Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Buster15 said:
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.
Click to expand...

They will continue to do business with each other, just that everything becomes more complicated and expensive. The Uk will still sell its fish to the EU, the EU will still want the fish in UK's waters.
The UK will still have its sovereignty that it had in 1962 2002 and in 2022.

There have been a couple of classic examples in the last week or so.
The UK claiming it could approve the vaccine quicker because it had left the EU- only in name only they're still following the same EU rules until the end of this year. Latvia could have done the same.

Davis announcing that he could buy NZ wine instead of French when NZ's second biggest export to the UK already is wine and no.1 is lamb while it has been in the EU.
Brexiters have given the impression that the UK don't sell to or buy from other countries outside the EU and suddenly they can, this is one of the biggest lies swallowed by Brexiteers.
Liz Truss announcing she can sell stilton, cornish pasties and haggis to Japan tariff free - whoopee , nobody in Japan wants to buy it.

Very few people in the EU even care about Brexit any more, it's rarely in the news. The only thing about the UK we've seen this week is the old lady who was given the first vaccination.

The EU want to ensure that the UK don't benefit unfairly from leaving.
 
Brwned said:
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.
Click to expand...

With due respect I think its you who is picking the points to respond with; the 'EU(formerly EEC) vs UK' situation has for some people in the UK has always been 'the argument' and the warning to others was "don't join because once in you can never leave" (hence the reference to Hotel California lyrics). One of the problems with the whole business is that for the man in the street objectivity goes out the door when people talk about Sovereignty, i.e. the perception of, as opposed to actual 'Sovereignty'. Such matters are made worse by the actions, or pronouncements of politicians (lies if you prefer) also the media and tabloid press in particular, who from General De Gaulle, through Jacques Delor and others up to and including Junker were portrayed as anti-British in their rhetoric by the mass media, in the UK.
As for the UK being involved in law making of course it was, every new rule or regulation that was introduced by the EU had to be adopted into UK law through the UK Parliament, I don't see why or where this is an issue in what I said before?
 
Last edited:
Penna said:
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.

You're right about it being a "meh" thing now in other countries. They're not bothered, it's a British problem.
Click to expand...

The difference is that from January we can't get around the 14 day quarantine by taking a test.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Chapter 18 - Good regulatory practices and regulatory cooperation (page 463) should sort you out. Hint:
Click to expand...

I started reading and ending up reading anoter 30 odd pages and still didn't get there. But basically it's down to arbitration but there's a degree of trust between the EU and Japan.
Clearly Boris evaporated any trust with the IMB and I personally wouldn't trust Boris to walk my dog, and I don't even have a dog.
 
JPRouve said:
There is a fourth option that we tend to ignore. Both sides have reasonable but diverging interests.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
I was coming from the position of both sides having a common purpose, one of mutual benefit. But in this case, clearly not.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I started reading and ending up reading anoter 30 odd pages and still didn't get there. But basically it's down to arbitration but there's a degree of trust between the EU and Japan.
Clearly Boris evaporated any trust with the IMB and I personally wouldn't trust Boris to walk my dog, and I don't even have a dog.
Click to expand...
No, it's not arbitration as it's all completely non-binding.

A Free Trade Agreement that builds on the CETA and JEFTA models
CETA and JEFTA are two comprehensive FTAs that the EU has agreed with third countries (Canada and Japan respectively) in the past two years. They serve as a model for the kind of trade deals the EU is willing to sign with ‘third countries’ – countries which are not in the Single Market or in the EU. Both these deals fall far short of Single Market participation or shared customs arrangements, but nonetheless they are still more comprehensive than older trade agreements in the commitments expected of countries that are a party to them, both in terms of coverage (the number of policy areas that are impacted), and the level of liberalisation required (the number of sectors that will be opened to competition from the other party).

CETA is one of the first deals to include a specific chapter on Regulatory Cooperation, modelled on the Regulatory Cooperation chapter that was proposed for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP – a deal between the EU and the US, abandoned in 2018). The chapter sets out a process of dialogue between Canada and the EU to address regulatory barriers to trade, most of which takes place through a Regulatory Cooperation Forum. This brings together ‘trade experts’ and political leaders from both sides, with, as legal professor Marija Bartl explains, the aim of “creating institutional channels for the exchange of information, methodologies and knowledge between regulators and stakeholders... (so that) their ‘thinking’ would align, thus minimizing the numbers of divergent regulations.”

The FTAs currently in place that include Regulatory Cooperation processes (e.g. CETA and JEFTA) do not specify who should be invited to participate in these forums. However, because the main focus of Regulatory Cooperation is on removing barriers to trade, commentators have suggested that these forums are likely to be dominated by business interests. Civil society groups have argued that unless the treaty explicitly states that trade unions and other civil society groups must also be invited, the majority of the input will come from corporations. While the recommendations resulting from the Regulatory Cooperation processes are non-binding, they set in motion a method for addressing barriers to trade which departs significantly from the normal democratic process that sets regulations outside of trade agreements. Regulations are ordinarily designed with social, public health or environmental objectives in mind, even in trade blocs such as the EU’s Single Market. In the CETA model, the objective of the Regulatory Cooperation Forum is to facilitate trade rather than regulate in the public interest.
Click to expand...
https://www.tjm.org.uk/documents/br...t-and-Regulatory-Cooperation-after-Brexit.pdf

This report is worth reading in full at some point for a general understanding of the ways international trade interacts with domestic regulations and the trade-offs involved.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
They will continue to do business with each other, just that everything becomes more complicated and expensive. The Uk will still sell its fish to the EU, the EU will still want the fish in UK's waters.
The UK will still have its sovereignty that it had in 1962 2002 and in 2022.

There have been a couple of classic examples in the last week or so.
The UK claiming it could approve the vaccine quicker because it had left the EU- only in name only they're still following the same EU rules until the end of this year. Latvia could have done the same.

Davis announcing that he could buy NZ wine instead of French when NZ's second biggest export to the UK already is wine and no.1 is lamb while it has been in the EU.
Brexiters have given the impression that the UK don't sell to or buy from other countries outside the EU and suddenly they can, this is one of the biggest lies swallowed by Brexiteers.
Liz Truss announcing she can sell stilton, cornish pasties and haggis to Japan tariff free - whoopee , nobody in Japan wants to buy it.

Very few people in the EU even care about Brexit any more, it's rarely in the news. The only thing about the UK we've seen this week is the old lady who was given the first vaccination.

The EU want to ensure that the UK don't benefit unfairly from leaving.
Click to expand...

And most people I know cringe at the utterly stupid comments made by people who really should know better.
Just to mention that in my working life, I had the absolute pleasure and privilege of working with excellent engineers (jet engine) from Germany, Italy, France, Sweden and Spain. And in my experience, I had nothing but admiration for them and still keep in contact with many. I am I very firm believer in the concept of working together on an equal basis to achieve a common objective.
Brexit is 180 degrees opposed to this.
 
11101 said:
For you and I and other EU residents that means a compulsory 2 week quarantine :mad:


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.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you are seeing that tbh. The main thrust of public statements and media coverage for a bit now has been the 'don't back down on sovereignty' line.
I've not seen the 'it'll hurt them more than us' guff being trotted out for a while. That was wearing thin, so rely on emotional nationalism to blindside people.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
No, it's not arbitration as it's all completely non-binding.


https://www.tjm.org.uk/documents/br...t-and-Regulatory-Cooperation-after-Brexit.pdf

This report is worth reading in full at some point for a general understanding of the ways international trade interacts with domestic regulations and the trade-offs involved.
Click to expand...

It starts with Regulatory Co-operation and then proceeds throughout many steps , discussions, fora, etc but if the process continues on and on without solution it goes to arbitration and legal process if necessary.
I spent over thirty years dealing with International Trade but not dealing with actual FTA's between countries on a national level but knew the international and local laws covering the products that I dealt with inside and out for the countries and of the products that were exported including countries where there were no FTAs in place.

Just tired of reading stuff which I did for so many years.:(
 
Buster15 said:
And most people I know cringe at the utterly stupid comments made by people who really should know better.
Just to mention that in my working life, I had the absolute pleasure and privilege of working with excellent engineers (jet engine) from Germany, Italy, France, Sweden and Spain. And in my experience, I had nothing but admiration for them and still keep in contact with many. I am I very firm believer in the concept of working together on an equal basis to achieve a common objective.
Brexit is 180 degrees opposed to this.
Click to expand...

Quite agree, this will bring no benefit to anyone.

One thing I would like to see in the not too distant future is that scum like Farage and his acolytes are finally found out and get their just desserts for causing so much damage to the UK.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Obviously he’s talking out his arse but what does he mean by Australian vs Canadian options?
Click to expand...

He means and I'm not joking, "I'm going to bamboozle these fools."

Now if you want to know what each options are, the Aussie option is a trade negotiation that started in 2018 and the other is CETA, both includes borders and custom checks.
 
He is such a fecking cretin. I can't tell if he's doing it to try to simplify things for the population or to try to imply that both countries are totally OK and so why shouldn't we be?

Kind of ignores the fact that neither country have 'Australia' or 'Canada' style agreements with their neighbours.

Perhaps he could call it the 'Venezuela' option?
 
Were 'the leave alliance' a big player in leave politics? I can't distinguish between them anymore.

I've come across their website today and it doesn't seem to have been updated for at least a year. Interesting insight into (a subset) of the Brexit mind.

They seem genuinely terrified of a no deal option (as they should be) but seemingly can't help but blame it still, at least partly, on the EU and remainers.

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=269

http://leavehq.com/
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Free-trade agreement (Canada) vs default WTO terms (Australia).
Click to expand...

Still trying to deceive the country by pretending that his completely incompetent handling of the whole Brexit process is actually some kind of victory.
I can't describe how livid I am.
He is happy to trash the UK economy and all that represents simply for a philosophical (taking back control) argument.
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
Wasn't it Boris Johnson who said last year that the chances of a no deal were "million to one”
Click to expand...

I can imagine him singing to the tune of War of the Worlds - the chances of not getting a trade deal are a million to one, but still there's none...
And his Cabinet Brexiteer supporters clapping like the demented idiots they are.
 
Buster15 said:
I can imagine him singing to the tune of War of the Worlds - the chances of not getting a trade deal are a million to one, but still there's none...
And his Cabinet Brexiteer supporters clapping like the demented idiots they are.
Click to expand...
They’ve become a nation of clappers.
well I hope clapping puts the food on the table come the time when the economy starts seriously tanking next year
 
golden_blunder said:
They’ve become a nation of clappers.
well I hope clapping puts the food on the table come the time when the economy starts seriously tanking next year
Click to expand...

That is the problem.
The poor and vulnerable will always be hit the hardest. Even though many will have voted to leave.
 
Buster15 said:
I can imagine him singing to the tune of War of the Worlds - the chances of not getting a trade deal are a million to one, but still there's none...
And his Cabinet Brexiteer supporters clapping like the demented idiots they are.
Click to expand...
:lol:

But we all knew this was coming.

Oh well, there's always next year when the country's on it's knees.
 
horsechoker said:
:lol:

But we all knew this was coming.

Oh well, there's always next year when the country's on it's knees.
Click to expand...

The UK may possibly have coped with either Brexit or the pandemic. But both of them at the same time is going to be catastrophic.
 
Buster15 said:
The UK may possibly have coped with either Brexit or the pandemic. But both of them at the same time is going to be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Exactly, but the pandemic provides a convenient cover for Brexit.

"can't do this? oh it's the pandemic, not Brexit"

Supporters will grit their teeth and keep on waving their flags, I think they'll have to suffer a lot before the concede the Brexit was a bad idea.
 
horsechoker said:
Exactly, but the pandemic provides a convenient cover for Brexit.

"can't do this? oh it's the pandemic, not Brexit"

Supporters will grit their teeth and keep on waving their flags, I think they'll have to suffer a lot before the concede the Brexit was a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with you. The pandemic will give them a short term excuse which they will use to the full. But longer term...
They have been warned.
 


I find this kind tweets interesting because I assume that for many people it somehow makes sense, it takes more than a month to ship something port to port from the UK to Australia.
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
fecking shameless. Indulged by certain sections of our media.
Spouts off lies, and there is little accountability
Click to expand...
It’s the accountability that does my head in the most. Why aren’t politicians held to account for anything? They can literally lie and millions lap it up. I can’t fathom it
 
So we've gone from 'oven 'ready' lies before the election to 'Australia style' lies now and the dimwits in the country will just believe it. I think this post nails it when describing the 'Australia style' deal:

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.