat for the world to step on. As with all things it is balance. Most consumers will accept some targeted action where it can be demonstrated that we are getting a raw deal and so called friendly nations are showing a lack of consideration. It could be safe to say you are pro do what you like to the UK as they deserve it if we are generalising.rick_chasey said:Is it safe to say you are pro trade-wars, John?
0 -
You would not be imposing a tariff on bottled water. You are merely writing a standard that all water needs to be bottled in the UK so that it can be certified as suitable for human consumption or each bottle needs a test certificate to prove it is carried out by a test lab in the country of origin with a million pound fine for non compliance rigorously enforced. See where I am going with this. Quite often nations only change their ways when confronted by a return of the favor. If you want to just suck it up as a independent state then maybe put that in your manifesto and see how you get on in 2025. Brexit does not mean we can't challenge what the EU does.kingstongraham said:
This is a rule that the EU has for all non-EU countries where an overriding agreement is not included in a trade deal. Which it isn't for the UK.john80 said:
We are an independent state dealing with a group of countries that want to impose non tariff barriers for their benefit and the UK's disadvantage. Is it unreasonable to in response say produce a rule that only bottles water bottled in the UK to UK standards by UK owned companies paying tax in the UK should be allowed. It makes as much sense as the shellfish rule? There are literally a hundred things that we could target to show the point without making any material difference to a British person unless that is you just can't live without Evian.briantrumpet said:john80 said:We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
So trade wars it is then. Do you notch this up as a Benefit of Brexit?
If we take the old USA they have imposed tariffs on Whisky prior to us leaving the EU as punishment for the EU's prior action. They have not removed those tariffs from a friendly state that has not imposed tariffs and wants more reciprocal trade. Is it not reasonable to expect these to be removed in a sensible timeframe. If they are not is it not reasonable to impose some punishment for that lack of flexibility? For sure consumers don't win from trade wars however sometimes there has to be some pain for some gain unless your plan is to persuade them with kind words for the next 20 years.
The rules of the game have changed so I would suggest that not defending the UK's interests as an independent state to get to where you want to be is at best naive.
As I understand it, under WTO rules, if we wanted to impose a similar requirement on bottled water, it would need to be imposed for imports to the UK from all countries.
The tariffs the USA imposed followed a ruling from the WTO on a trade dispute regarding Airbus. If we want to do that under the same rules, we'd need a ruling from the WTO.0 -
If only we could have joined some large group of countries to improve our bargaining power.john80 said:
I am not pro trade wars as the consumer pays. However I am also not pro being a doormat for the world to step on. As with all things it is balance. Most consumers will accept some targeted action where it can be demonstrated that we are getting a raw deal and so called friendly nations are showing a lack of consideration. It could be safe to say you are pro do what you like to the UK as they deserve it if we are generalising.rick_chasey said:Is it safe to say you are pro trade-wars, John?
0 -
I didn't say we would be imposing a tariff, you mentioned the tariffs on whisky.john80 said:
You would not be imposing a tariff on bottled water. You are merely writing a standard that all water needs to be bottled in the UK so that it can be certified as suitable for human consumption or each bottle needs a test certificate to prove it is carried out by a test lab in the country of origin with a million pound fine for non compliance rigorously enforced. See where I am going with this. Quite often nations only change their ways when confronted by a return of the favor. If you want to just suck it up as a independent state then maybe put that in your manifesto and see how you get on in 2025. Brexit does not mean we can't challenge what the EU does.kingstongraham said:
This is a rule that the EU has for all non-EU countries where an overriding agreement is not included in a trade deal. Which it isn't for the UK.john80 said:
We are an independent state dealing with a group of countries that want to impose non tariff barriers for their benefit and the UK's disadvantage. Is it unreasonable to in response say produce a rule that only bottles water bottled in the UK to UK standards by UK owned companies paying tax in the UK should be allowed. It makes as much sense as the shellfish rule? There are literally a hundred things that we could target to show the point without making any material difference to a British person unless that is you just can't live without Evian.briantrumpet said:john80 said:We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
So trade wars it is then. Do you notch this up as a Benefit of Brexit?
If we take the old USA they have imposed tariffs on Whisky prior to us leaving the EU as punishment for the EU's prior action. They have not removed those tariffs from a friendly state that has not imposed tariffs and wants more reciprocal trade. Is it not reasonable to expect these to be removed in a sensible timeframe. If they are not is it not reasonable to impose some punishment for that lack of flexibility? For sure consumers don't win from trade wars however sometimes there has to be some pain for some gain unless your plan is to persuade them with kind words for the next 20 years.
The rules of the game have changed so I would suggest that not defending the UK's interests as an independent state to get to where you want to be is at best naive.
As I understand it, under WTO rules, if we wanted to impose a similar requirement on bottled water, it would need to be imposed for imports to the UK from all countries.
The tariffs the USA imposed followed a ruling from the WTO on a trade dispute regarding Airbus. If we want to do that under the same rules, we'd need a ruling from the WTO.
And what I am saying is that any additional requirement would also need to apply to all countries outside the UK, not just the EU. Bottled water's probably quite a good way to do it, because we get most from the EU anyway.
Would need to see how that change to our non-tariff barriers works with the agreement we've just signed, though. I think it's a bit of a weird thing to start a trade war over though.0 -
As is shellfish given the EU are doing a large amount of the processing. But it would appear that common sense does not apply to the EU.kingstongraham said:
I didn't say we would be imposing a tariff, you mentioned the tariffs on whisky.john80 said:
You would not be imposing a tariff on bottled water. You are merely writing a standard that all water needs to be bottled in the UK so that it can be certified as suitable for human consumption or each bottle needs a test certificate to prove it is carried out by a test lab in the country of origin with a million pound fine for non compliance rigorously enforced. See where I am going with this. Quite often nations only change their ways when confronted by a return of the favor. If you want to just suck it up as a independent state then maybe put that in your manifesto and see how you get on in 2025. Brexit does not mean we can't challenge what the EU does.kingstongraham said:
This is a rule that the EU has for all non-EU countries where an overriding agreement is not included in a trade deal. Which it isn't for the UK.john80 said:
We are an independent state dealing with a group of countries that want to impose non tariff barriers for their benefit and the UK's disadvantage. Is it unreasonable to in response say produce a rule that only bottles water bottled in the UK to UK standards by UK owned companies paying tax in the UK should be allowed. It makes as much sense as the shellfish rule? There are literally a hundred things that we could target to show the point without making any material difference to a British person unless that is you just can't live without Evian.briantrumpet said:john80 said:We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
So trade wars it is then. Do you notch this up as a Benefit of Brexit?
If we take the old USA they have imposed tariffs on Whisky prior to us leaving the EU as punishment for the EU's prior action. They have not removed those tariffs from a friendly state that has not imposed tariffs and wants more reciprocal trade. Is it not reasonable to expect these to be removed in a sensible timeframe. If they are not is it not reasonable to impose some punishment for that lack of flexibility? For sure consumers don't win from trade wars however sometimes there has to be some pain for some gain unless your plan is to persuade them with kind words for the next 20 years.
The rules of the game have changed so I would suggest that not defending the UK's interests as an independent state to get to where you want to be is at best naive.
As I understand it, under WTO rules, if we wanted to impose a similar requirement on bottled water, it would need to be imposed for imports to the UK from all countries.
The tariffs the USA imposed followed a ruling from the WTO on a trade dispute regarding Airbus. If we want to do that under the same rules, we'd need a ruling from the WTO.
And what I am saying is that any additional requirement would also need to apply to all countries outside the UK, not just the EU. Bottled water's probably quite a good way to do it, because we get most from the EU anyway.
Would need to see how that change to our non-tariff barriers works with the agreement we've just signed, though. I think it's a bit of a weird thing to start a trade war over though.
0 -
You might want to look up how the EU and USA trade deal has gone.Pross said:
If only we could have joined some large group of countries to improve our bargaining power.john80 said:
I am not pro trade wars as the consumer pays. However I am also not pro being a doormat for the world to step on. As with all things it is balance. Most consumers will accept some targeted action where it can be demonstrated that we are getting a raw deal and so called friendly nations are showing a lack of consideration. It could be safe to say you are pro do what you like to the UK as they deserve it if we are generalising.rick_chasey said:Is it safe to say you are pro trade-wars, John?
0 -
I'm slightly surprised that you have been taken in by this nonsense about water wars. Nobody is punishing shellfish producers. It was a known issue well before we left. The industry raised it with the government, but the decision was taken not to include provision for shellfish (among many other things) in the TCA. It's not special treatment. It's exactly the same as every other nation that doesn't have an FTA with the EU covering shellfish.john80 said:
We are an independent state dealing with a group of countries that want to impose non tariff barriers for their benefit and the UK's disadvantage. Is it unreasonable to in response say produce a rule that only bottles water bottled in the UK to UK standards by UK owned companies paying tax in the UK should be allowed. It makes as much sense as the shellfish rule? There are literally a hundred things that we could target to show the point without making any material difference to a British person unless that is you just can't live without Evian.briantrumpet said:john80 said:We just need to be a bit more inventive. Things like banning foreign bottled water as it has not been bottle by a guy called Dave to our new British standard. After all the EU could not possibly complain as a third country. Sounds about as sensible as banning shellfish exports that are treated for human consumption in an EU country. Brits are funny we could consider it just a massive piss take. An eye for an eye and all that.
So trade wars it is then. Do you notch this up as a Benefit of Brexit?
If we take the old USA they have imposed tariffs on Whisky prior to us leaving the EU as punishment for the EU's prior action. They have not removed those tariffs from a friendly state that has not imposed tariffs and wants more reciprocal trade. Is it not reasonable to expect these to be removed in a sensible timeframe. If they are not is it not reasonable to impose some punishment for that lack of flexibility? For sure consumers don't win from trade wars however sometimes there has to be some pain for some gain unless your plan is to persuade them with kind words for the next 20 years.
The rules of the game have changed so I would suggest that not defending the UK's interests as an independent state to get to where you want to be is at best naive.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
