NPR

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:43 pm

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

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

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?

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:53 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:43 pm

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

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.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:53 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:43 pm

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

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.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:06 pm He’s totally wrong as usual , the issue was the valuation on good arriving from China and the associated VAT.

But hey fentanyl

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:19 am 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 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:33 am

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:19 am 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.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:31 pm

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.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:52 am

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:33 am

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:19 am 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.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:52 am

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:33 am

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:19 am 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.

Longshanks wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:33 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:17 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:27 pm 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.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:30 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:52 am

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:33 am

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.

Rinkals wrote: 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 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:54 am

Rinkals wrote: 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.

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:54 am

Rinkals wrote: 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.

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:24 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:54 am

Rinkals wrote: 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 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:43 pm

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

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

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?

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:06 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:43 pm

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

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.

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'.

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:24 pm
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'.

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:18 pm 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.

Ursula wrote:"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."

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:26 pm Are the EU softening their position?

Ursula wrote:"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 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:30 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:26 pm Are the EU softening their position?

Ursula wrote:"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” .

ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:00 pm What happens to international refs? Do they now need work visas?

ASMO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:50 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:30 pm

Longshanks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:26 pm 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.

ASMO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:05 pm

ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:00 pm 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?

ASMO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:48 pm 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 .

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:13 pm

ASMO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:48 pm 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 ?

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:13 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:13 pm

ASMO wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:48 pm 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.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 3:58 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:24 pm
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