Yea that would keep with the whole shambolic nature of these discussions. Extension so we can watch two sides who's expectations can't be reconciled go around in circles. Wonderful idea. Are you part if Boris' team by any chance?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
So like every other job then?
I dont understand why this deal is taking so long. Should be "one of the easiest in human history"
Yes, but neither are you saying this view was wrong. And it isn't a subjective viewpoint but an objective fact; the claim is demonstrably false. The reason why you need to say 'contrary to what people think I think...' so often is because you parrot these falsehoods, but don't claim any ownership of them. Don't shoot the messenger, folks. You constantly speak in the non-negative, but somehow manage to avoid speaking in the positive. That's not what I think, but by the way, here's what some other people think about that. You dance around the issues with an air of whimsy, but it's a transparently evasive tactic to avoid defending your own views. Which oddly mirrors how many Brexit advocates have handled difficult questions on the same subjects.
It's all about our freedom to wave plastic flags about now.
If we get a deal it'll be really, really, really shit, but Boris will puff out his chest and tell us how amazing it is, the press will ask ministers one time about whether the deal is good or not and be fobbed off with a party line like "best deal in history" without any further analysis, and we'll be fighting over home grown turnips by the end of January.
Knowing what you know about this whole issue and especially the current sticking points between the two sides, can I ask you whether you think that the UK position in terms of its red lines is unreasonable?
I am not talking about the decision to leave the EU. Rather its current standpoint on the free trade negotiations.
Thanks.
There's been queues and delays at ports for the last two months, I see delays for at least 8 weeks into 2021 as they work through the backlog even before they get the customs process of any (if there is one) agreement.
From the Guardian:
EU statement on no-deal plans: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2368
There will eventually be a deal, and I don't think the Tories can afford for the public to actually realise the full impact of a cliff edge no deal Brexit.
It's probably best for the EU to hold off and throw us in a no deal scenario on the 1st of January. Let the impact of it dawn fully on the British public for 2-3 months and then take their time to get the deal they want.
It's probably best for the EU to hold off and throw us in a no deal scenario on the 1st of January. Let the impact of it dawn fully on the British public for 2-3 months and then take their time to get the deal they want.
I am talking about opinion I have come across in my life time.
''Politicians lie'... hold the presses, shock horror,... you have realised that politicians are 'economical with the truth' which is perhaps the right expression, that's because they have an agenda, or just like you perhaps a narrative?
It was a legitimately view held by many people, including many left wing politicians, who continuously warned of the 'Hotel California nature of joining the EEC 'you can check out but you can't leave', which to some extent has come true. My personal view was that once we had voted to leave, it was always going to be on a no 'deal basis', despite what many Brexiteers said, this can only be the logical conclusion.
I believe it was a view held by many based on what information was available. I believe remainers hold one view and Brexiteers another. I voted in the 70s to join the EEC, but not the EU. I believe that had a referendum been held over the Maastricht treaty, remain would have won, despite the anti-EU arguments, and that would have been the end of it.
You are not, the answer you gave to the intransigence claim wasn't someone else opinion. And your second sentence show your true colour.
I may start selling them to replace the circa £70k of business I've lost over the last 2 years after 3 of my EU based clients relocated their business back to the continent because of Brexit.
Don't you love the SOVEREIGNTY though?
Not sure I'd pay £70k for it, and besides, nobody has told me how it works yet, what do I do with it?
Which need no human input presumably and automatically sorts out and pay all the duties, VAT for a truck that could contain thousands of different items and health certificate requirements etc. Eagerly waiting.
The problem the UK have is that has insisted to its Brexit voters that it is becoming a sovereign independent nation and nobody is going to tell them what to do. Fine if you completely isolate yourself from the rest of the world but the world doesn't operate like that and they have to adapt to the requirements of other countries and not just the EU, every single country in the world.
If they don't adapt to the EU's requirements they won't get a deal which is the UK's choice.
If they don't agree to the requirements of product 'x' as required by Australian regulations they won't be able to sell product 'x' to Australia.
The government and Brexiters have told so many lies and they know that reality is just around the corner, they know that the EU is not going to make the single market vulnerable and they know that Australia
are not going to change their requirements for product 'x' - so what do they do.
It's why I see no deal and that they'll maintain this stance as they've cornered themselves.
Even with a deal there will still be the custom's process and documentation , certification etc, for me the killer blow for the UK is not whether they get a trade deal or not but whether they've left the custom's union or not and they've left the custom's union. If they get a deal it's just a consolation prize.
Agreed, customs union is causing the biggest headache at work for me right now, combined with port delays and having to reroute sea freights onto road.
I think you’ve summed it up beautifully. It’s not about reality, it never has been, it’s about the illusion of sovereignty.
You're picking and choosing the points you want to respond to so much that you're not responding to the points at all. This is what he said.
It's a set of two objective statements. They are not subjective viewpoints, they aren't related to Hotel California, they don't have anything to do with the Maastricht treaty. By focusing on the first half of the sentence and ignoring the second half, you're turning his point into something he hasn't said to make a point that wasn't argued against, i.e. a strawman argument. When you do it so often it creates the impression that it's not an argument in good faith. Hence why people question the meaning behind the words.
Appreciate your response.
If I can maybe re-phrase the question.
Would France or Spain for example conceed the position on fishing were they to leave the EU.
And is it reasonable to expect another country who wanted to agree a free trade agreement with the EU to conceed to the requirement to accept future changes to EU laws to have to be applied to that country even though it has no decision on those laws.
I am not and have not changed my views on Brexit. But I am trying to understand why there is no movement by either side on the contentious issues.
That surely depends how far reaching the requirement is. If the EU updates fire safety requirements on materials, then fair enough if our exporters need to update their practices to meet those requirements.
If it involves say updating laws on working hours or employment rights, then I guess it gets more thorny as that's moved beyond trade into social issues.
I don't know how you demarcate it and how concrete that boundary should be, but the Tories will obviously deem that as contravening our sovereignty.
Compare and contrast...
EU makes no-deal transport offer in return for 'level playing field' agreement
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...substantial-shift-for-brexit-talks-to-succeed
TURNING THE SCREW EU piles pressure on Boris Johnson with No Deal demands on flights and fish as clock ticks down to Sunday deadline
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/13435228/britain-eu-restart-brexit-talks-sunday-deadline-boris/
Brexiteers accuse Ursula von der Leyen of 'blackmail' after EU demands to carry on fishing in UK waters for a year even if there is NO DEAL in return for just six months of lorries and air links running freely as talks with PM fail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-no-deal-contingency-plans-crunch-summit.html
No 10 will ‘look closely’ at EU contingency plans but scrutinises no-deal fishing proposal
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...live-deal-boris-johnson-updates-b1769134.html
EU makes no-deal transport offer in return for 'level playing field' agreement
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...substantial-shift-for-brexit-talks-to-succeed
TURNING THE SCREW EU piles pressure on Boris Johnson with No Deal demands on flights and fish as clock ticks down to Sunday deadline
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/13435228/britain-eu-restart-brexit-talks-sunday-deadline-boris/
Brexiteers accuse Ursula von der Leyen of 'blackmail' after EU demands to carry on fishing in UK waters for a year even if there is NO DEAL in return for just six months of lorries and air links running freely as talks with PM fail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-no-deal-contingency-plans-crunch-summit.html
No 10 will ‘look closely’ at EU contingency plans but scrutinises no-deal fishing proposal
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...live-deal-boris-johnson-updates-b1769134.html
What do you mean/understand by that?
If France or Spain wanted a deal with the EU, they would have to compromise particularly when Denmark and Netherlands are big players in the north-east Atlantic. On that subject since you are trying to get some insight on that subject, I think that it's important that you know one thing, the strategy to target France is very poor because Denmark are the biggest player in the north-east Atlantic, while France and Netherland are virtually equals. It's one of the reasons why I'm a bit baffled by the idea that people are completely overlooking other member states and think that they only need to convince France. I'm also baffled by the fact that they didn't do the most obvious thing which was to directly talk to the PFA.
I am sure French or Spanish would wish for the same rights. What muddies the waters, as it were, is that quotas of UK waters have been sold off, they can't take them back and the UK need to sell their catch to the EU which means UK boats sailing into EU ports. From an amicable viewpoint it's going to be difficult , from an economic viewpoint it's miniscule and nobody would bother too much. Really a lot of fuss about very little but a matter of principle and don't seeing either side giving in.
As for law or standards changes, if the EU make changes to their standards then they would expect that the UK would do the same to maintain the agreement. But then again I would imagine that this would be the case for agreements between any countries.
For example , say the UK-Japan agreement, I haven't read the details but I would imagine it was based on the EU-Japan agreement which would have been based on the UK maintaining EU standards.
What it boils down to is there has to be a safety mechanism to stop the UK deciding to do anything they like, if they did something to deviate, then there sould be something that triggers a termination of the agreement.
PS: To clarify: when I say standards, I don't just mean standards of products but attitudes towards laws, climate change , social standards, people's rights or anything that keeps the UK going in a similar direction to the EU.
Last edited:
And the biggest issue of all, in my view, will not be about evolving standards as they relate to current products, but who gets the power to regulate new sectors. For example, who gets to set the rules and regs for autonomous vehicles seems a far bigger prize than worrying about the precise wattage of a light bulb.
As far as I'm aware, the EU-Japan FTA does not contain significant provisions for dynamic alignment. There's a provision for a rather toothless 'joint regulatory body', which is just an advisory group which has no decision making power and seeks to avoid unnecessary regulatory divergence through sharing ideas about good practice.
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155720.pdf
I might be being a bit simple so feel free to call me out as such but isn't the obvious answer the market the product is being sold into and then any industry groups on top of that?
Cheers but I think that was the pre-amble - I've found the actual agreement below but I have no urge to read through 562 pages
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/august/tradoc_157228.pdf
Agreeing on the here and now seems a struggle enough at the moment so there seems little chance of finding common ground on how you regulate future tech advances, which could go in who knows what direction.
It would be interesting to see how often product standards do actually change. We obviously have commonality of standards with the EU currently, but would our regulations become quickly outdated, say within a year or two years, or are they realistically going to be at a same level for 5-10 years. I've no idea how big a deal this is.
Chapter 18 - Good regulatory practices and regulatory cooperation (page 463) should sort you out. Hint:Cheers but I think that was the pre-amble - I've found the actual agreement below but I have no urge to read through 562 pages
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/august/tradoc_157228.pdf
Thanks and I had no intention of singling out France. I was using it as an example. But my understanding is that France is a prime mover in the fishing issue.
I know that it wasn't your intention and regarding the bold part, France are one member of a group of member states, the group is made of Belgium, Denmark, Netherland, Spain and Portugal; the group was "formed" after talks with Van Balsfoort, the president of the PFA.
Understood.
If two parties who both claim to want to do business with eachother but are unable to reach an agreement, there are probably three main reasons.
1. The demands of one side are unreasonable to the other.
2. One side is too inflexible.
3. Both sides are too inflexible.
From my perspective, both UK and EU are taking a philosophical stance.
The UK being it's sovereign nation status.
And the EU wanting to ensure that the UK did not benefit from leaving.
There is a fourth option that we tend to ignore. Both sides have reasonable but diverging interests.
For you and I and other EU residents that means a compulsory 2 week quarantine
I'm in the UK and keep hearing how the EU needs a deal as much as we do and it's this big moment in European history. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding there. The EU no longer has any need to make any sacrifices. A deal is better than no deal, but newspapers make no mention of it and it's not a vote winner or loser anymore.
If Ireland wasn't a thing, I think the EU would have moved ahead with no-deal long ago.For you and I and other EU residents that means a compulsory 2 week quarantine
I'm in the UK and keep hearing how the EU needs a deal as much as we do and it's this big moment in European history. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding there. The EU no longer has any need to make any sacrifices. A deal is better than no deal, but newspapers make no mention of it and it's not a vote winner or loser anymore.
I’ve seen loads of people saying that they are booking holidays for January to Canary Islands. Same people voted brexitSay it loudly 3 times and a Union Jack appears in your hand magically
That's already the situation isn't it, with the quarantine? I know we got back here in October and not long after the UK brought in quarantine for people from Italy. We can probably cut the quarantine short by having a private Covid test just before we travel.For you and I and other EU residents that means a compulsory 2 week quarantine
I'm in the UK and keep hearing how the EU needs a deal as much as we do and it's this big moment in European history. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding there. The EU no longer has any need to make any sacrifices. A deal is better than no deal, but newspapers make no mention of it and it's not a vote winner or loser anymore.
You're right about it being a "meh" thing now in other countries. They're not bothered, it's a British problem.
The degree of ignorance is staggering. They just wanted to get rid of the foreigners, but they're happy to go and enjoy foreign winter sunshine. They didn't realise that by leaving Europe, they won't be European any more.