BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
1 -
Could we not just leave the CPTPP if we decided to rejoin the EU?Stevo_666 said:
We voted to do that in 2016, mainly for reasons other than just trade. This deal gives access to a market of similar size, but which is much faster growing and does not have the same issues of interference in governance. Which is a valid consideration.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Oh, and one other point which may be of passing interest:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/29/cptpp-uk-pacific-trade-deal-brexit-victory-analysis/
Quote:
"Accession to the partnership would be a huge event for Brexit Britain and would not have been possible inside the European Union. Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union.
Since the pact requires that the UK has control over its own regulatory system, dynamic alignment of UK regulations with the EU would also not be feasible, except in those areas where EU regulation passes CPTPP muster."
Possibly a subtle masterstroke by Rishi & Co?
So knowingly excluding an easy trading relationship with your nearest and most wealthy market is a masterstroke? OK.
Kinda spoils your hopes of us rejoining though. C'est la vie.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Could we not just leave the CPTPP if we decided to rejoin the EU?Stevo_666 said:
We voted to do that in 2016, mainly for reasons other than just trade. This deal gives access to a market of similar size, but which is much faster growing and does not have the same issues of interference in governance. Which is a valid consideration.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Oh, and one other point which may be of passing interest:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/29/cptpp-uk-pacific-trade-deal-brexit-victory-analysis/
Quote:
"Accession to the partnership would be a huge event for Brexit Britain and would not have been possible inside the European Union. Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union.
Since the pact requires that the UK has control over its own regulatory system, dynamic alignment of UK regulations with the EU would also not be feasible, except in those areas where EU regulation passes CPTPP muster."
Possibly a subtle masterstroke by Rishi & Co?
So knowingly excluding an easy trading relationship with your nearest and most wealthy market is a masterstroke? OK.
Kinda spoils your hopes of us rejoining though. C'est la vie.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I think the issue is that if we commit to CPTPP then the UK's regulatory regimes will likely move out of line with the EU's (as CPTPP standards are different, even if not overtly lower) thus making re-joining that much harder, as there would need to be a wholesale change (back) of the regulatory regimes before re-joining could even be considered.tailwindhome said:Could we not just leave the CPTPP if we decided to rejoin the EU?
0 -
All seems a little academic given the negligible impact.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
All seems a little academic given the negligible impact.
If one was being cynical, one might think that this is being pushed as a way of locking us out of the EU.
Also worth noting that the Government didn't respond to the Lords' question about the impact on/with the NI Protocol.The committee also called on the Government to set out how the CPTPP agreement would be impacted by the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland signed with the EU. The Government’s response did not comment on this.0 -
I think they're more interested in squabbling over whose constituency will house asylum applicants.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:All seems a little academic given the negligible impact.
If one was being cynical, one might think that this is being pushed as a way of locking us out of the EU.
Also worth noting that the Government didn't respond to the Lords' question about the impact on/with the NI Protocol.The committee also called on the Government to set out how the CPTPP agreement would be impacted by the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland signed with the EU. The Government’s response did not comment on this.
It's better than not joining; has some very small economic and some bigger political benefits; has no effect on some supposed future Rejoin effort even if diehard Brexit fetishists wish really hard.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I imagine the gains are minimal as we already have trade agreements with most of those countriesrjsterry said:
I think they're more interested in squabbling over whose constituency will house asylum applicants.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:All seems a little academic given the negligible impact.
If one was being cynical, one might think that this is being pushed as a way of locking us out of the EU.
Also worth noting that the Government didn't respond to the Lords' question about the impact on/with the NI Protocol.The committee also called on the Government to set out how the CPTPP agreement would be impacted by the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland signed with the EU. The Government’s response did not comment on this.
It's better than not joining; has some very small economic and some bigger political benefits; has no effect on some supposed future Rejoin effort even if diehard Brexit fetishists wish really hard.0 -
Surely there must be minimum standards and a way of enforcing them?wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
0 -
One assumes there is some sort of arbitration process involved. There's one built into NAFTA, for example, that appears to work via an arbitration process and then via existing domestic courts.kingstongraham said:
Surely there must be minimum standards and a way of enforcing them?wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
0 -
Exactly. Official estimate is +0.08% over the long term.surrey_commuter said:
I imagine the gains are minimal as we already have trade agreements with most of those countriesrjsterry said:
I think they're more interested in squabbling over whose constituency will house asylum applicants.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:All seems a little academic given the negligible impact.
If one was being cynical, one might think that this is being pushed as a way of locking us out of the EU.
Also worth noting that the Government didn't respond to the Lords' question about the impact on/with the NI Protocol.The committee also called on the Government to set out how the CPTPP agreement would be impacted by the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland signed with the EU. The Government’s response did not comment on this.
It's better than not joining; has some very small economic and some bigger political benefits; has no effect on some supposed future Rejoin effort even if diehard Brexit fetishists wish really hard.
It also has a withdrawal process so we can strop out of that as well in ten years time 😆.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Wasn't the 0.08% specific to the rolled over deal with just Australia?rjsterry said:
Exactly. Official estimate is +0.08% over the long term.surrey_commuter said:
I imagine the gains are minimal as we already have trade agreements with most of those countriesrjsterry said:
I think they're more interested in squabbling over whose constituency will house asylum applicants.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:All seems a little academic given the negligible impact.
If one was being cynical, one might think that this is being pushed as a way of locking us out of the EU.
Also worth noting that the Government didn't respond to the Lords' question about the impact on/with the NI Protocol.The committee also called on the Government to set out how the CPTPP agreement would be impacted by the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland signed with the EU. The Government’s response did not comment on this.
It's better than not joining; has some very small economic and some bigger political benefits; has no effect on some supposed future Rejoin effort even if diehard Brexit fetishists wish really hard.
It also has a withdrawal process so we can strop out of that as well in ten years time 😆.
And whilst I'm not a big fan (understatement) of ditching a very good trade deal on our doorsteps for one on the other side of the world, the CPTPP does have the potential to expand and include other larger economies.1 -
ironically the thing I find most offensive is the headline. You are of course the expert but shouldn't they be "French collaborators" and in this tortuous analogy surely the MLAs should be joining the Vichy Govtbriantrumpet said:Paging @surrey_commuter ...
You might have a point.0 -
If it puts roadblocks in the way of making it easier to trade with the EU, that's got to be a net negative. If it doesn't, then it might be positive - I don't know which service sectors would gain or lose from freer trade with the other side of the world.wallace_and_gromit said:
Wasn't the 0.08% specific to the rolled over deal with just Australia?rjsterry said:
Exactly. Official estimate is +0.08% over the long term.surrey_commuter said:
I imagine the gains are minimal as we already have trade agreements with most of those countriesrjsterry said:
I think they're more interested in squabbling over whose constituency will house asylum applicants.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:All seems a little academic given the negligible impact.
If one was being cynical, one might think that this is being pushed as a way of locking us out of the EU.
Also worth noting that the Government didn't respond to the Lords' question about the impact on/with the NI Protocol.The committee also called on the Government to set out how the CPTPP agreement would be impacted by the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland signed with the EU. The Government’s response did not comment on this.
It's better than not joining; has some very small economic and some bigger political benefits; has no effect on some supposed future Rejoin effort even if diehard Brexit fetishists wish really hard.
It also has a withdrawal process so we can strop out of that as well in ten years time 😆.
And whilst I'm not a big fan (understatement) of ditching a very good trade deal on our doorsteps for one on the other side of the world, the CPTPP does have the potential to expand and include other larger economies.0 -
Since you asked twice...probably, although by time that decision comes round again (if ever) it may well be a case of giving up a larger deal for a smaller one, given relative growth rates and potential new joiners of the CPTPP - South Korea is on the cards and the USA is a longer term prospect.tailwindhome said:
Could we not just leave the CPTPP if we decided to rejoin the EU?Stevo_666 said:
We voted to do that in 2016, mainly for reasons other than just trade. This deal gives access to a market of similar size, but which is much faster growing and does not have the same issues of interference in governance. Which is a valid consideration.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Oh, and one other point which may be of passing interest:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/29/cptpp-uk-pacific-trade-deal-brexit-victory-analysis/
Quote:
"Accession to the partnership would be a huge event for Brexit Britain and would not have been possible inside the European Union. Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union.
Since the pact requires that the UK has control over its own regulatory system, dynamic alignment of UK regulations with the EU would also not be feasible, except in those areas where EU regulation passes CPTPP muster."
Possibly a subtle masterstroke by Rishi & Co?
So knowingly excluding an easy trading relationship with your nearest and most wealthy market is a masterstroke? OK.
Kinda spoils your hopes of us rejoining though. C'est la vie."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If it were simply a matter of comparing one trade deal with another then it might be easier to make the decision - problem is that EU membership comes with lots of strings attached which is probably why we voted to leave in 2016. As I've argued before, if the EU was just a trading bloc then its likely that would never have left.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
My point is not about what used to be in place, rather what we are putting in place - time to start looking forwards and not backwards.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
We voted to do that in 2016, mainly for reasons other than just trade. This deal gives access to a market of similar size, but which is much faster growing and does not have the same issues of interference in governance. Which is a valid consideration.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Oh, and one other point which may be of passing interest:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/29/cptpp-uk-pacific-trade-deal-brexit-victory-analysis/
Quote:
"Accession to the partnership would be a huge event for Brexit Britain and would not have been possible inside the European Union. Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union.
Since the pact requires that the UK has control over its own regulatory system, dynamic alignment of UK regulations with the EU would also not be feasible, except in those areas where EU regulation passes CPTPP muster."
Possibly a subtle masterstroke by Rishi & Co?
So knowingly excluding an easy trading relationship with your nearest and most wealthy market is a masterstroke? OK.
Kinda spoils your hopes of us rejoining though. C'est la vie.
I do find your desire to lock us out of the EU's wealth utterly bizarre.
But let's see, eh? Who knows what the deal would actually entail, and what a Labour Government will do?
So putting aside crying over EU spilt milk for a moment, what are your view on this new and fairly significant trade deal?
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-membership-of-the-trans-pacific-trade-agreement/The International Agreements Committee’s report included a summary of the Government’s own modelling of the economic impact of accession. It said that the estimated increase in UK GDP in the long run was 0.08%. However, it reported that larger gains would be available if CPTPP membership subsequently expanded to include Thailand and South Korea. The committee agreed that membership was not expected to bring “large-scale” economic benefits in the short term. However, it stated that most of its witnesses supported the Government’s aspiration to join CPTPP, in part because membership would allow the UK to influence its future development.
A good thing, if it doesn't lock us out of our continuing (and hopefully closer) trading with th EU. But it won't ever be a replacement for it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think just coincidence that it is the same figure. We already have bilateral agreements with several members so it is bound to be incremental.wallace_and_gromit said:
Wasn't the 0.08% specific to the rolled over deal with just Australia?rjsterry said:
Exactly. Official estimate is +0.08% over the long term.surrey_commuter said:
I imagine the gains are minimal as we already have trade agreements with most of those countriesrjsterry said:
I think they're more interested in squabbling over whose constituency will house asylum applicants.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:All seems a little academic given the negligible impact.
If one was being cynical, one might think that this is being pushed as a way of locking us out of the EU.
Also worth noting that the Government didn't respond to the Lords' question about the impact on/with the NI Protocol.The committee also called on the Government to set out how the CPTPP agreement would be impacted by the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland signed with the EU. The Government’s response did not comment on this.
It's better than not joining; has some very small economic and some bigger political benefits; has no effect on some supposed future Rejoin effort even if diehard Brexit fetishists wish really hard.
It also has a withdrawal process so we can strop out of that as well in ten years time 😆.
And whilst I'm not a big fan (understatement) of ditching a very good trade deal on our doorsteps for one on the other side of the world, the CPTPP does have the potential to expand and include other larger economies.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is what happened when the UK joined the EU the first time.tailwindhome said:
Could we not just leave the CPTPP if we decided to rejoin the EU?Stevo_666 said:
We voted to do that in 2016, mainly for reasons other than just trade. This deal gives access to a market of similar size, but which is much faster growing and does not have the same issues of interference in governance. Which is a valid consideration.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Oh, and one other point which may be of passing interest:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/29/cptpp-uk-pacific-trade-deal-brexit-victory-analysis/
Quote:
"Accession to the partnership would be a huge event for Brexit Britain and would not have been possible inside the European Union. Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union.
Since the pact requires that the UK has control over its own regulatory system, dynamic alignment of UK regulations with the EU would also not be feasible, except in those areas where EU regulation passes CPTPP muster."
Possibly a subtle masterstroke by Rishi & Co?
So knowingly excluding an easy trading relationship with your nearest and most wealthy market is a masterstroke? OK.
Kinda spoils your hopes of us rejoining though. C'est la vie.0 -
But joining the single market while outside the EU has been ruled out as not even worth exploring.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
0 -
0
-
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo_666 said:
If it were simply a matter of comparing one trade deal with another then it might be easier to make the decision - problem is that EU membership comes with lots of strings attached which is probably why we voted to leave in 2016. As I've argued before, if the EU was just a trading bloc then its likely that would never have left.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
My point is not about what used to be in place, rather what we are putting in place - time to start looking forwards and not backwards.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
We voted to do that in 2016, mainly for reasons other than just trade. This deal gives access to a market of similar size, but which is much faster growing and does not have the same issues of interference in governance. Which is a valid consideration.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Oh, and one other point which may be of passing interest:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/29/cptpp-uk-pacific-trade-deal-brexit-victory-analysis/
Quote:
"Accession to the partnership would be a huge event for Brexit Britain and would not have been possible inside the European Union. Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union.
Since the pact requires that the UK has control over its own regulatory system, dynamic alignment of UK regulations with the EU would also not be feasible, except in those areas where EU regulation passes CPTPP muster."
Possibly a subtle masterstroke by Rishi & Co?
So knowingly excluding an easy trading relationship with your nearest and most wealthy market is a masterstroke? OK.
Kinda spoils your hopes of us rejoining though. C'est la vie.
I do find your desire to lock us out of the EU's wealth utterly bizarre.
But let's see, eh? Who knows what the deal would actually entail, and what a Labour Government will do?
So putting aside crying over EU spilt milk for a moment, what are your view on this new and fairly significant trade deal?
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-membership-of-the-trans-pacific-trade-agreement/The International Agreements Committee’s report included a summary of the Government’s own modelling of the economic impact of accession. It said that the estimated increase in UK GDP in the long run was 0.08%. However, it reported that larger gains would be available if CPTPP membership subsequently expanded to include Thailand and South Korea. The committee agreed that membership was not expected to bring “large-scale” economic benefits in the short term. However, it stated that most of its witnesses supported the Government’s aspiration to join CPTPP, in part because membership would allow the UK to influence its future development.
A good thing, if it doesn't lock us out of our continuing (and hopefully closer) trading with th EU. But it won't ever be a replacement for it.
Trading blocs tend to come with strings attached, and this new one seems to include strings: the more freely you want to trade, the more strings and obligations.
In any case, you'll have to excuse me if I don't get terribly excited about the 0.08% just yet.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
ironically the thing I find most offensive is the headline. You are of course the expert but shouldn't they be "French collaborators" and in this tortuous analogy surely the MLAs should be joining the Vichy Govtbriantrumpet said:Paging @surrey_commuter ...
You might have a point.
My biggest regret in sharing that link is I can't unsee the photo of Hoey. Sorry.0 -
I thought Stevo was agreeing with wallace_and_gromit that neither of them had studied it in any depth.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Safe to say the comments are overwhelmingly sceptical. (To put it mildly).briantrumpet said:Nothing to do with Brexit then, obvs.
And very little nastiness which suggests people can’t even bother defending such obvious nonsense.0 -
morstar said:
Safe to say the comments are overwhelmingly sceptical. (To put it mildly).briantrumpet said:Nothing to do with Brexit then, obvs.
And very little nastiness which suggests people can’t even bother defending such obvious nonsense.
Yes indeed... I suppose the DUP being further marginalised would class as a Brexit benefit, from my perspective, though given the nature of the GFA, the downside is the diminishing likelihood of Stormont getting back to business, given their intransigence.0 -
I can’t speak for Stevo but I think my point was fairly clear that the Pacific thing is based round mutual recognition of local laws, as opposed to transfer of legal competency in key areas, as is the car with the eu.pangolin said:
I thought Stevo was agreeing with wallace_and_gromit that neither of them had studied it in any depth.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
I think (and I’m happy to be corrected) Stevo’s point is that the trade benefits of eu membership come bound up with a lot of other stuff unrelated to trade per se.
Anyway, just for avoidance of doubt, canning the eu in the hope of a “large” trade deal on the other side of the world strikes me as nuts which is one of many reasons why I voted to remain.
0 -
A vaguely useful collection of fact-based scepticism in this thread, not least about the Stevograph's promotion of the probable announcement:
0 -
If it isn't possible to be aligned with the single market, the UK and the CPTPP, it's going to make it very difficult for Northern Ireland isn't it?0
