BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pangolin

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

Others would shrug and say 'so? I don't live there'

Haha, "well thank goodness the UK is safe"

ddraver

Will someone please think of the super yacht owners!!

https://ancasta.com/news/brexit-and-the-vat-status-of-boats-into-2021/

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

How true

tailwindhome

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

Others would shrug and say 'so? I don't live there'

Haha, "well thank goodness the UK is safe"

We're an island nation

elbowloh

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

How true

In what way could this be possibly be true?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

In what way is this equivalent to our discussion?

The EU is in competition with the UK now. Long term they covert the enormous revenue the City of London generates.

Now it is no longer part of the EU it will work to undermine that.

It is the logic of Brexit.

It is the same argument again about proportionality.

I’d be curious to see how you argue this outcome is not a direct result of Brexit.

The UK have given the EU27 the opportunity to play geopolitics with FS and the EU27 has taken it.

In a competitive world that is the obvious move, especially when there are differences in opinion on regulating FS between the EU27 and London.

Why be reliant on a system that is not run by one of your own members?

It’s incredibly naive to suggest otherwise.

elbowloh

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

In what way is this equivalent to our discussion?

The EU is in competition with the UK now. Long term they covert the enormous revenue the City of London generates.

Now it is no longer part of the EU it will work to undermine that.

It is the logic of Brexit.

It is the same argument again about proportionality.

I’d be curious to see how you argue this outcome is not a direct result of Brexit.

The UK have given the EU27 the opportunity to play geopolitics with FS and the EU27 has taken it.

In a competitive world that is the obvious move, especially when there are differences in opinion on regulating FS between the EU27 and London.

Why be reliant on a system that is not run by one of your own members?

It’s incredibly naive to suggest otherwise.

Indeed.

"We" wanted to leave the EU so we could explore opportunities outside of the block. Why would the EU not reciprocate by exploiting opportunities arising from the UK leaving?

It's naive at best, otherwise it's incompetence or delusional.

Stevo_666

elbowloh said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

How true

In what way could this be possibly be true?

You don't think BB thought that?

elbowloh

If he did, I would recommend he sought some help.

morstar

Nothing has changed.
Raab still talking about smart technology and win win borders that aren’t borders.

So, you tell a big lie to get your way. You get found out, keep lying, blaming everybody else and making up nonsense.

elbowloh

morstar said:

Nothing has changed.
Raab still talking about smart technology and win win borders that aren’t borders.

So, you tell a big lie to get your way. You get found out, keep lying, blaming everybody else and making up nonsense.

Snakeoil.

john80

ddraver said:

Will someone please think of the super yacht owners!!

https://ancasta.com/news/brexit-and-the-vat-status-of-boats-into-2021/

I think the superyacht owners will be fine as in the main they are registered ships. Ordinary people with yachts may be the main thrust of this guidance.

Stevo_666

elbowloh said:

If he did, I would recommend he sought some help.

I just thought it was quite a humorous observation on some of the lines of argument used on here. Not surprised it went whoosh with you...

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

In what way is this equivalent to our discussion?

The EU is in competition with the UK now. Long term they covert the enormous revenue the City of London generates.

Now it is no longer part of the EU it will work to undermine that.

It is the logic of Brexit.

It is the same argument again about proportionality.

I’d be curious to see how you argue this outcome is not a direct result of Brexit.

The UK have given the EU27 the opportunity to play geopolitics with FS and the EU27 has taken it.

In a competitive world that is the obvious move, especially when there are differences in opinion on regulating FS between the EU27 and London.

Why be reliant on a system that is not run by one of your own members?

It’s incredibly naive to suggest otherwise.

At some point UK and EU relations need to be discussed without reference to Brexit. How many years do you think it will take for that to happen? Will it be like Germany and the war?

At the moment, the EU has given China more areas of equivalence than the UK. It is the EU's sovereign right to do that, but I think it is a bit foolish, and think I should be able to say that without the elephants marching into Northern Ireland. If you think it is a stroke of genius, the obvious move, the opposite of naive etc. Then that is fine, but it is better to articulate that than the elephants (which in fairness you didn't, but others did).

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

Others would shrug and say 'so? I don't live there'

Haha, "well thank goodness the UK is safe"

We're an island nation

The thing is, whenever I read anything about Northern Ireland it just sounds like a completely different world, so whilst I wouldn't make such statements, I do kind of understand why someone would.

pblakeney

The reason that Brexit keeps cropping up is that this is a direct result of the Brexit negotiations. Actions have consequences.

TheBigBean

pblakeney said:

The reason that Brexit keeps cropping up is that this is a direct result of the Brexit negotiations. Actions have consequences.

The UK losing all passporting is Brexit related. The UK not being granted the same level of equivalence as other countries not in the EU is only related to Brexit if you include the fact the EU is in a huff about it. As I said above and provided a link to, plenty of other countries have been given equivalence in many more area.

pblakeney

Think of it as a messy divorce which one party didn't want.
At least one half will be bitter, and both sides will lose out financially.
Only question is if any parties will be happy in the long term.

morstar

It just feels like the emporers guards are running round insisting that he isn’t naked.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

I do think that if the EU raised an army and rode into Northern Ireland on elephants pillaging and burning along the way that there would be someone on the internet saying "but the UK did vote for Brexit, so really it's the UK's fault". This would be followed by someone noting that it may not be right, but they did warn that this would happen prior the vote, so the UK only has itself to blame.

In what way is this equivalent to our discussion?

The EU is in competition with the UK now. Long term they covert the enormous revenue the City of London generates.

Now it is no longer part of the EU it will work to undermine that.

It is the logic of Brexit.

It is the same argument again about proportionality.

I’d be curious to see how you argue this outcome is not a direct result of Brexit.

The UK have given the EU27 the opportunity to play geopolitics with FS and the EU27 has taken it.

In a competitive world that is the obvious move, especially when there are differences in opinion on regulating FS between the EU27 and London.

Why be reliant on a system that is not run by one of your own members?

It’s incredibly naive to suggest otherwise.

At some point UK and EU relations need to be discussed without reference to Brexit. How many years do you think it will take for that to happen? Will it be like Germany and the war?

TheBigBean said:

the EU is in a huff

Gonna be a while yet

rick_chasey

So to your Chima has a more comprehensive deal with the EU than the UK argument.

So the geopolitical argument that underpins this is twofold

1) If you believe in the value of the EU, in order to fend off other separatist movements you must make an exit costly. This tactic broadly worked until Corona when the poor vaccine response dented it. Arguably it’s still working nonetheless.

2) Because of the proximity of the UK to Europe it is much more of a direct competitor to the EU than China. So although the obvious gravity of trade remains (ie the EU will trade substantially more with the Uk than China despite the size difference), the UK also poses a competition threat in a way China doesn’t. That is why the EU insisted on so many guarantees on regulatory alignment to avoid undercutting in return for any kind of trade deal.

Yes this comes with additional economic costs, as you get less efficient allocation and more friction - but as I keep saying, that is the logic of Brexit - the logic that that price is worth paying.

If you turn the geopolitical system into one of competition over cooperation, that is the drawback.

TheBigBean

There is a purpose of regulation beyond protectism, and encouraging use of other countries with worse regulation seems a bit foolish.

kingstongraham

Saying "this was predicted " doesn't mean you think it's a good thing.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

There is a purpose of regulation beyond protectism, and encouraging use of other countries with worse regulation seems a bit foolish.

Sure. But I’m not saying they’re changing regs just to put up barriers.

The EU is often trying to lead the world re regs and it uses its economic might to improve global regs.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

There is a purpose of regulation beyond protectism, and encouraging use of other countries with worse regulation seems a bit foolish.

Sure. But I’m not saying they’re changing regs just to put up barriers.

The EU is often trying to lead the world re regs and it uses its economic might to improve global regs.

Can you give us some specific examples?

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

There is a purpose of regulation beyond protectism, and encouraging use of other countries with worse regulation seems a bit foolish.

Sure. But I’m not saying they’re changing regs just to put up barriers.

The EU is often trying to lead the world re regs and it uses its economic might to improve global regs.

Can you give us some specific examples?

GDPR

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

There is a purpose of regulation beyond protectism, and encouraging use of other countries with worse regulation seems a bit foolish.

Sure. But I’m not saying they’re changing regs just to put up barriers.

The EU is often trying to lead the world re regs and it uses its economic might to improve global regs.

Can you give us some specific examples?

https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/20/the-eu-wants-to-set-the-rules-for-the-world-of-technology

Big tech is the obvious example

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

There is a purpose of regulation beyond protectism, and encouraging use of other countries with worse regulation seems a bit foolish.

Sure. But I’m not saying they’re changing regs just to put up barriers.

The EU is often trying to lead the world re regs and it uses its economic might to improve global regs.

Can you give us some specific examples?

https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/20/the-eu-wants-to-set-the-rules-for-the-world-of-technology

Big tech is the obvious example

So the EU wants to set the rules - who doesn't.

However it doesn't mean the EU makes better rules. The EU approach to big tech so far doesn't look like it has encouraged many home grown successes - recall reading recently that of the top 20 big tech companies, none are from the EU. So them wanting to set the rules in this sector is probably driven by a desire to stifle non-EU Big tech with which they clearly can't compete.

Let's hope they don't get to set the rules for AI etc....

rick_chasey

You didn’t read the article

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

You didn’t read the article

Paywalled or needed login after the first paragraph. Care to cut and paste, or maybe even explain the point in your own words?

Also, do you disagree with my point above about the lack of Big tech companies in the EU?