NPR

Re. the level playing field and regulations stuff - when you push brexit advocates what it is they're talking about when it comes to cutting red tape, they will generally waffle about something for a while and then if you push the, it eventually comes to workers rights, environmental protection and food standards. Any idea that it's just far right loons that want to cut those is wrong - it's far more common than that. This is the fundamental problem that some businesses have with the EU - the courts and laws are set up to favour the individual's rights over the company's.

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:00 pm
But that is my question - does the UK have an option - either adopt the EU standards as per the 'dynamic ratchet' or else just accept there will be tariffs imposed on the goods/services in question?

The UK doesn't have an option. We have to follow changing EU standards if we want to sell food/products in the EU.

I don't think they'll raise tariffs, they'll just ban the sub-standard digger or cheese completely. So we can sell everything to Chile and Indonesia instead.

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:17 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:06 am

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:42 am

I get the emotive feeling about sovereignty, but a deal with conditions is better than no deal imo.
However, Britain will survive no deal, its the first 6 months that will be the hardest.

I'd much rather have a deal but don't agree that if there is no compromise on these three issues that Boris should cave. Not expecting everything but these aren't unreasonable sticking points.

Level playing field question. The EU, if we want to have tariff and quota free access, want us to stick to the standards they set in their EU market to avoid us undercutting them in the future. I understand that and if in their shoes I would do the same. Is it not the case that the UK then has an option - either adopt the same standards as the EU or else if we dont accept we will have tariffs placed on those goods affected? This also seems a reasonable ask, if not then the EU is in effect giving the UK carte blanche to change standards in the future in order to lower costs and sell at a lower price than the EU companies. IS this actually the case, need my simple mind to understand this!

What it effectively boils down to is the EU accepting that the companies in the UK that are exporting to them are operating to the standards of equivalence to those in the EU. If this is recognised then the companies doing the exporting will have less administration to go through, it is not about the tariffs that is separate from this. If they accept this there will be less checks and balances required to continue selling into the EU. We havent been given any indication on how much less checks will be required though!

What this will ultimately do it make it far harder for the smaller companies to continue trading with the EU as they will struggle with the admin, bigger companies might need to add extra admin staff to handle it but they are probably well used to sending stuff all over the world where we dont have trade deals anyway and the extra staff for them is a rounding error, nothing to get excited about. In summary bad, possibly terminal, if you are a small company heavily focused on exporting to the EU.

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:41 am Sniping every time one is signed is just weird.

“Fifty five years after Singapore’s independence, the UK is re-emerging as a fully independent nation, and a major force in global trade,” Truss said during the signing ceremony.

Pretending the rollover over of a £17bn trade deal is a massive win is duplicitous.

Sounds like UK have rejected the EU plans for no deal on fish. (Not really a surprise)

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:27 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:00 pm
But that is my question - does the UK have an option - either adopt the EU standards as per the 'dynamic ratchet' or else just accept there will be tariffs imposed on the goods/services in question?

The UK doesn't have an option. We have to follow changing EU standards if we want to sell food/products in the EU.

I don't think they'll raise tariffs, they'll just ban the sub-standard digger or cheese completely. So we can sell everything to Chile and Indonesia instead.

Gets more complicated then.

Does it depend on which standards we are not complying with? I can see the argument of not accepting goods or products, like cheese, for food standards, its the same issue we have with an FTA with the US and accepting their chlorinated chicken and wider poor standards in agriculture. However if it is about state subsidies to an industry, lets say to JCB to use your example, would the EU not just impose tariffs to ensure there is a level playing field?

Interestingly if we have no deal and revert to WTO terms the WTO holds the right to impose tariffs if a state does not follow its rules. I think we also have similar clauses in other extant FTAs. So what is the difference between the EU and the WTO and other FTA positions?

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:12 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:27 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:00 pm
But that is my question - does the UK have an option - either adopt the EU standards as per the 'dynamic ratchet' or else just accept there will be tariffs imposed on the goods/services in question?

The UK doesn't have an option. We have to follow changing EU standards if we want to sell food/products in the EU.

I don't think they'll raise tariffs, they'll just ban the sub-standard digger or cheese completely. So we can sell everything to Chile and Indonesia instead.

Gets more complicated then.

Does it depend on which standards we are not complying with? I can see the argument of not accepting goods or products, like cheese, for food standards, its the same issue we have with an FTA with the US and accepting their chlorinated chicken and wider poor standards in agriculture. However if it is about state subsidies to an industry, lets say to JCB to use your example, would the EU not just impose tariffs to ensure there is a level playing field?

Interestingly if we have no deal and revert to WTO terms the WTO holds the right to impose tariffs if a state does not follow its rules. I think we also have similar clauses in other extant FTAs. So what is the difference between the EU and the WTO and other FTA positions?

Case raised at the WTO and tariffs levied on the back of that, see the Airbus/Boing dispute between the EU/US as an example of what happens. They then cherry pick goods that would "hurt" us the most to apply tariffs against. It's not the WTO that applies the tariffs they just rule on whether countries/EU etc have been naughty.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:07 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:12 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:27 pm

The UK doesn't have an option. We have to follow changing EU standards if we want to sell food/products in the EU.

I don't think they'll raise tariffs, they'll just ban the sub-standard digger or cheese completely. So we can sell everything to Chile and Indonesia instead.

Gets more complicated then.

Does it depend on which standards we are not complying with? I can see the argument of not accepting goods or products, like cheese, for food standards, its the same issue we have with an FTA with the US and accepting their chlorinated chicken and wider poor standards in agriculture. However if it is about state subsidies to an industry, lets say to JCB to use your example, would the EU not just impose tariffs to ensure there is a level playing field?

Interestingly if we have no deal and revert to WTO terms the WTO holds the right to impose tariffs if a state does not follow its rules. I think we also have similar clauses in other extant FTAs. So what is the difference between the EU and the WTO and other FTA positions?

Case raised at the WTO and tariffs levied on the back of that, see the Airbus/Boing dispute between the EU/US as an example of what happens. They then cherry pick goods that would "hurt" us the most to apply tariffs against. It's not the WTO that applies the tariffs they just rule on whether countries/EU etc have been naughty.

OK but I presume the WTO members are required by their WTO membership to apply the tariffs once the WTO decides a country has been naughty? Or can a WTO member decide not to apply a tariff that the WTO has deemed required due to breach of their terms/regulations?

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:28 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:07 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:12 pm

Gets more complicated then.

Does it depend on which standards we are not complying with? I can see the argument of not accepting goods or products, like cheese, for food standards, its the same issue we have with an FTA with the US and accepting their chlorinated chicken and wider poor standards in agriculture. However if it is about state subsidies to an industry, lets say to JCB to use your example, would the EU not just impose tariffs to ensure there is a level playing field?

Interestingly if we have no deal and revert to WTO terms the WTO holds the right to impose tariffs if a state does not follow its rules. I think we also have similar clauses in other extant FTAs. So what is the difference between the EU and the WTO and other FTA positions?

Case raised at the WTO and tariffs levied on the back of that, see the Airbus/Boing dispute between the EU/US as an example of what happens. They then cherry pick goods that would "hurt" us the most to apply tariffs against. It's not the WTO that applies the tariffs they just rule on whether countries/EU etc have been naughty.

OK but I presume the WTO members are required by their WTO membership to apply the tariffs once the WTO decides a country has been naughty? Or can a WTO member decide not to apply a tariff that the WTO has deemed required due to breach of their terms/regulations?

Nope, quite often they chuck tariffs on before there is a ruling. This of course is then challenged by the country that has had tariffs levied against it. It takes years for WTO disputes to ruled on so they dont wait around for it.

It is up to the country if they want to not apply a tariff on any good at any time. The WTO rules is meant to stop countries punishing anotehr country just because they dont like them. So if you put a tariff on lamb to protect you industry it is the same for every country that exports to you unless you sign and ratify a trade agreement with anoterh a country. So you can levy say lamb at 8% everyone has that tariff applied to them, you sign a trade agreement with NZ that you agree at 0% that is all good, everyone else stays on 8%. You cant turn round and say Oz is at 15% just because you want to.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:56 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:28 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:07 pm

Case raised at the WTO and tariffs levied on the back of that, see the Airbus/Boing dispute between the EU/US as an example of what happens. They then cherry pick goods that would "hurt" us the most to apply tariffs against. It's not the WTO that applies the tariffs they just rule on whether countries/EU etc have been naughty.

OK but I presume the WTO members are required by their WTO membership to apply the tariffs once the WTO decides a country has been naughty? Or can a WTO member decide not to apply a tariff that the WTO has deemed required due to breach of their terms/regulations?

Nope, quite often they chuck tariffs on before there is a ruling. This of course is then challenged by the country that has had tariffs levied against it. It takes years for WTO disputes to ruled on so they dont wait around for it.

It is up to the country if they want to not apply a tariff on any good at any time. The WTO rules is meant to stop countries punishing anotehr country just because they dont like them. So if you put a tariff on lamb to protect you industry it is the same for every country that exports to you unless you sign and ratify a trade agreement with anoterh a country. So you can levy say lamb at 8% everyone has that tariff applied to them, you sign a trade agreement with NZ that you agree at 0% that is all good, everyone else stays on 8%. You cant turn round and say Oz is at 15% just because you want to.

Crikey, it almost sounds as though WTO membership results in a loss of sovereignty.

Crikey, it almost sounds as though WTO membership results in a loss of sovereignty.

No it doesn’t.

It is up to the country if they want to not apply a tariff on any good at any time.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:27 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:00 pm
But that is my question - does the UK have an option - either adopt the EU standards as per the 'dynamic ratchet' or else just accept there will be tariffs imposed on the goods/services in question?

The UK doesn't have an option. We have to follow changing EU standards if we want to sell food/products in the EU.

I don't think they'll raise tariffs, they'll just ban the sub-standard digger or cheese completely. So we can sell everything to Chile and Indonesia instead.

The UK has every option.

We have to follow the standards on the food/ products actually being exported, we have no need to impose those standards internally or for export to another non EU market.

The EU “standards” cannot be arbitrarily set for one nation only, China , US etc all export to the EU. We will be the same as those countries.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:34 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:17 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:06 am

I'd much rather have a deal but don't agree that if there is no compromise on these three issues that Boris should cave. Not expecting everything but these aren't unreasonable sticking points.

Level playing field question. The EU, if we want to have tariff and quota free access, want us to stick to the standards they set in their EU market to avoid us undercutting them in the future. I understand that and if in their shoes I would do the same. Is it not the case that the UK then has an option - either adopt the same standards as the EU or else if we dont accept we will have tariffs placed on those goods affected? This also seems a reasonable ask, if not then the EU is in effect giving the UK carte blanche to change standards in the future in order to lower costs and sell at a lower price than the EU companies. IS this actually the case, need my simple mind to understand this!

A level playing field is fair and I don't think either side is really disputing it. The dispute is more focussed on the fact that the EU wants a 'ratchet' - i.e. the UK must change standards as the EU does, which is a separate issue.

The UK are willing to sign up to no regression which is very much the norm in trade deals, the EU wants obeyance of any future standards they want to set. They know that the UK can not agree to this , they are driving no deal. Fuck 'em

Brilliant, 11 months to get ~28 agreements rolled over, so we can at best be in exactly the same trade position as our EU membership

Much better than the “North Korea “ we were constantly told we’d be.

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:29 pm

Crikey, it almost sounds as though WTO membership results in a loss of sovereignty.

Any deal does. However it's not irrelevant we'd be more directly deciding ourselves, that is more sovereignty. The bigger and weirder problem is who will set the standards that come in place around the globe, we've 3 groups who'll drive that, the USA, China and the EU, and until now we were a big influence on one of the big setters of global standards that will massively influence the coming decades.

So what do we do, hitch ourselves to the USA or China, both of whom we're less likely to want to see driving standards than the EU. Or try to stay with the EU having given away our position of significant influence? And we're not even giving away our influence for free, we're actively paying to have less influence given this whole will shrink our economy.

People go on about easiest deal in history etc What Liam Fox, actually said:

“The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history. We are already beginning with zero tariffs, and we are already beginning at the point of maximal regulatory equivalence, as it is called. In other words, our rules and our laws are exactly the same. The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics,”

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:35 pm

Crikey, it almost sounds as though WTO membership results in a loss of sovereignty.

No it doesn’t.

It is up to the country if they want to not apply a tariff on any good at any time.

So no rules then: you can just apply any tariff you want.

Glad you cleared that up as I was wondering.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:35 pm

Crikey, it almost sounds as though WTO membership results in a loss of sovereignty.

No it doesn’t.

It is up to the country if they want to not apply a tariff on any good at any time.

Oh ok. What about the bit where it says "You can't turn round and say Oz is at 15% just because you want to"?

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:23 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:35 pm

Crikey, it almost sounds as though WTO membership results in a loss of sovereignty.

No it doesn’t.

It is up to the country if they want to not apply a tariff on any good at any time.

Oh ok. What about the bit where it says "You can't turn round and say Oz is at 15% just because you want to"?

Not within the rules, but any country can do anything they like.

westport wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:59 pm People go on about easiest deal in history etc What Liam Fox, actually said:

“The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history. We are already beginning with zero tariffs, and we are already beginning at the point of maximal regulatory equivalence, as it is called. In other words, our rules and our laws are exactly the same. The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics,”

It was embarrassingly stupid then and now, curse his little cottons

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:21 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:29 pm

Crikey, it almost sounds as though WTO membership results in a loss of sovereignty.

Any deal does. However it's not irrelevant we'd be more directly deciding ourselves, that is more sovereignty. The bigger and weirder problem is who will set the standards that come in place around the globe, we've 3 groups who'll drive that, the USA, China and the EU, and until now we were a big influence on one of the big setters of global standards that will massively influence the coming decades.

So what do we do, hitch ourselves to the USA or China, both of whom we're less likely to want to see driving standards than the EU. Or try to stay with the EU having given away our position of significant influence? And we're not even giving away our influence for free, we're actively paying to have less influence given this whole will shrink our economy.

What on earth do you mean , these aren’t binary choices.


Oh and Chinese standards.

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:56 pm Sounds like UK have rejected the EU plans for no deal on fish. (Not really a surprise)

If that is going to be case; Dominic Raab will find out by the end of January just how important Dover is to England.

I'd expect French fishermen to blockade all UK ferries entering French & Belgian ports, & I'd also expect the Gendarmes to go over every truck coming off those ferries, & those coming out the Chunnel; with a fine tooth comb

If there's any Nation that can do blockades, it's France.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:12 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:56 pm Sounds like UK have rejected the EU plans for no deal on fish. (Not really a surprise)

If that is going to be case; Dominic Raab will find out by the end of January just how important Dover is to England.

I'd expect French fishermen to blockade all UK ferries entering French & Belgian ports, & I'd also expect the Gendarmes to go over every truck coming off those ferries, & those coming out the Chunnel; with a fine tooth comb

If there's any Nation that can do blockades, it's France.

I think they might offer a compromise, but not continued unfettered access as it is.
As for the threat, French gonna French, but you wouldn't expect any government to give into that.
Anyway, genuinely believe the only way a deal happens is if the EU changes its red lines. Boris seems adamant tonight that no deal is virtually certain and has just told everyone to prepare.

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:30 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:12 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:56 pm Sounds like UK have rejected the EU plans for no deal on fish. (Not really a surprise)

If that is going to be case; Dominic Raab will find out by the end of January just how important Dover is to England.

I'd expect French fishermen to blockade all UK ferries entering French & Belgian ports, & I'd also expect the Gendarmes to go over every truck coming off those ferries, & those coming out the Chunnel; with a fine tooth comb

If there's any Nation that can do blockades, it's France.

I think they might offer a compromise, but not continued unfettered access as it is.
As for the threat, French gonna French, but you wouldn't expect any government to give into that.
Anyway, genuinely believe the only way a deal happens is if the EU changes its red lines. Boris seems adamant tonight that no deal is virtually certain and has just told everyone to prepare.

Yeah; but we're not talking about red lines around the deal anymore; we're talking about an offer from the EU27 on how the two sides can avoid pain; ON BOTH SIDES; with some interim trade off with the EU offering access to UK airlines, & Hauliers, & in return it's asking for a 1 year period; or less if a deal can be done on fishing.

The UK is under no obligation to do this; but ditto; the EU is under no obligation to allow one UK trucker into the EU. It's a trade-off to avoid further poisoning the atmosphere; because the talks will continue in January; & the less acrimony in the air when they do resume; the faster a deal will happen.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:42 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:30 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:12 pm


If that is going to be case; Dominic Raab will find out by the end of January just how important Dover is to England.

I'd expect French fishermen to blockade all UK ferries entering French & Belgian ports, & I'd also expect the Gendarmes to go over every truck coming off those ferries, & those coming out the Chunnel; with a fine tooth comb

If there's any Nation that can do blockades, it's France.

I think they might offer a compromise, but not continued unfettered access as it is.
As for the threat, French gonna French, but you wouldn't expect any government to give into that.
Anyway, genuinely believe the only way a deal happens is if the EU changes its red lines. Boris seems adamant tonight that no deal is virtually certain and has just told everyone to prepare.

Yeah; but we're not talking about red lines around the deal anymore; we're talking about an offer from the EU27 on how the two sides can avoid pain; ON BOTH SIDES; with some interim trade off with the EU offering access to UK airlines, & Hauliers, & in return it's asking for a 1 year period; or less if a deal can be done on fishing.

The UK is under no obligation to do this; but ditto; the EU is under no obligation to allow one UK trucker into the EU. It's a trade-off to avoid further poisoning the atmosphere; because the talks will continue in January; & the less acrimony in the air when they do resume; the faster a deal will happen.

As you know I want a deal.
If I was offered this for no deal I'd accept.
With this arrangement no deal suddenly doesn't look as scary (you can understand why the EU didn't want to publish this as it does undermine their position), after all it was the first 3 months of no deal that was the biggest concern. But the response indicated the UK will probably not accept the deal on fish.... sadly.

Boris wanking on about "Australia terms", the disingenuous spunkbucket

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:12 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:56 pm Sounds like UK have rejected the EU plans for no deal on fish. (Not really a surprise)

If that is going to be case; Dominic Raab will find out by the end of January just how important Dover is to England.

I'd expect French fishermen to blockade all UK ferries entering French & Belgian ports, & I'd also expect the Gendarmes to go over every truck coming off those ferries, & those coming out the Chunnel; with a fine tooth comb

If there's any Nation that can do blockades, it's France.

Rotterdam certainly thinks this is a good thing.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:15 pm Boris wanking on about "Australia terms", the disingenuous spunkbucket

Failure of statecraft, wasn't it?

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:23 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:35 pm

Crikey, it almost sounds as though WTO membership results in a loss of sovereignty.

No it doesn’t.

It is up to the country if they want to not apply a tariff on any good at any time.

Oh ok. What about the bit where it says "You can't turn round and say Oz is at 15% just because you want to"?

It’s more you can’t pick on Oz as an example and leave everyone else at the lower rate unless they have transgressed you in another way by subsidising their industry that adversely affects your own. See EU/US shot fight on planes and why the US is currently taxing whisky in retaliation.

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.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:15 pm Boris wanking on about "Australia terms", the disingenuous spunkbucket

I think this is a fundamental failure that the Brexiters can't understand.

Australia (and, to a lesser degree, Canada) are not right on Europe's doorstep.

Rinkals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:01 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:15 pm Boris wanking on about "Australia terms", the disingenuous spunkbucket

I think this is a fundamental failure that the Brexiters can't understand.

Australia (and, to a lesser degree, Canada) are not right on Europe's doorstep.

They understand it perfectly well; but they pretend equivalence to make the EU look like the baddies to the fools who believe them, & voted for them on the strength of their lies.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:37 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:01 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:15 pm Boris wanking on about "Australia terms", the disingenuous spunkbucket

I think this is a fundamental failure that the Brexiters can't understand.

Australia (and, to a lesser degree, Canada) are not right on Europe's doorstep.

They understand it perfectly well; but they pretend equivalence to make the EU look like the baddies to the fools who believe them, & voted for them on the strength of their lies.

Can someone flesh out this tenuous nonsense that the geographic proximity of the UK means that a standard FTA (ala Canada) cannot be done? It's so dishonest and transparent in its motives, particularly when stacked against the alternative outcome; you're too big and important for a standard FTA so we're going to take WTO instead. It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:06 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:37 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:01 pm

I think this is a fundamental failure that the Brexiters can't understand.

Australia (and, to a lesser degree, Canada) are not right on Europe's doorstep.

They understand it perfectly well; but they pretend equivalence to make the EU look like the baddies to the fools who believe them, & voted for them on the strength of their lies.

Can someone flesh out this tenuous nonsense that the geographic proximity of the UK means that a standard FTA (ala Canada) cannot be done? It's so dishonest and transparent in its motives, particularly when stacked against the alternative outcome; you're too big and important for a standard FTA so we're going to take WTO instead. It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"These cows are small Dougal, those are very far away !"

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:18 pm

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:06 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:37 pm

They understand it perfectly well; but they pretend equivalence to make the EU look like the baddies to the fools who believe them, & voted for them on the strength of their lies.

Can someone flesh out this tenuous nonsense that the geographic proximity of the UK means that a standard FTA (ala Canada) cannot be done? It's so dishonest and transparent in its motives, particularly when stacked against the alternative outcome; you're too big and important for a standard FTA so we're going to take WTO instead. It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"These cows are small Dougal, those are very far away !"

A nice bubble chart but irrelevant to my question.

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

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:51 pm 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.

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:20 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:18 pm

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:06 pm

Can someone flesh out this tenuous nonsense that the geographic proximity of the UK means that a standard FTA (ala Canada) cannot be done? It's so dishonest and transparent in its motives, particularly when stacked against the alternative outcome; you're too big and important for a standard FTA so we're going to take WTO instead. It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"These cows are small Dougal, those are very far away !"

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 ?

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:36 pm

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:20 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:18 pm



"These cows are small Dougal, those are very far away !"

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 ?

Incredibly strange and tangential justification- what is the evidence that the UK won't 'police' them? Where is the evidence that the UK has not done so historically? Even if this is the case, is it worth throwing the baby out with the bath water?

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:36 pm

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:20 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:18 pm



"These cows are small Dougal, those are very far away !"

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?