The Brexit Thread

[fishfoodie]

A nice bubble chart but irrelevant to my question.

In fact, it only seems to make my question and argument more pertinent.

The bottom line is that the UK has land borders with the EU, & the EU has zero faith in the UK policing them; if not doing so is to the UKs advantage. The EU know that the UK didn't even meet its commitments when it was in the EU; why would the expect this to improve now you're outside ?

What UK commitments are you referring to, and how do they relate to a trade deal?
What is going to happen at these un policed borders?

There was a story a few months ago; I'll try & dig out the link.

All EU members signed up to a certain percentages of inspections of shipments for China; the UK wasn't doing this.

It was in everyone's interest to not let China dump products in the EU, or worse yet, send in shite that kills people; e.g. Fentanyl, that's cooked up by the tonne in Chinese labs. If there's a weak link in the chain, then the Chinese will find it & exploit it.

[Caley_Red]

The bottom line is that the UK has land borders with the EU, & the EU has zero faith in the UK policing them; if not doing so is to the UKs advantage. The EU know that the UK didn't even meet its commitments when it was in the EU; why would the expect this to improve now you're outside ?

What UK commitments are you referring to, and how do they relate to a trade deal?
What is going to happen at these un policed borders?

There was a story a few months ago; I'll try & dig out the link.

All EU members signed up to a certain percentages of inspections of shipments for China; the UK wasn't doing this.

It was in everyone's interest to not let China dump products in the EU, or worse yet, send in shite that kills people; e.g. Fentanyl, that's cooked up by the tonne in Chinese labs. If there's a weak link in the chain, then the Chinese will find it & exploit it.

Assuming this minor infraction is true (I'll wait and see the evidence and alleged extent of it), can you explain why it's worth chucking in the whole deal?

Further, can you explain how the so-called level playing field and access to fish stocks might remedy this minor infraction?

[Longshanks]

The bottom line is that the UK has land borders with the EU, & the EU has zero faith in the UK policing them; if not doing so is to the UKs advantage. The EU know that the UK didn't even meet its commitments when it was in the EU; why would the expect this to improve now you're outside ?

What UK commitments are you referring to, and how do they relate to a trade deal?
What is going to happen at these un policed borders?

There was a story a few months ago; I'll try & dig out the link.

All EU members signed up to a certain percentages of inspections of shipments for China; the UK wasn't doing this.

It was in everyone's interest to not let China dump products in the EU, or worse yet, send in shite that kills people; e.g. Fentanyl, that's cooked up by the tonne in Chinese labs. If there's a weak link in the chain, then the Chinese will find it & exploit it.

I know the story. The UK was fined.
I think the connection between this and a FTA is probably more in your head.
Brexit does strange things to the best of us.

[Bimbowomxn]

He’s totally wrong as usual , the issue was the valuation on good arriving from China and the associated VAT.

But hey fentanyl

[Longshanks]

He’s totally wrong as usual , the issue was the valuation on good arriving from China and the associated VAT.

But hey fentanyl

That was it. I knew there was a fine, but your memory is better than mine.

[fishfoodie]

Lets go back to where the bollox of the; Canada deal goes back to.



First off; does anyone see an Ozzie flag on here ? ... No. Didn't think so.

All his single slide does is point out the different level of deals that are, ruled out, by each of May's Red Lines. There is no obligation for the EU to offer the UK any deal; even equivalent deals; because every deal is unique.

Even the Brexshitters didn't talk about a; "Canada", deal; it was always, Canada++++++++++++++++++++++ depending on how much coke was in their system at the time.

The Canada deal was one for Canada; & it was only for Canada. The UK wouldn't have signed off on the Canada deal if they thought it would damage UK businesses more than they benefited; so why does the UK expect the EU27 to sign off on a deal that the EU27 doesn't think protects them ??

The EU doesn't owe the UK a deal !

The WA binds both sides to making their best efforts to get a deal .... THAT IS ALL !!!

There'll eventually be a deal; but it'll be unique; because the EU want access to fishing waters, but they won't let the UK use their position to deregulate where it suits them to undermine the EU.Give it 3-4 years & there'll be a deal.

[Rinkals]

As I see it, the fact that the UK is on Europe's doorstep means that the logistical problems of bringing produce to market are different from those posed by countries like Canada and Australia, so the threat to locally produced products is perceived as being greater.

In this I'm assuming that there is a penalty for transporting goods from distant lands in terms of both time and cost which may inhibit your competitive advantage, which would impact on a trade deal.

I acknowledge that I'm no expert in shipping logistics.

[Longshanks]

As I see it, the fact that the UK is on Europe's doorstep means that the logistical problems of bringing produce to market are different from those posed by countries like Canada and Australia, so the threat to locally produced products is perceived as being greater.

In this I'm assuming that there is a penalty for transporting goods from distant lands in terms of both time and cost which may inhibit your competitive advantage, which would impact on a trade deal.

I acknowledge that I'm no expert in shipping logistics.

Clearly there is something in this, but it has to also be acknowledged that the EU doesn't want to lose its trade surplus with the UK, it doesn't want to damage its fishing industry and it wants to keep a control on the UK in case other members get big ideas about going it alone.
As many said at the beginning of Brexit, the EU is Hotel California.

[fishfoodie]

As I see it, the fact that the UK is on Europe's doorstep means that the logistical problems of bringing produce to market are different from those posed by countries like Canada and Australia, so the threat to locally produced products is perceived as being greater.

In this I'm assuming that there is a penalty for transporting goods from distant lands in terms of both time and cost which may inhibit your competitive advantage, which would impact on a trade deal.

I acknowledge that I'm no expert in shipping logistics.

Clearly there is something in this, but it has to also be acknowledged that the EU doesn't want to lose its trade surplus with the UK, it doesn't want to damage its fishing industry and it wants to keep a control on the UK in case other members get big ideas about going it alone.
As many said at the beginning of Brexit, the EU is Hotel California.

Funny; that's exactly how the EU feels about the UKs position too; it wants to keep all the privileges, but no longer make any contributions.

[Northern Lights]

Anyway, it won’t happen but if we do end up in No Deal or Australia deal as Boris calls it I think this is exactly why there should have been a confirmatory referendum.

This isn’t remotely close to the shite they were spouting during the campaign, it’s a shambles.

Now we know here is what out of the EU looks like and we know for good or ill what being a member looked like.

Before any vote on Scottish Indy this surely to fuck would be a prerequisite of any 2nd referendum on this question.

But then we'd have to rejoin the EU as we've technically left.

Neverendums do nobody any favours.

We cant do it now, it was more regarding Cameron totally fucking up the first one. It should then have been confirmatory, let the Brexiteers have a full go at negotiating there deal like they are now, they find the political reality crashes up against their hubris and the public know exactly what they are voting for.

There will still be a sizeable portion of the population willing to leave even with a No Deal/Australia terms but it wouldnt be the majority and the matter would then be settled, stop promising shite you cant deliver, i know that would be a unique concept to politicians but would at least stop the country inflicting needless harm on itself through their nonsense.

[Longshanks]

As I see it, the fact that the UK is on Europe's doorstep means that the logistical problems of bringing produce to market are different from those posed by countries like Canada and Australia, so the threat to locally produced products is perceived as being greater.

In this I'm assuming that there is a penalty for transporting goods from distant lands in terms of both time and cost which may inhibit your competitive advantage, which would impact on a trade deal.

I acknowledge that I'm no expert in shipping logistics.

Clearly there is something in this, but it has to also be acknowledged that the EU doesn't want to lose its trade surplus with the UK, it doesn't want to damage its fishing industry and it wants to keep a control on the UK in case other members get big ideas about going it alone.
As many said at the beginning of Brexit, the EU is Hotel California.

Funny; that's exactly how the EU feels about the UKs position too; it wants to keep all the privileges, but no longer make any contributions.

All the privileges?
In the chart you posted, the FTA that the UK seeks is the worst option, they get very few privileges. Even if at some late stage a deal arrives, it's hardly a triumphant victory for Boris. There will still be significant economic damage.
You use too much hyperbole.

[I like neeps]

Malcolm Turnbull on QT last night explaining Australia don't want an Australia style trade deal with the EU. When will the pliant media class bring that up with the govt?

James Forsyth could ask Allegra Stratton in bed tonight I guess.

[dpedin]

As I see it, the fact that the UK is on Europe's doorstep means that the logistical problems of bringing produce to market are different from those posed by countries like Canada and Australia, so the threat to locally produced products is perceived as being greater.

In this I'm assuming that there is a penalty for transporting goods from distant lands in terms of both time and cost which may inhibit your competitive advantage, which would impact on a trade deal.

I acknowledge that I'm no expert in shipping logistics.

Clearly there is something in this, but it has to also be acknowledged that the EU doesn't want to lose its trade surplus with the UK, it doesn't want to damage its fishing industry and it wants to keep a control on the UK in case other members get big ideas about going it alone.
As many said at the beginning of Brexit, the EU is Hotel California.

Funny; that's exactly how the EU feels about the UKs position too; it wants to keep all the privileges, but no longer make any contributions.

Exactly - this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members.

The UK decided to leave the EU and are now a 3rd country trying to negotiate a new deal with one of the largest and most powerful trading blocs in the world. This is the reality. The EU, nor indeed the UK, are obliged to offer a deal on the same terms as others they have made, every deal is different depending on a whole host of factors. It is the EU's call about what is most important to them and that might not be a poor deal with the UK. Each party will want a deal which has more positives than negatives for them and will use all their bargaining power to achieve this. Unfortunately the UK has significantly less bargaining power than the EU and has more to lose from no deal than any single EU member plus the EU don't want to set a precedent for future trace deals with other countries. Stamping of feet, suggesting we are being 'punished', wanting what someone else has, waiting for the German car companies and the Italian proscecco producers to rescue us and talking about preserving our sovereignty is all being ignored by the EU, they are simply focused on preserving what they have and getting the best deal for themselves. Trying to split the EU unity, name calling and disparaging their Chief Negotiator will not make things better or easier.

The reality of the situation is pretty clear. Any deal with the EU will be worse than what we had and we will have to pay a price bigger than we previously paid. If we go for no deal then the economic hit will be even worse plus the reality for joe public will kick in pretty quickly and create a major political problem. This was all very clear from the beginning, it is the price we pay for Brexit. I just wish those who wanted it and voted for it would own it.

[Hellraiser]

Waiting to see the details of this deal on NI protocol. But I have to be honest, it doesn't sound that different to Boris' unicorn arrangement on the Irish border. But I'll wait and see.

Tony Connelly as usual has the best sources.



He also says that Barnier gave another briefing today; & if anything was even more negative about the possibility of a deal.

It still doesn't look a perfect solution, but there never was one. However, I'm glad that the Irish issues are solved and we can all be friends again.
Looking unlikely for an EU deal, but not over till fat lady and all that.

That time has passed.

[Rinkals]

Clearly there is something in this, but it has to also be acknowledged that the EU doesn't want to lose its trade surplus with the UK, it doesn't want to damage its fishing industry and it wants to keep a control on the UK in case other members get big ideas about going it alone.
As many said at the beginning of Brexit, the EU is Hotel California.

Funny; that's exactly how the EU feels about the UKs position too; it wants to keep all the privileges, but no longer make any contributions.

Exactly - this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members.

The UK decided to leave the EU and are now a 3rd country trying to negotiate a new deal with one of the largest and most powerful trading blocs in the world. This is the reality. The EU, nor indeed the UK, are obliged to offer a deal on the same terms as others they have made, every deal is different depending on a whole host of factors. It is the EU's call about what is most important to them and that might not be a poor deal with the UK. Each party will want a deal which has more positives than negatives for them and will use all their bargaining power to achieve this. Unfortunately the UK has significantly less bargaining power than the EU and has more to lose from no deal than any single EU member plus the EU don't want to set a precedent for future trace deals with other countries. Stamping of feet, suggesting we are being 'punished', wanting what someone else has, waiting for the German car companies and the Italian proscecco producers to rescue us and talking about preserving our sovereignty is all being ignored by the EU, they are simply focused on preserving what they have and getting the best deal for themselves. Trying to split the EU unity, name calling and disparaging their Chief Negotiator will not make things better or easier.

The reality of the situation is pretty clear. Any deal with the EU will be worse than what we had and we will have to pay a price bigger than we previously paid. If we go for no deal then the economic hit will be even worse plus the reality for joe public will kick in pretty quickly and create a major political problem. This was all very clear from the beginning, it is the price we pay for Brexit. I just wish those who wanted it and voted for it would own it.

I think there's an important distinction to be made, namely that, although the UK may be looking for the best deal possible, the EU is looking for a deal that will be the least damaging for them and their members.

[Longshanks]

I think there's an important distinction to be made, namely that, although the UK may be looking for the best deal possible, the EU is looking for a deal that will be the least damaging for them and their members.

There is no distinction.
Both are out for there own interests and won't sign a deal they feel is unfair on their side.

[dpedin]

I think there's an important distinction to be made, namely that, although the UK may be looking for the best deal possible, the EU is looking for a deal that will be the least damaging for them and their members.

There is no distinction.
Both are out for there own interests and won't sign a deal they feel is unfair on their side.

Exactly! However it will come down to who holds all the cards , and in this case it is the EU. Unfortunately we have Blonde Bumblecunt and his Brexit Ultras holding our cards and they don't know when to fold and minimise the losses. Unfortunately they are playing with out money not their own and they have hedged their bets in advance so they don't really have a financial stake in the game!

[Rinkals]

I think there's an important distinction to be made, namely that, although the UK may be looking for the best deal possible, the EU is looking for a deal that will be the least damaging for them and their members.

There is no distinction.
Both are out for there own interests and won't sign a deal they feel is unfair on their side.

I disagree.

Certainly, the EU could concede on every point and grant full access to its markets and allow the UK to trade freely without being subject to the rules and conditions of membership. As in 'Cake'. However, doing so would obviously be damaging for the EU and it's members.

Conversely, the UK wants to be granted full access to the EU without having to go through the rigours or the cost of membership. As in more 'Cake'.

Clearly the two are not compatible.

[Longshanks]

I think there's an important distinction to be made, namely that, although the UK may be looking for the best deal possible, the EU is looking for a deal that will be the least damaging for them and their members.

There is no distinction.
Both are out for there own interests and won't sign a deal they feel is unfair on their side.

I disagree.

Certainly, the EU could concede on every point and grant full access to its markets and allow the UK to trade freely without being subject to the rules and conditions of membership. As in 'Cake'. However, doing so would obviously be damaging for the EU and it's members.

Conversely, the UK wants to be granted full access to the EU without having to go through the rigours or the cost of membership. As in more 'Cake'.

Clearly the two are not compatible.

A Canada style FTA is #$^@
It cannot in anyway be considered cake. Unless it's a cake with dog poo in it.

[Biffer]

A nice bubble chart but irrelevant to my question.

In fact, it only seems to make my question and argument more pertinent.

The bottom line is that the UK has land borders with the EU, & the EU has zero faith in the UK policing them; if not doing so is to the UKs advantage. The EU know that the UK didn't even meet its commitments when it was in the EU; why would the expect this to improve now you're outside ?

What UK commitments are you referring to, and how do they relate to a trade deal?
What is going to happen at these un policed borders?

Well, the ones we signed up to in the Withdrawal agreement that we then decided we'd renege and break international law by so doing. A reasonable partner does not want you to enter into negotiations to stop them breaking the law, which was what the EU had to do.

[Bimbowomxn]

The bottom line is that the UK has land borders with the EU, & the EU has zero faith in the UK policing them; if not doing so is to the UKs advantage. The EU know that the UK didn't even meet its commitments when it was in the EU; why would the expect this to improve now you're outside ?

What UK commitments are you referring to, and how do they relate to a trade deal?
What is going to happen at these un policed borders?

Well, the ones we signed up to in the Withdrawal agreement that we then decided we'd renege and break international law by so doing. A reasonable partner does not want you to enter into negotiations to stop them breaking the law, which was what the EU had to do.

They had to guarantee they wouldn’t unilaterally try and break up the UK internal market and demand EU offices in Northern Ireland, oddly enough they’ve now compromised on that and our IMB issue has gone away.

Conversely, the UK wants to be granted full access to the EU without having to go through the rigours or the cost of membership. As in more 'Cake'.

This statement is demonstrably false.

[Longshanks]

Bimbo will probably know for sure but iirc it's predicted that with a FTA the average person will be 60p a day better off than they will be with no deal, as apposed to about £2 a day better off if we had remained in the EU.
It's rubbish to suggest It's cake.

[Longshanks]

Just to add
Obviously a deal is not just about money.

[Paddington Bear]

Conversely, the UK wants to be granted full access to the EU without having to go through the rigours or the cost of membership. As in more 'Cake'.

No, it doesn't and has been explicit on this - indeed the rationale for rejecting LPF ratchets and EU court oversight is that we are not asking for full access. You know this

[Bimbowomxn]

Bimbo will probably know for sure but iirc it's predicted that with a FTA the average person will be 60p a day better off than they will be with no deal, as apposed to about £2 a day better off if we had remained in the EU.
It's rubbish to suggest It's cake.

No idea on those figures.

Though I’ve yet to see a study where behaviour and market changes post departure are counted for anything, all the studies assume we just carry on as now but not members.

[Longshanks]

Are the EU softening their position?

"But this is not to say that we would require the UK to follow us every time we decide to raise our level of ambition, for example, in the environmental field. They would remain free - sovereign if you wish - to decide what they want to do. We would simply set the conditions for access to our market."

Might be nothing and probably still no deal, but could be an opening.

[Bimbowomxn]

Are the EU softening their position?

"But this is not to say that we would require the UK to follow us every time we decide to raise our level of ambition, for example, in the environmental field. They would remain free - sovereign if you wish - to decide what they want to do. We would simply set the conditions for access to our market."

Might be nothing and probably still no deal, but could be an opening.

It’s the absolute arrogance of admitting in some issues we wouldn’t be “free” .

[ASMO]

Are the EU softening their position?

"But this is not to say that we would require the UK to follow us every time we decide to raise our level of ambition, for example, in the environmental field. They would remain free - sovereign if you wish - to decide what they want to do. We would simply set the conditions for access to our market."

Might be nothing and probably still no deal, but could be an opening.

It’s the absolute arrogance of admitting in some issues we wouldn’t be “free” .

You want to come into my house, i set the rules on entry, if you dont want to follow them, you cant come in, thats not arrogance, its my house, my rules.

[ScarfaceClaw]

What happens to international refs? Do they now need work visas?

[ASMO]

What happens to international refs? Do they now need work visas?

I would imagine there will be some sort of waiver, do musicians on tour need one? Actors filming on location?

[Bimbowomxn]

Are the EU softening their position?


Might be nothing and probably still no deal, but could be an opening.

It’s the absolute arrogance of admitting in some issues we wouldn’t be “free” .

You want to come into my house, i set the rules on entry, if you dont want to follow them, you cant come in, thats not arrogance, its my house, my rules.

Indeed, that’s almost exactly the point. It’s YOUR house they are saying isn’t free.


This is giving your neighbour control over the laws in your house...

[ASMO]

Not quite, you want to trade on equal terms as members do, you need to follow same rules as members do, you cant simply pick and choose which bits you want to comply with and which not....especially as some of the ones you dont want to comply with would potentially give you a competetive advantage over members .

[fishfoodie]

What happens to international refs? Do they now need work visas?

I would imagine there will be some sort of waiver, do musicians on tour need one? Actors filming on location?

Nope, they'll need a work visa like anyone else from a 3rd Country; & musicians will also have to deal with all the transportation hassles around moving instruments & equipment.

[Bimbowomxn]

Not quite, you want to trade on equal terms as members do, you need to follow same rules as members do, you cant simply pick and choose which bits you want to comply with and which not....especially as some of the ones you dont want to comply with would potentially give you a competetive advantage over members .

We don’t want to trade on equal terms with members, we want the same rights as Canada or Japan.....


Why aren’t Canada and Japan competitive ?

[Longshanks]

4 Royal Navy boats to be used to protect UK fishing waters from European poachers after Jan 1st.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... eal-brexit

[Insane_Homer]

[Sandstorm]

Not quite, you want to trade on equal terms as members do, you need to follow same rules as members do, you cant simply pick and choose which bits you want to comply with and which not....especially as some of the ones you dont want to comply with would potentially give you a competetive advantage over members .

We don’t want to trade on equal terms with members, we want the same rights as Canada or Japan.....


Why aren’t Canada and Japan competitive ?

They are competitive. But that level is where they’ve been for many years. The UK is about to go from EU membership with great rates of trade to a level several steps lower. Profits will fall short-term. That’ll hurt.

The problem is the Brexiteers lied and said there’s no reduction in profits. In fact they said it’d be increased money for everyone. Total bollocks.

[Bimbowomxn]

Not quite, you want to trade on equal terms as members do, you need to follow same rules as members do, you cant simply pick and choose which bits you want to comply with and which not....especially as some of the ones you dont want to comply with would potentially give you a competetive advantage over members .

We don’t want to trade on equal terms with members, we want the same rights as Canada or Japan.....


Why aren’t Canada and Japan competitive ?

They are competitive. But that level is where they’ve been for many years. The UK is about to go from EU membership with great rates of trade to a level several steps lower. Profits will fall short-term. That’ll hurt.

The problem is the Brexiteers lied and said there’s no reduction in profits. In fact they said it’d be increased money for everyone. Total bollocks.

Wrong end of the stick award right here.

[Wyndham Upalot]

Defence sales will always generate a different outcome, regardless of location, and somewhat detached from the the norm. Just to offer a simplistic overview from cheeseland; I'm so far doing ok for a 'UK' based supplier, however it's very clear that we're predicting an uncertain period ahead. Vague ambiguity I know, but generally, we're foreseeing about a 20% dive ... not ideal.

[Rinkals]

Conversely, the UK wants to be granted full access to the EU without having to go through the rigours or the cost of membership. As in more 'Cake'.

No, it doesn't and has been explicit on this - indeed the rationale for rejecting LPF ratchets and EU court oversight is that we are not asking for full access. You know this

I'm drawing a distinction between what each side wants.

If you edit my post to remove the context, it may help you win on the internet, but it doesn't really advance the discussion.

The original point was this:
" this is a negotiation where both parties want the best for their own members".

I said that there was a fine distinction to be drawn; namely that the UK might want to get the best deal possible for their voters, but that the EU had to find the solution which was the least damaging for the 27 remaining members.

By way of example, I said that the EU could, if they wanted to, grant the UK the full access to the European Market without restriction.

This is clearly what David Davies, RM and others thought would happen because they saw no reason why the EU wouldn't as "we hold all the cards".

My point was that the EU cannot afford to grant this access because doing so would be very damaging to the EU.

So, on the one hand the point about getting "the best for their own members" may be true for the UK, but it doesn't really hold for the EU because the EU isn't looking for the "best deal" but it's looking for the least damaging deal.

It's a very subtle distinction, but I think it's worth bearing in mind.