|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
What Britain wants (I think) is to keep acces to the European market without any trade restrictions,and also leave their market open for the eu without any trade restrictions.
Everything else,like freedom of movement,they do not want.
Tbh I can see them get this. Once they are out,what point is there for the eu to not make a trade deal? It would still benefit both sides. Now you can say that it would be a bad precedent and that the eu has to make Britain suffer but once they are out and brexit is a fait accomply I think that common sense and business will prevail and there will be some sort of deal for at least the economic side of the brexit.
Eu tried there best for 2 years,didnt get what they want and then you have to be pragmatic as well at some point. Going by the facts how they are,even if they are not desireable.
|
On June 26 2019 23:26 pmh wrote:
What Britain wants (I think) is to keep acces to the European market without any trade restrictions,and also leave their market open for the eu without any trade restrictions.
Everything else,like freedom of movement,they do not want.
Tbh I can see them get this. Once they are out,what point is there for the eu to not make a trade deal? It would still benefit both sides. Now you can say that it would be a bad precedent and that the eu has to make Britain suffer but once they are out and brexit is a fait accomply I think that common sense and business will prevail and there will be some sort of deal for at least the economic side of the brexit.
Eu tried there best for 2 years,didnt get what they want and then you have to be pragmatic as well at some point. Going by the facts how they are,even if they are not desireable.
Pretty sure the EU won't separate their 4 freedoms. They can have a Ukraine or Turkey style deal, but it is *far* from a free market without restrictions. But yeah, that's clearly what the UK would want. Although that still leaves North Ireland as a problem.
|
The problem is that what the UK wants is impossible even if the EU would somehow agree to it. The biggest barriers to trade nowadays are non tariff barriers such as regulatory alignment. What separates the single market from other trade deals is the fact that it reduces these non tariff barriers and the same rules apply to everyone and regulations are aligned. You can't have complete sovereignty over creating laws while keeping regulations aligned.
|
United States42861 Posts
On June 27 2019 00:00 RvB wrote:
The problem is that what the UK wants is impossible even if the EU would somehow agree to it. The biggest barriers to trade nowadays are non tariff barriers such as regulatory alignment. What separates the single market from other trade deals is the fact that it reduces these non tariff barriers and the same rules apply to everyone and regulations are aligned. You can't have complete sovereignty over creating laws while keeping regulations aligned.
British goods would simply be made to the EU standards which would we would no longer have any control over. The EU standards are an economic reality because the British market is too small to justify parallel systems.
If Britain got what it wanted it would discover that they’re effectively not leaving the EU.
|
On June 26 2019 23:26 pmh wrote:
What Britain wants (I think) is to keep acces to the European market without any trade restrictions,and also leave their market open for the eu without any trade restrictions.
Everything else,like freedom of movement,they do not want.
Tbh I can see them get this. Once they are out,what point is there for the eu to not make a trade deal? It would still benefit both sides. Now you can say that it would be a bad precedent and that the eu has to make Britain suffer but once they are out and brexit is a fait accomply I think that common sense and business will prevail and there will be some sort of deal for at least the economic side of the brexit.
Eu tried there best for 2 years,didnt get what they want and then you have to be pragmatic as well at some point. Going by the facts how they are,even if they are not desireable.
Any *very good* bilateral deal will make current EU members question if they want close monetary, political, legal, immigration unity when a good trade agreement is possible without the rest. The rise of Euroskeptic political parties will make this into a campaign issue (Vote me and I'll get X-Exit for us, with low economic impact!).
Of course, the EU as a body with its own interests wonders what they get out of it in the trade deal. They don't want to surrender international bargaining clout and other things without getting something in return.
|
On June 26 2019 23:26 pmh wrote:
What Britain wants (I think) is to keep acces to the European market without any trade restrictions,and also leave their market open for the eu without any trade restrictions.
Everything else,like freedom of movement,they do not want.
Tbh I can see them get this. Once they are out,what point is there for the eu to not make a trade deal? It would still benefit both sides. Now you can say that it would be a bad precedent and that the eu has to make Britain suffer but once they are out and brexit is a fait accomply I think that common sense and business will prevail and there will be some sort of deal for at least the economic side of the brexit.
Eu tried there best for 2 years,didnt get what they want and then you have to be pragmatic as well at some point. Going by the facts how they are,even if they are not desireable.
UK is a country made out of many people with many desires, some rational, and some not so rational.
But in any case, a problem is that one of the rhetoric used in favour of leaving the EU was to make trade agreements outside the framework of the EU. If it was simply a case of having the most beneficial and the largest free trade agreements, then remaining in the EU is the only choice.
There can be no access to free trade with the rest of the EU as well as making trade agreements with other countries seperately from the EU for the obvious reasons of quality control and fair competition.
|
Next week there will be a vote on estimates i.e. departments annual spending for approval in the Commons. Dominic Grieve and Margaret Beckett have tabled an amendment that in the event of a no deal brexit will remove all funding from the department for international development, department for education, department for work and pensions and the ministry of housing, communities and local government.
https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/1143961296649564161?s=09
I can't imagine this will pass but to me it shows how far some people are willing to go to stop no deal brexit. I'd say the gloves are off on both sides.
|
Realistically speaking the only way to prevent a no deal brexit is to have a vote of no confidence in the new PM, whoever it may be, and garner so much confusion and sympathy from the EU that the EU decides to extend the deadline for article 50 yet again, till something happens politically that can lay the spectre of no deal to rest.
|
On June 26 2019 23:26 pmh wrote:
What Britain wants (I think) is to keep acces to the European market without any trade restrictions,and also leave their market open for the eu without any trade restrictions.
Everything else,like freedom of movement,they do not want.
Tbh I can see them get this. Once they are out,what point is there for the eu to not make a trade deal? It would still benefit both sides. Now you can say that it would be a bad precedent and that the eu has to make Britain suffer but once they are out and brexit is a fait accomply I think that common sense and business will prevail and there will be some sort of deal for at least the economic side of the brexit.
Eu tried there best for 2 years,didnt get what they want and then you have to be pragmatic as well at some point. Going by the facts how they are,even if they are not desireable.
There is no way UK (or any other country in the world) can get such a deal and it has nothing to do with setting bad precedents. You do realise that such a deal for outside country effectively opens EU (or any other country/trading block agreeing to such a "deal") market for entire world? Add EU court, worker rights and lots of other things and you sould be able to clearly see that such a deal in no way benefit EU , or is pragmatic. In fact it would be economic suicide.
|
I don't see how,they can have restrictions set to prevent that. There are tons of countries who have various trade deals with various countries,each having their own terms and conditions so it is possible.
Britain wont be allowed to pass goods from another country to the eu just to avoid any tariffs that there normally would be. And its not like Britain will have a free trade deal with all the rest of the world either.
Its not easy to do. Its complicated and a lot of checks will be needed but its not impossible and there will be a border anyway. Compared to the alternatives I don't see why they wouldn't.
Though I guess for the uk the European market is much more important then the uk market is to the European union as a whole. Eu could do without a trade deal but in the end will still prefer some sort of deal rather then none.
|
The fundamental lock in the Brexit process really seems like it has nothing to do with the EU's negotiating position at all. It's something like:
UK: We want border control! No free movement!
Everyone else: Alright, so the politically-charged land border with an EU country, what's the plan?
UK: No, not for that border, obviously.
EE: Okay, so you want controls in the Irish sea?
UK: No! That's splitting the Union!
EE: Cool. So. Which border do you actually want to control?
UK: We want border control! No free movement!
[ Return to step 1 ]
That's it, that's the loop. The EU being mean and nasty is completely secondary, because two (or more) planks of the brexit position are internally incompatible, and always have been.
|
The EU isn't being mean and nasty.
Apart from that a fair characterisation of the last 2-3 years.
|
On June 30 2019 10:42 pmh wrote:
Britain wont be allowed to pass goods from another country to the eu just to avoid any tariffs that there normally would be.
And how are you supposed to stop this?
|
On June 30 2019 10:42 pmh wrote:
I don't see how,they can have restrictions set to prevent that. There are tons of countries who have various trade deals with various countries,each having their own terms and conditions so it is possible.
Britain wont be allowed to pass goods from another country to the eu just to avoid any tariffs that there normally would be. And its not like Britain will have a free trade deal with all the rest of the world either.
Its not easy to do. Its complicated and a lot of checks will be needed but its not impossible and there will be a border anyway. Compared to the alternatives I don't see why they wouldn't.
pmh recognises that other countries also have trade agreements, but without any idea that other countries have to adapt EU regulations (not the other way round!) and there are multiple exemptions and tariffs remaining and mainly concerns itself with products that are solely produced and exported between each other. An actual free trade agreement (not as just the name) is the customs union, which will require alignment on trade agreements with the rest of the EU.
Also pmh doesn't care about the Irish border. Shame everybody else does. His solution is a border is fine. I guess abandoning Nothern Ireland is a OK to him. He doesn't care about the UK at all.
On June 30 2019 10:42 pmh wrote:Though I guess for the uk the European market is much more important then the uk market is to the European union as a whole. Eu could do without a trade deal but in the end will still prefer some sort of deal rather then none. What did you know, both sides would like a deal! The UK already has a deal with the EU. The best deal in fact...being in the EU. The current deal.
|
You can address pmh directly if you have something to say to him. Don't be a jerk.
|
On June 30 2019 10:42 pmh wrote:
I don't see how,they can have restrictions set to prevent that. There are tons of countries who have various trade deals with various countries,each having their own terms and conditions so it is possible.
Britain wont be allowed (Coldnt be prevented - thats how it should read) to pass goods from another country to the eu just to avoid any tariffs that there normally would be. And its not like Britain will have a free trade deal (All it would have to do is to have lower tariffs than EU) with all the rest of the world either.
Its not easy to do (Agree - it is actually impossible to do). Its complicated and a lot of checks will be needed (and how does that work with "without any trade restriction"??) but its not impossible and there will be a border anyway. Compared to the alternatives I don't see why they wouldn't.
Though I guess for the uk the European market is much more important then the uk market is to the European union as a whole. Eu could do without a trade deal but in the end will still prefer some sort of deal rather then none.
You seem to be confusing trade deal with " keep acces to the European market without any trade restrictions".
Nobody says EU and UK wont have trade deal, they most likely will. this trade deal however wont be anywhere close to "acces to the European market without any trade restrictions"
|
On July 02 2019 15:14 Longshank wrote:
You can address pmh directly if you have something to say to him. Don't be a jerk.
I have no need to pm him and if I did, I wouldn't neccessarily be a jerk about it. Why presume so?
|
On July 04 2019 06:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 15:14 Longshank wrote:
You can address pmh directly if you have something to say to him. Don't be a jerk. I have no need to pm him and if I did, I wouldn't neccessarily be a jerk about it. Why presume so?
He meant the fact that you talked about pmh in third prson while quoting him directly. It's the equivalent of talking to someone as if they were not there IRL.
|
“All EU member states have clearly stated that renegotiations is not an option. We just have to hope that the new government in London realises that too.”
Source
German chancellor in a recent interview. How are bojo an jhunt still pretending to live in fantasy land?
I feel there is little actual public scrutiny regarding the non-existent(?) plans of them both.
Given I only consume the guardian and BBC radio, I'm rather limited in my sources, so I'd like to reach out in here for a little help.
|
I'm a bit confused what's going on over there. You seem to be getting the human mop as Prime Minister and he is bad enough, but he says he wants to dissolve parliament if they don't cooperate. He can't do that, but the Queen can. Would Queen Elizabeth actually go along and dissolve parliament if BoJo shows up and says "make it so"?
In any case, wouldn't that just trigger general elections, something the Tories seem dead set on avoiding?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
