Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[devilish]

With respect, you're letting emotions cloud your judgement.

Thankfully, despite at times silly rhetoric, this is clearly not what is happening in the actual negotiations.

The UK isn't expecting anyone to work to its schedule. All it has said is that it won't extend the deadline beyond a year, not that a deal has to be signed by then. You will also notice that the EU has its own red lines, as is the case with any normal negotiation, whether its high level between countries or haggling at a local market.

The EU's own rhetoric, as well as that of individual member state leaders, show that they are rather less impressed with the prospect of no deal and the impact it would have on the European economy than you are and rightly so. Not coming to an agreement would be very harmful for both sides, not just the UK.

Scotland is of course welcome to claim independence (if they can actually get it over the line) but it would certainly very interesting to see how they would untangle themselves from the UK, considering they are economically, socially and culturally far more intertwined with the UK than the UK ever were with the EU. And we've all seen the clusterfeck that was the last few years in terms of trying to untangle.

The EU will not storm out of any negotiations and I think frankly you rather misunderstand the motivations of many people who voted to leave the EU if you think that the government would go crawling back to the EU if they did, whether that would be harmful to the economy or not.

The UK had used the same old trick of setting a horde of red lines pretty early in the negotiations only to portray the EU as being unreasonable. In fact it refuses to extend the transition period or to accept a level playing field in terms of the environment, legislation etc. The only difference between now and then is that the UK is now outside the EU with no say on the matter whatsoever. Now its normal for trade talks to freeze which is why the trade deals takes years to complete. That what happened with the US-EU trade talks for example. So the EU should just let the UK slide into a no deal Brexit up until it come back to their senses and return on the negotiating table with more realistic terms. In the meantime the UK can still deal with the EU on WTO terms just like other third countries with no trade deals with the EU do.

Regarding the EU, I think it committed a rare but significant mistake when it spoke about a Canada like trade deal with the UK. That wasn't possible with a significant market such as the UK which is so close to the EU. That doesn't mean that the EU should accept that now.

A no deal Brexit would hurt the UK far more then it would hurt the EU which is why the UK won't let that happen. That would spell the end of the Tory Party, it will provide the SNP the perfect excuse to leave the UK and a hit to the EU's economy will harden the European's stance against the UK even further as this recession is not our doing. What the EU can't afford to do is to let a rogue third country, a spit away from the EU, to have a trap door into the single market. Which is why it must make sure that the deal made is in the EU terms and is vastly inferior to that of EU membership

 

[africanspur]

But originally in the first round it was in the low 20s as were most of the parties. Only when it became a 2 horse race in the second round did it go up to 30+ because some didn't want Macron. If she hadn't got through to the second round, you wouldn't say that she got zero votes in France either.
No-one has said that there are not problems in other countries. Of course there are Eurosceptics in France. Of course there are stupid people who believe all the nonsense. Social media is a problem but at least we don't get much tabloid press ramming the bias down people's throats and Le Pen is rather seen as an object of ridicule. Her mate in the 2017 election behind the policies left and joined the Gilet Jaunes for the Euro elections and got less than 1%

What hasn't helped the UK is that when people are asked why they voted leave and what the benefits would be, you can't get a coherent answer other than immigrants have taken all our jobs or suchlike. All other responses are usually complete drivel and nonsense and lies.

Whether people voted for it or not, it's happened - now the nonsense has to stop and the Uk has to live in the real world which it still does not seem to want to do.

That is a very optimistic way of looking at it. She got low 20s because that is the nature of a multi candidate presidential election. The other, more disturbing way of looking at it of course is that she came 2nd in the 1st round as well, only 2.5% behind Macron, who got 24%. The fact she got to the 2nd round is the concerning part, not how many votes she got then.

All of the other candidates, other than Melenchon iirc, then urged their voters not to vote for her to stop a fascist essentially from becoming president of France.

I also don't see how you can say she is an object of ridicule in France, when the party came 3rd in 2012 with 18%, 4th with 10% in 2007 and 2nd with 17% in 2002 (all 1st round results). Her party came 1st in the 2014 and 2019 European elections. Has been slowly increasing the share of the parliament as well in the last 3 elections.

This isn't a niche party like the BNP, they are getting an average of 1 in every 6 voters in the French presidential elections. For an openly fascist party with a bow on top.

In what way do you think the UK is currently not living in the real world? Despite being a remainer myself, I've at least seen the government attempt to a) suggest some domestic policies and b) set out their EU policy. They are essentially trying to move on with things. Whether the agreements are signed off course is another thing.

This is in stark contrast to here, with constant, unhelpful wailing from all about what has happened in the past.

 

[nimic]

But originally in the first round it was in the low 20s as were most of the parties. Only when it became a 2 horse race in the second round did it go up to 30+ because some didn't want Macron. If she hadn't got through to the second round, you wouldn't say that she got zero votes in France either.

I don't really buy this line of reasoning. It would be wrong to say she got zero votes in France, simply because she didn't get zero votes in France. But it's not wrong to say she got 30%+ votes because she did. No one was forced to vote for her in the second round. It'd be like absolving half of the Trump voters for voting for him because they hadn't voted for him in the GOP primaries.

 

[africanspur]

The UK had used the same old trick of setting a horde of red lines pretty early in the negotiations only to portray the EU as being unreasonable. In fact it refuses to extend the transition period or to accept a level playing field in terms of the environment, legislation etc. The only difference between now and then is that the UK is now outside the EU with no say on the matter whatsoever. Its normal for trade talks to freeze which is why the trade deals takes years to complete. That what happened with the US-EU trade talks for example. So the EU should just let the UK slide into a no deal Brexit up until it come back to their senses. I suspect that the EU is slightly more equipped for a non deal Brexit then the UK is.

Regarding the EU, I think it committed a rare but significant mistake when it spoke about a Canada like trade deal with the UK. That wasn't possible with a significant market such as the UK which is so close to the EU. That doesn't mean that the EU should accept that now.

Can you outline the UK red lines and then the EU red lines and why you think the UK ones are a 'horde' and the EU ones reasonable and small in number?

You are right of course in that trade talks usually talk a long time to do, which is why I personally think a year is a ridiculous time by the government. The difference of course being that those are two wholly different markets trying to converge, as opposed to two already convergent markets trying to ascertain how much they're happy to diverge. The status quo, the baseline, is already an agreed upon trade agreement.

I also suspect the EU is more equipped for a no deal Brexit but it would be harmful for both sides. Both the UK and the EU sliding into recession, especially if corona affects the economies of China, Japan, Korea and the USA (all very possible) benefits literally nobody.

I don't think it was a mistake, in the same way it wasn't a mistake for the UK to suggest similar regarding Norway, Canada, Switzerland etc. Their point is not necessarily to copy those agreements word for word but that they feel a trade agreement which is non templated may be a possibility.

Of course, the EU may disagree and in that case, we'll see how things play out.

What I am sure of is that

1) The EU does not want no deal (and I'm sure Boris doesn't either).
2) You fundamentally misunderstand the political climate of the UK currently, whether that is correct or not, if you think it would be politically acceptable for Boris to go 'crawling to the EU for a deal'.
3) A year is a fecking stupid amount of time for this and Boris and the Tories are a bunch of turds.
4) Whatever happens by December 2020 will not be the end of the story.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I don't really buy this line of reasoning. It would be wrong to say she got zero votes in France, simply because she didn't get zero votes in France. But it's not wrong to say she got 30%+ votes because she did. No one was forced to vote for her in the second round. It'd be like absolving half of the Trump voters for voting for him because they hadn't voted for him in the GOP primaries.

There are people who don't like Macron and people voted against him. So did she get zero , 20 or 30. How many voted for the Tories in the UK , I suspect more than a third on a clear anti-Eu and anti immigrant agenda.

 

[africanspur]

There are people who don't like Macron and people voted against him. So did she get zero , 20 or 30. How many voted for the Tories in the UK , I suspect more than a third on a clear anti-Eu and anti immigrant agenda.

Macron is a centrist. Le Pen and (especially) her dad are openly fascist. As I said, she and her dad have been getting an average of 1 in 6 voters for the last few elections and have won the last 2 European elections.

She got 21.5%, more than anyone other then Macron in the 1st round and then 33% in the 2nd round, when the whole of the political establishment in France turned against her in fear.

This is how such elections work in rounds. You don't generally get someone with 50-60% in the 1st round.

The Tories are also not even slightly comparable to the FN.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

That is a very optimistic way of looking at it. She got low 20s because that is the nature of a multi candidate presidential election. The other, more disturbing way of looking at it of course is that she came 2nd in the 1st round as well, only 2.5% behind Macron, who got 24%. The fact she got to the 2nd round is the concerning part, not how many votes she got then.

All of the other candidates, other than Melenchon iirc, then urged their voters not to vote for her to stop a fascist essentially from becoming president of France.

I also don't see how you can say she is an object of ridicule in France, when the party came 3rd in 2012 with 18%, 4th with 10% in 2007 and 2nd with 17% in 2002 (all 1st round results). Her party came 1st in the 2014 and 2019 European elections. Has been slowly increasing the share of the parliament as well in the last 3 elections.

This isn't a niche party like the BNP, they are getting an average of 1 in every 6 voters in the French presidential elections. For an openly fascist party with a bow on top.

In what way do you think the UK is currently not living in the real world? Despite being a remainer myself, I've at least seen the government attempt to a) suggest some domestic policies and b) set out their EU policy. They are essentially trying to move on with things. Whether the agreements are signed off course is another thing.

This is in stark contrast to here, with constant, unhelpful wailing from all about what has happened in the past.

If Fillon hadn't cocked up, him and Macron would probably have made the 2nd round, reasons I've already given.
She s an object of ridicule because of her poor intelligence. Of course she will have a following amongst her core support. She's even had to change the name of the party.
Melenchon hates her even more than the rest.
UKIP and/or the Brexit Party have been openly fascist and have been rather successful in Euro elections and would have rather more seats in the UK parliament had it not been for the way the election system is in the UK.

Unless the UK wake up to the fact that the country is off the coast of mainland Europe and not off the coast of the USA, it's got big problems. All the reasons why it should not have voted to leave in 2016 are still the same in 2020 or 2021. Burying ones head in the sand and hoping for an impossibility is not going to change that.

 

[Full bodied red]

So far the only thing that has changed is that the UK has lost its vote.
Freedom to do what. You still have to abide by the same regulations to export to whichever country you export to, be it within the EU or Australia or wherever.

But isn 't that precisely what the millions of ' We want to stay in the Customs Union ' supporters were advoctaing and trying to block Brexit for ?

You make it sound as though this arrangement is stupid and people shouting for it obviously didn't know what they were shouting for.

On the other hand, it seems the stupidity might only be for another 12 months or so, not for ever and a day.

 

[Massive Spanner]

But isn 't that precisely what the millions of ' We want to stay in the Customs Union ' supporters were advoctaing and trying to block Brexit for ?

You make it sound as though this arrangement is stupid and people shouting for it obviously didn't know what they were shouting for.

On the other hand, it seems the stupidity might only be for another 12 months or so, not for ever and a day.

If it isn't clear to you from the last four years that this is in fact, very true, then you haven't been following Brexit close enough.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Macron is a centrist. Le Pen and (especially) her dad are openly fascist. As I said, she and her dad have been getting an average of 1 in 6 voters for the last few elections and have won the last 2 European elections.

She got 21.5%, more than anyone other then Macron in the 1st round and then 33% in the 2nd round, when the whole of the political establishment in France turned against her in fear.

This is how such elections work in rounds. You don't generally get someone with 50-60% in the 1st round.

The Tories are also not even slightly comparable to the FN.

Are you sure about that? Don't seem very different to me and the NF in the UK is not the same as the FN in France. 67% voted for Macron but then do 67% actually support Macron, you can't have it both ways.

 

[africanspur]

If Fillon hadn't cocked up, him and Macron would probably have made the 2nd round, reasons I've already given.
She s an object of ridicule because of her poor intelligence. Of course she will have a following amongst her core support. She's even had to change the name of the party.
Melenchon hates her even more than the rest.
UKIP and/or the Brexit Party have been openly fascist and have been rather successful in Euro elections and would have rather more seats in the UK parliament had it not been for the way the election system is in the UK.

Unless the UK wake up to the fact that the country is off the coast of mainland Europe and not off the coast of the USA, it's got big problems. All the reasons why it should not have voted to leave in 2016 are still the same in 2020 or 2021. Burying ones head in the sand and hoping for an impossibility is not going to change that.

It doesn't matter if other people had cocked up or not. 1 in 5 people in France saw fit to give her their vote in the 1st round. 1 in 3 in the 2nd. The average in the last few elections is 1 in every 6 French and her dad has also reached the 2nd round before. The point is that her core support is not that small and that she was clearly able to reach beyond her apparent core support last election. Nobody forced so many French to vote for her.

He may well do but unlike the rest, he refused to encourage his supporters to vote against her.

This is what I mean though. I know this is an English language board but with the amount of things micro-analysed on here and barely a whisper as to the stuff happening in other European countries.

The UK doesnt think its off the coast of the USA and I've never met anyone who thinks this. It is ridiculous to make these flippant comments and expect to have a reasonable conversation.

 

[devilish]

Can you outline the UK red lines and then the EU red lines and why you think the UK ones are a 'horde' and the EU ones reasonable and small in number?

You are right of course in that trade talks usually talk a long time to do, which is why I personally think a year is a ridiculous time by the government. The difference of course being that those are two wholly different markets trying to converge, as opposed to two already convergent markets trying to ascertain how much they're happy to diverge. The status quo, the baseline, is already an agreed upon trade agreement.

I also suspect the EU is more equipped for a no deal Brexit but it would be harmful for both sides. Both the UK and the EU sliding into recession, especially if corona affects the economies of China, Japan, Korea and the USA (all very possible) benefits literally nobody.

I don't think it was a mistake, in the same way it wasn't a mistake for the UK to suggest similar regarding Norway, Canada, Switzerland etc. Their point is not necessarily to copy those agreements word for word but that they feel a trade agreement which is non templated may be a possibility.

Of course, the EU may disagree and in that case, we'll see how things play out.

What I am sure of is that

1) The EU does not want no deal (and I'm sure Boris doesn't either).
2) You fundamentally misunderstand the political climate of the UK currently, whether that is correct or not, if you think it would be politically acceptable for Boris to go 'crawling to the EU for a deal'.
3) A year is a fecking stupid amount of time for this and Boris and the Tories are a bunch of turds.
4) Whatever happens by December 2020 will not be the end of the story.

The EU terms are

a- a level playing field for the EU and the UK in terms of environment, workers rights etc

UK's red lines are

a- the transition period to end by the end of this year
b- the UK to have independence on its borders, its standards, its legislation etc

But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the UK needs a deal with the EU far more then the EU needs a trade deal with the UK.

a- its a far bigger market
b- its the market which is closest to. No one, not even Trump and the US juggernaut had dared poisoning their neighbour's well as they know that its the market they depend mostly upon
c- The US congress had made it obvious that it will sink any deal made between the US-UK unless the GFA is respected. That can only be done with a trade deal between the UK and the EU.

This gives the EU plenty of clout over the UK. Which means that unlike the UK it can walk out of the negotiation table if it wants do, which, considering the UK's unrealistic demands and the hostile environment they had built throughout the years then, in my opinion, they should. Regarding the deals you mentioned, both Norway and Switzerland, accept ECJ supremacy and the level playing field the EU is insisting the UK to have. Canada on the other hand is far away from the EU market which means that the EU can be more lenient towards it then towards the UK whose literally a spit away from the EU market.


Regarding your comment

1- The EU has made it quite obvious that the integrity of the single market is far more important then all the benefits that a trade deal with the UK will bring
2- The UK is now a third country. The political climate there is as relevant to the EU as the political climate in Kenya, Haiti or the Vatican. What the EU should focus upon its the EU's best interest and that best interest is to safeguard the integrity of the single market. Any deal on top of that would be a bonus.
3- A year is basically peanuts when compared to the time needed to sign a trade deal. Thus its better for the EU to be tough now, leave the negotiating table and let the Brexiteers in their stew up until they return back to their senses. Unlike the previous negotiations, the EU can easily afford that as there's no risk of the UK digging its heels by revoking article 50 only to then cause trouble down the line
4- I think its time for the EU to treat this deal like any other trade deal it engages with ie it can be frozen up for years up until the other party becomes more 'accommodating'. The UK is not the EU concern anymore and we have far more problems to deal with then Brexit.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

But isn 't that precisely what the millions of ' We want to stay in the Customs Union ' supporters were advoctaing and trying to block Brexit for ?

You make it sound as though this arrangement is stupid and people shouting for it obviously didn't know what they were shouting for.

On the other hand, it seems the stupidity might only be for another 12 months or so, not for ever and a day.

Whether they are in the customs union or not they still have to comply with EU regulations if they want to ship goods to the EU last year, today or in 20 years time. Whether the UK is in the EU, in the customs union or an isolated country on its own it still has to comply with Australian import regulations to be able to ship goods to Australia.

 

[africanspur]

Are you sure about that? Don't seem very different to me and the NF in the UK is not the same as the FN in France. 67% voted for Macron but then do 67% actually support Macron, you can't have it both ways.

I didn't say the FN are the same as the NF in the UK. My comments are not based on a direct comparison of names but based on having read their leaders' proposals and views.

And yes, I am very sure about that. Anyone seriously comparing the Tories to the party of the Le Pens....I'm not too sure what to say to that if I'm honest.

How am I having it both ways? When did I say 67% actually support Macron? Or that 33% are core supporters of Le Pen? I specifically said she was clearly able to appeal to more than her very core base in the last election.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

4- I think its time for the EU to treat this deal like any other trade deal it engages with ie it can be frozen up for years up until the other party becomes more 'accommodating'. The UK is not the EU concern anymore and we have far more problems to deal with then Brexit.

But then the UK becomes the low tax, low regulation free port economy which is literally the whole reason for the EU's red lines on the matter.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It doesn't matter if other people had cocked up or not. 1 in 5 people in France saw fit to give her their vote in the 1st round. 1 in 3 in the 2nd. The average in the last few elections is 1 in every 6 French and her dad has also reached the 2nd round before. The point is that her core support is not that small and that she was clearly able to reach beyond her apparent core support last election. Nobody forced so many French to vote for her.

He may well do but unlike the rest, he refused to encourage his supporters to vote against her.

This is what I mean though. I know this is an English language board but with the amount of things micro-analysed on here and barely a whisper as to the stuff happening in other European countries.

The UK doesnt think its off the coast of the USA and I've never met anyone who thinks this. It is ridiculous to make these flippant comments and expect to have a reasonable conversation.

Who encouraged their supporters to vote for her. Not the Socialists or the Conservatives. Under your reasoning Macron has a 67% support base, he doesn't.

Brexit is being micro-analysed in this thread because it's the Brexit thread and it's about the UK leaving the EU. If other countries decide to be daft enough to do the same in the future I'm sure there will be a thread on that too.

It's unfortunately not a flippant comment, it's very serious and the most serious problem the UK will have. The really stupid comments are "we can trade with other nations" - and I'm not even talking about free trade agreements as such.

 

[africanspur]

The EU terms are

a- a level playing field for the EU and the UK in terms of environment, workers rights etc

UK's red lines are

a- the transition period to end by the end of this year
b- the UK to have independence on its borders, its standards, its legislation etc

But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the UK needs a deal with the EU far more then the EU needs a trade deal with the UK.

a- its a far bigger market
b- its the market which is closest to. No one, not even Trump and the US juggernaut had dared poisoning their neighbour's well as they know that its the market they depend mostly upon
c- The US congress had made it obvious that it will sink any deal made between the US-UK unless the GFA is respected. That can only be done with a trade deal between the UK and the EU.

This gives the EU plenty of clout over the UK. Which means that unlike the UK it can walk out of the negotiation table if it wants do, which, considering the UK's unrealistic demands and the hostile environment they had built throughout the years then, in my opinion, they should. Regarding the deals you mentioned, both Norway and Switzerland, accept ECJ supremacy and the level playing field the EU is insisting the UK to have. Canada on the other hand is far away from the EU market which means that the EU can be more lenient towards it then towards the UK whose literally a spit away from the EU market.


Regarding your comment

1- The EU has made it quite obvious that the integrity of the single market is far more important then all the benefits that a trade deal with the UK will bring
2- The UK is now a third country. The political climate there is as relevant to the EU as the political climate in Kenya, Haiti or the Vatican. What the EU should focus upon its the EU's best interest and that best interest is to safeguard the integrity of the single market. Any deal on top of that would be a bonus.
3- A year is basically peanuts when compared to the time needed to sign a trade deal. Thus its better for the EU to be tough now, leave the negotiating table and let the Brexiteers in their stew up until they return back to their senses. Unlike the previous negotiations, the EU can easily afford that as there's no risk of the UK digging its heels by revoking article 50 only to then cause trouble down the line
4- I think its time for the EU to treat this deal like any other trade deal it engages with ie it can be frozen up for years up until the other party becomes more 'accommodating'. The UK is not the EU concern anymore and we have far more problems to deal with then Brexit.

I believe the EU has also set red lines on fishing for instance.

That also isn't actually true about the USA. They put up tarriffs against China (their biggest trading partner), have been trading insults with them for th whole of Trump's presidency and have threatened to tear up NAFTA, with their next 2 biggest trade partners and got it changed to his liking. He's also been aggressive in his rhetoric against Germany, Japan and South Korea, their next biggest trading partners and has started to impose new tariffs on the EU, which includes, excluding the UK, 5 of the USA's top 15 trading partners.

Of course I am not comparing the US and the UK at all but it isn't true to say that Trump and the US haven't been aggressive on trade. They've been aggressive as feck, even with their biggest trading allies.

Again, you're missing my point. I am not saying the UK needs to copy those trade deals. I am saying that what the UK will be aiming for is their own unique trade deal. Not because they're a unique and amazing country. But because every deal comes with its own set of nuances that may not be present in others. Whether that happens or not is of course another matter.


1. And that is fair enough and a completely justifiable position for the EU to take. I would take the exact same stance.
2. You're missing the point. I am not talking about whether the EU should care or not. I am talking about what the UK will likely do. Similarly, you can't have it both ways and say the UK is just like any other country now and simultaneously argue it isn't because of x, y and z and therefore needs to be treated differently.
3. Agreed it is peanuts in terms of time. Disagree that the Brexiteers will go crawling back to the EU.
4. As I've said, if both sides decide to take an adversarial approach to the negotiations, both sides will lose out. Countries around the world can and do survive without immediate access to their neghbours market, especially so in Asia, but it is not to the benefit of anyone if they do so.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

But then the UK becomes the low tax, low regulation free port economy which is literally the whole reason for the EU's red lines on the matter.

Hope the Uk understands how free ports work.

 

[devilish]

But then the UK becomes the low tax, low regulation free port economy which is literally the whole reason for the EU's red lines on the matter.

Good luck sustaining the NHS, the farming/fishing industry and the generous social services most Brexiteers rely upon after that. Also, the EU is starting to blacklist tax havens. That will hit the UK service industry big time wouldn't it?

Also note that free ports aren't illegal in the EU. The UK had free ports up to 2012.

 

[africanspur]

Who encouraged their supporters to vote for her. Not the Socialists or the Conservatives. Under your reasoning Macron has a 67% support base, he doesn't.

Brexit is being micro-analysed in this thread because it's the Brexit thread and it's about the UK leaving the EU. If other countries decide to be daft enough to do the same in the future I'm sure there will be a thread on that too.

It's unfortunately not a flippant comment, it's very serious and the most serious problem the UK will have. The really stupid comments are "we can trade with other nations" - and I'm not even talking about free trade agreements as such.

Nobody did. That is my point. All of them other than Melenchon urged their voter to vote for Macron. Melenchon refused to do so, therefore saying he hates her more than any of them is slightly strange. Despite the whole of the establishment being against her, she still got 21.5% and then 33%.

Under what reasoning exactly? You mean as his core base? I never said anything like that. You're making literally no sense with this.

I am not talking about just on this thread, I'm talking about in general across this section of the board. I referended Macron's PM comment about taking back control of immigration, which didn't receive a peep on here but would have been jumped on immediately on this board as a sign of Britains racism, how scummy the Tories are etc etc.

Of course it is a flippant comment. I've literally never heard anyone say they think the UK is off the coast of the USA. Some people think we should be closer to the USA than we are now. Something I personally fundamentally disagree with but that isn't the same as what you said. Despite the incessant droning, the UK will continue to have a relationship with the EU after December, even if it initially reverts to WTO rules (which I of course hope it does not).

Flippant comments like 'we can trade with other nations' are of course, stupid as hell.

 

[Full bodied red]

Whether they are in the customs union or not they still have to comply with EU regulations if they want to ship goods to the EU last year, today or in 20 years time. Whether the UK is in the EU, in the customs union or an isolated country on its own it still has to comply with Australian import regulations to be able to ship goods to Australia.

So in this case, really it's no change for the UK being out of the EU to being inside the EU, then ??

Other than more than a couple of € billion membership fee.

Unless. of course, the UK decides to make or change a few food or trading standards / conditions of its own which the whole rest of the EU would then have to comply with if it wants to continue exporting to the UK.

It could cut both ways - but will either of them dare or risk it ?

 

[horsechoker]

Good luck sustaining the NHS, the farming/fishing industry and the generous social services most Brexiteers rely upon after that. Also, the EU is starting to blacklist tax havens. That will hit the UK service industry big time wouldn't it?

Also note that free ports aren't illegal in the EU. The UK had free ports up to 2012.

You think the government intends to do that?

Ha, I say, ha.

No idea about fishing though, that's supposedly one of the Brexiteer arguments but they've probably got about as much as a clue about that as I have.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Good luck sustaining the NHS, the farming/fishing industry and the generous social services most Brexiteers rely upon after that. Also, the EU is starting to blacklist tax havens. That will hit the UK service industry big time wouldn't it?

Also note that free ports aren't illegal in the EU. The UK had free ports up to 2012.

That's why political will is important, when a certain issue becomes more important than economics it makes such things permissible.

I don't know what the EU's stance on tax havens is, it seems incoherent to say the least considering that there are a number of them in the EU that recently voted to block important tax avoidance reforms. If the EU blocks trade with the UK wouldn't this have a crippling economic effect on Ireland given they're forecast to be the biggest economic losers from a hard Brexit, and considering that they'd then have an even lower tax and low regulation economy competing with them on their doorstep? Don't forget that Ireland voted against those tax reforms because they thought it would probably collapse their economy.

 

[devilish]

I believe the EU has also set red lines on fishing for instance.

That also isn't actually true about the USA. They put up tarriffs against China (their biggest trading partner), have been trading insults with them for th whole of Trump's presidency and have threatened to tear up NAFTA, with their next 2 biggest trade partners and got it changed to his liking. He's also been aggressive in his rhetoric against Germany, Japan and South Korea, their next biggest trading partners and has started to impose new tariffs on the EU, which includes, excluding the UK, 5 of the USA's top 15 trading partners.

Of course I am not comparing the US and the UK at all but it isn't true to say that Trump and the US haven't been aggressive on trade. They've been aggressive as feck, even with their biggest trading allies.

Again, you're missing my point. I am not saying the UK needs to copy those trade deals. I am saying that what the UK will be aiming for is their own unique trade deal. Not because they're a unique and amazing country. But because every deal comes with its own set of nuances that may not be present in others. Whether that happens or not is of course another matter.


1. And that is fair enough and a completely justifiable position for the EU to take. I would take the exact same stance.
2. You're missing the point. I am not talking about whether the EU should care or not. I am talking about what the UK will likely do. Similarly, you can't have it both ways and say the UK is just like any other country now and simultaneously argue it isn't because of x, y and z and therefore needs to be treated differently.
3. Agreed it is peanuts in terms of time. Disagree that the Brexiteers will go crawling back to the EU.
4. As I've said, if both sides decide to take an adversarial approach to the negotiations, both sides will lose out. Countries around the world can and do survive without immediate access to their neghbours market, especially so in Asia, but it is not to the benefit of anyone if they do so.

A- I listed them among the environment
B- The UK is not the US and China is not at close proximity to the US as the UK is to the EU. The EU basically represent the very continent the UK is made part off. No country has ever burnt bridges with the very continent it makes part of. At least not a time of peace
C- These trade deals had developed not out of Lulz, They were the results of decades of negotiations and changes, which were carefully done while weighting the pros and cons of each clause and comma in them. Like any other deal it's heavily stacked towards the biggest market interest and when Switzerland tried to force the EU's hand , the EU made sure to put Switzerland back in its box. The UK expects a brand new trade deal in few months time and on mostly its own terms. It took the US years to negotiate TTIP and it still was shot down. The US doesn't need the EU as the UK does and the UK is certainly not the US.

2. The UK is a third country which is why any trade deal made need to be done safeguarding EU interests. The EU can't offer the same conditions to the UK as it gave to Canada (whose a continent away).
3. What is the alternative really? No country can afford showing the middle finger to the very continent it makes part off. Also no trade deal with the EU = no trade deal with the US. That's 2 huge markets closing the door at the UK. Can the UK afford it?
4. Name me some countries who deal with the continent it is part off on purely WTO terms.

 

[devilish]

You think the government intends to do that?

Ha, I say, ha.

No idea about fishing though, that's supposedly one of the Brexiteer arguments but they've probably got about as much as a clue about that as I have.

Maybe yes, maybe no. However if the NHS close down, worker rights are eroded, the pound crashes and the welfare state weakens then the Brexiteer's support towards Brexit will wane. My grandfather lived throughout the War and what he fount fascinating is how the Italians suddenly turned from fascists to antifascists at the blink of an eye. The people whom they once idolised were hanged and if you ask any Italian whether their grandparent was a fascist then he'll swear to you that he was a partiggiano which is quite hilarious considering that the vast majority of Italians were indeed fascists at the time. I can see that happening with Brexit in the event of a no deal Brexit (without the gory parts)

 

[devilish]

That's why political will is important, when a certain issue becomes more important than economics it makes such things permissible.

I don't know what the EU's stance on tax havens is, it seems incoherent to say the least considering that there are a number of them in the EU that recently voted to block important tax avoidance reforms. If the EU blocks trade with the UK wouldn't this have a crippling economic effect on Ireland given they're forecast to be the biggest economic losers from a hard Brexit, and considering that they'd then have an even lower tax and low regulation economy competing with them on their doorstep? Don't forget that Ireland voted against those tax reforms because they thought it would probably collapse their economy.

As said, the UK is a third country now. The EU will and should defend its best interest just as the UK is doing.

Regarding your second comment there's a difference between how countries are treated within the EU and outside the EU. That's something the UK need to acknowledge very fast for its own good.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

As said, the UK is a third country now. The EU will and should defend its best interest just as the UK is doing.

Regarding your second comment there's a difference between how countries are treated within the EU and outside the EU. That's something the UK need to acknowledge very fast for its own good.

My point is that if the UK can't trade with the EU period this will have a massive negative effect on the Irish economy, an EU member. There's a chance that this will be politically possible in Ireland given the history between the UK and Ireland but I think it highlights that the situation isn't as straight forward as you'd like to imagine. The EU's red lines say a lot in and of themselves.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Nobody did. That is my point. All of them other than Melenchon urged their voter to vote for Macron. Melenchon refused to do so, therefore saying he hates her more than any of them is slightly strange. Despite the whole of the establishment being against her, she still got 21.5% and then 33%.

Under what reasoning exactly? You mean as his core base? I never said anything like that. You're making literally no sense with this.

I am not talking about just on this thread, I'm talking about in general across this section of the board. I referended Macron's PM comment about taking back control of immigration, which didn't receive a peep on here but would have been jumped on immediately on this board as a sign of Britains racism, how scummy the Tories are etc etc.

Of course it is a flippant comment. I've literally never heard anyone say they think the UK is off the coast of the USA. Some people think we should be closer to the USA than we are now. Something I personally fundamentally disagree with but that isn't the same as what you said. Despite the incessant droning, the UK will continue to have a relationship with the EU after December, even if it initially reverts to WTO rules (which I of course hope it does not).

Flippant comments like 'we can trade with other nations' are of course, stupid as hell.

You said a third of French voters support Le Pen, therefore under that reasoning 67% support Macron, neither of those statements are correct.

I rarely venture outside the Brexit thread in the general thread, but this is just a fascinating topic.

My comment was figuratively speaking, of course the EU and UK will continue to trade whatever happens but if people think there will be very little change if the relationship is under WTO terms then there is a big surprise coming. But we've covered this thousands of time in the last 5 years but people seem to have forgotten and hope it may all go away if heads are stuck in the sand. It won't.

 

[africanspur]

@devilish

For some reason, you seem to constantly misquote me. I never said the UK is the same as the USA, Switzerland or whatever.

I initially tried to correct your assertion that even the USA has not dared throw its weight around (Trump has done nothing but throw the USA's tremendous weight around with every single major trading partner in the last 4 years) and explained why the UK may have mentioned Canada or Switzerland.

Stop being so over dramatic ffs. The UK has not burned bridges with the continent of Europe and wont have done so even if we leave in December without a trade deal.

Agreed the EU will of course look to safeguard their and their member states' interests. The alternative is trading with WTO terms until an agreement is made further down the line. I hope beyond hope this doesn't happen, for so many reasons, but it would not be the end of the situation anyway.

I imagine there are none, though China only started signing agreements in the 2000s. Of course though, none other than the most ridiculous of Brexiteers have it as their default position that we should not have an agreement with the EU.

 

[Massive Spanner]

My point is that if the UK can't trade with the EU period this will have a massive negative effect on the Irish economy, an EU member. There's a chance that this will be politically possible in Ireland given the history between the UK and Ireland but I think it highlights that the situation isn't as straight forward as you'd like to imagine. The EU's red lines say a lot in and of themselves.

The EU has been acting in Ireland's best interest ever since the referendum vote and I expect them to continue to do so, but the stance will be the same as it always was, they won't compromise their core values to cater to the UK even if it makes things easier on the island of Ireland. It's a delicate balance between protecting Ireland and making sure that the UK doesn't get special preference and they've handled it well so far.

I think ultimately we'll end up with a border down the Irish sea, once Boris is done with his silly posturing.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

So in this case, really it's no change for the UK being out of the EU to being inside the EU, then ??

Other than more than a couple of € billion membership fee.

Unless. of course, the UK decides to make or change a few food or trading standards / conditions of its own which the whole rest of the EU would then have to comply with if it wants to continue exporting to the UK.

It could cut both ways - but will either of them dare or risk it ?

Being in the EU means that they have the same standards as the other countries in the EU. If they deviate then they still have to meet EU regulations to be be able to ship to the EU. Problem is that means there's a hard border, the big problem.
Of course, likewise all countries would have to meet new UK regulations if they changed them to be able to ship to the UK.

 

[africanspur]

You said a third of French voters support Le Pen, therefore under that reasoning 67% support Macron, neither of those statements are correct.

I rarely venture outside the Brexit thread in the general thread, but this is just a fascinating topic.

My comment was figuratively speaking, of course the EU and UK will continue to trade whatever happens but if people think there will be very little change if the relationship is under WTO terms then there is a big surprise coming. But we've covered this thousands of time in the last 5 years but people seem to have forgotten and hope it may all go away if heads are stuck in the sand. It won't.

No I didn't. Go back and read what I read.

I said 1 in 3 voters voted for Le Pen in the 2nd round. That is factually correct, whether you're willing to admit it or not (and not the same as saying 1 in 3 actively support her on a daily basis). I also said on average, her and her dad get 1 in 6 votes in the 1st round in the last 4 elections. That is factually correct. I said in the last election, she got 21.5%, only 2.5% behind Macron. Factually correct. Her party have won the last 2 European elections. Factually correct.

At no point have I said that 1 in 3 support her and I'll maintain that unless you can go back and prove otherwise?

Well, venture away, I can assure you that nowhere near as much notice is given to the xenophobic and racist comments that emanate from prominent politicians in other European countries.

Again, if people genuinely believe WTO terms wouldn't change things drastically, they are frankly idiots who don't deserve a second of your time.

 

[Fiskey]

This sort of negotiations suggest 2 equal partners which isn't really the case. It's time for the EU to set the tone of these discussions. Unlike the UK the EU can afford walking out of the negotiation table and it's up to the UK to persuade it not to do it not viceversa

If trump can turn the UK into his bitch then so can the EU

You've seen the issues the EU has had filling in the budget hole left by the UK leaving. I can't see the EU in its current form lasting beyond the next significant recession.

 

[Massive Spanner]

You've seen the issues the EU has had filling in the budget hole left by the UK leaving. I can't see the EU in its current form lasting beyond the next significant recession.

They've had one summit about it.

 

[Full bodied red]

The EU has been acting in Ireland's best interest ever since the referendum vote and I expect them to continue to do so, but the stance will be the same as it always was, they won't compromise their core values to cater to the UK even if it makes things easier on the island of Ireland. It's a delicate balance between protecting Ireland and making sure that the UK doesn't get special preference and they've handled it well so far.

I think ultimately we'll end up with a border down the Irish sea, once Boris is done with his silly posturing.

I'm not an expert on this, but what would / could stop Northern Ireland having the same status within the EU and its Customs Union as currently exists between the EU and the Channel Islands.

To the best of my understanding, the Channel Islands are not members of the EU and neither is there a hard border between them and the EU.

Happy to be corrected if that's wrong....

 

[Fiskey]

No I didn't. Go back and read what I read.

I said 1 in 3 voters voted for Le Pen in the 2nd round. That is factually correct, whether you're willing to admit it or not (and not the same as saying 1 in 3 actively support her on a daily basis). I also said on average, her and her dad get 1 in 6 votes in the 1st round in the last 4 elections. That is factually correct. I said in the last election, she got 21.5%, only 2.5% behind Macron. Factually correct. Her party have won the last 2 European elections. Factually correct.

At no point have I said that 1 in 3 support her and I'll maintain that unless you can go back and prove otherwise?

Well, venture away, I can assure you that nowhere near as much notice is given to the xenophobic and racist comments that emanate from prominent politicians in other European countries.

Again, if people genuinely believe WTO terms wouldn't change things drastically, they are frankly idiots who don't deserve a second of your time.

To add to your point I don't think even the most ardent of Brexiteers think that nothing will change if the UK has to change with Europe on WTO terms, just that the short term hit would be worth the freedom it gives the UK to sign trade deals elsewhere.

 

[devilish]

@devilish

For some reason, you seem to constantly misquote me. I never said the UK is the same as the USA, Switzerland or whatever.

I initially tried to correct your assertion that even the USA has not dared throw its weight around (Trump has done nothing but throw the USA's tremendous weight around with every single major trading partner in the last 4 years) and explained why the UK may have mentioned Canada or Switzerland.

Stop being so over dramatic ffs. The UK has not burned bridges with the continent of Europe and wont have done so even if we leave in December without a trade deal.

Agreed the EU will of course look to safeguard their and their member states' interests. The alternative is trading with WTO terms until an agreement is made further down the line. I hope beyond hope this doesn't happen, for so many reasons, but it would not be the end of the situation anyway.

I imagine there are none, though China only started signing agreements in the 2000s. Of course though, none other than the most ridiculous of Brexiteers have it as their default position that we should not have an agreement with the EU.

I think there's misunderstanding here

a- I understood your argument perfectly. However please understand that Switzerland/Norway has a very different deal to what the UK is suggesting. In fact, if the UK wanted a Norway's deal then I can see that being sorted quite easily. The Swiss deal would be a tad more difficult as I suspect that the EU regret that deal and want a way out it.

b- Regarding burning bridges, I was referring business wise. Even then though the EU-UK will still negotiate on WTO terms which is a vastly inferior deal to the one the UK currently enjoys with the EU. WTO terms doesn't deal with services either which is what the UK is more concerned about.

I believe that a deal on WTO terms will hurt the UK's economy significantly. However the biggest damage will be the effect on society as a whole. A no Deal Brexit will probably bring the end of the NHS, an erosion in worker's rights, the end of the manufacturing, farming and fishing industries etc. Those would have a direct impact on the very Brexiteers that voted for it. I think that the repercussions to it will be far worse then the economic impact itself as no one likes to be taken for a ride. Speaking of being over dramatic the effects will be far less then having two atomic bombs dropped on London or Liverpool or having to foot the bill of an entire WW

 

[Fiskey]

They've had one summit about it.

With lots of briefing and currently no path to a solution. I can't see a solution other than vastly cutting back on regional development funding, which will have a medium to long term impact.

 

[Fiskey]

I think there's misunderstanding here

a- I understood your argument perfectly. However please understand that Switzerland/Norway has a very different deal to what the UK is suggesting. In fact, if the UK wanted a Norway's deal then I can see that being sorted quite easily. The Swiss deal would be a tad more difficult as I suspect that the EU regret that deal and want a way out it.

b- Regarding burning bridges, I was referring business wise. Even then though the EU-UK will still negotiate on WTO terms which is a vastly inferior deal to the one the UK currently enjoys with the EU. WTO terms doesn't deal with services either which is what the UK is more concerned about.

I believe that a deal on WTO terms will hurt the UK's economy significantly. However the biggest damage will be the effect on society as a whole. A no Deal Brexit will probably bring the end of the NHS, an erosion in worker's rights, the end of the manufacturing, farming and fishing industries etc. Those would have a direct impact on the very Brexiteers that voted for it. I think that the repercussions to it will be far worse then the economic impact itself as no one likes to be taken for a ride. Speaking of being over dramatic the effects will be far less then having two atomic bombs dropped on London or Liverpool or having to foot the bill of an entire WW

Thing is you don't really need a trade deal on services to trade services. You just need a company willing to make an international transfer into your bank account.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I'm not an expert on this, but what would / could stop Northern Ireland having the same status within the EU and its Customs Union as currently exists between the EU and the Channel Islands.

To the best of my understanding, the Channel Islands are not members of the EU and neither is there a hard border between them and the EU.

Happy to be corrected if that's wrong....

As far as I'm aware the Channel Islands are not part of the UK either, unlike NI, and have separate agreements with both the Uk and the EU