Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

First Up

theological wrote:

I'm not convinced that their position is much stronger if they are going to insist on an unreasonable demand at the starting point of the talks.

If the UK wants the same unfettered access to the EU that it enjoyed when a member, it is not unreasonable to ask that they operate to the same standards as they did while a member.

If they are not willing to do that, then the EU will negotiate 3rd party trade terms that protect EU consumers, suppliers and competitors from any reduction in those standards.

If the UK is not willing to do that, they are free to revert to WTO MFN terms.

The UK can decide which option it prefers.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

I'm not convinced that their position is much stronger if they are going to insist on an unreasonable demand at the starting point of the talks.

If the EU cares so much about the level playing field provision then they should agree to an independent panel to oversee it on the basis of commonly agreed principles rather than EU law enforced by the ECJ.

No reasonable third party nation would agree to the criteria the EU are putting on the table, so why should the UK?

Even America wouldn't insist that the UK automatically copy their rulebook.

So the obvious answer should be no until they improve their position.

Edit: And also, it wouldn't be just replacing UK contributions. It would be replacing the UK share of trade with the EU which is significant given the trade deficit.

The trade deficit doesn't mean it's significant for the EU, only the UK.

The LPF is only for full access to the EU single market. If the British don't want this then they do not have to sign up to it but it's only right for the EU to protect its founding principles.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The trade deficit doesn't mean it's significant for the EU, only the UK.

The LPF is only for full access to the EU single market. If the British don't want this then they do not have to sign up to it but it's only right for the EU to protect its founding principles.

No, the trade deficit the UK has with the EU means that the UK buys more from them than the UK sells to them. So it is important for EU member states also to have a deal also.

But, as I said, it must be the right deal rather than any deal.

The EU can "protect its founding principles" without asking the UK as a third country to copy its rule book. In the same way the EU's principles were intact when Canada had a tariff free trade arrangement with the EU without having to copy the rule book.

An independent arbitration panel with both parties and an observer is the best way to oversee the deal. Note - this was what Canada has with the CETA deal for trade disputes.

Edit:

First Up wrote: »

If the UK wants the same unfettered access to the EU that it enjoyed when a member, it is not unreasonable to ask that they operate to the same standards as they did while a member.

If they are not willing to do that, then the EU will negotiate 3rd party trade terms that protect EU consumers, suppliers and competitors from any reduction in those standards.

If the UK is not willing to do that, they are free to revert to WTO MFN terms.

The UK can decide which option it prefers.

The UK only wants the same level of access to the EU market as Canada has. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

No, the trade deficit the UK has with the EU means that the UK buys more from them than the UK sells to them. So it is important for EU member states also to have a deal also.

But, as I said, it must be the right deal rather than any deal.

The EU can "protect its founding principles" without asking the UK as a third country to copy its rule book. In the same way the EU's principles were intact when Canada had a tariff free trade arrangement with the EU without having to copy the rule book.

An independent arbitration panel with both parties and an observer is the best way to oversee the deal. Note - this was what Canada has with the CETA deal for trade disputes.

No, it does not. What percentage of EU exports go to the UK? The trade deficit stuff is just Faragesque spin. Same for his nonsense about German cars and Treasure Island, whatever that was supposed to mean.

Well, no. If the UK can deal with reduced access to the single market then it can refuse the LPF. If it wants full access then it must abide by the rules. It's simple.

Can you prove that the ECJ is not impartial?

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, it does not. What percentage of EU exports go to the UK? The trade deficit stuff is just Faragesque spin. Same for his nonsense about German cars and Treasure Island, whatever that was supposed to mean.

Well, no. If the UK can deal with reduced access to the single market then it can refuse the LPF. If it wants full access then it must abide by the rules. It's simple.

Can you prove that the ECJ is not impartial?

trade deficit

noun
noun: trade deficit; plural noun: trade deficits

the amount by which the cost of a country's imports exceeds the value of its exports.


The UK has a trade deficit with the EU. Meaning it imports more from the EU than it exports.

From Full Fact:

Our exports to the EU were worth about £274 billion in 2017, while the UK imported £341 billion’s worth.

The ECJ is the court of the EU. One of the parties subject to the agreement. Of course it is biased towards the EU because it is an EU court.

No other third country has the ECJ overseeing their trade agreement. So the UK should say no. Obviously.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

trade deficit

noun
noun: trade deficit; plural noun: trade deficits

the amount by which the cost of a country's imports exceeds the value of its exports.


The UK has a trade deficit with the EU. Meaning it imports more from the EU than it exports.

From Full Fact:

Condescension:

an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.

theological wrote: »

The ECJ is the court of the EU. One of the parties subject to the agreement. Of course it is biased towards the EU because it is an EU court.

No other third country has the ECJ overseeing their trade agreement. So the UK should say no. Obviously.

So you can't prove any bias. Thanks.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you can't prove any bias. Thanks.

So do you want to offer a guess as to why no other country agreed to have the ECJ oversee their agreement? Why do you think that is?

I think the answer is obvious. The ECJ is the court of the EU. This is why Canada insisted on an independent mechanism to oversee their deal.

Obviously the UK should do the same.

First Up

theological wrote:

The UK has a trade deficit with the EU. Meaning it imports more from the EU than it exports.

I hope the UK negotiators have a better understanding of this than you.

The EU's overall export exposure to the UK is 8%. Slightly less for Germany and France; slightly more (11%) for Ireland.

The UK's export exposure to the EU is 45%.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

I hope the UK negotiators have a better understanding of this than you.

The EU's overall export exposure to the UK is 8%. Slightly less for Germany and France; slightly more (11%) for Ireland.

The UK's export exposure to the EU is 45%.

The UK is a small but important export market for the EU. Obviously, nobody wants to lose 12.5% of their income but it's not the economic trump card the Brexiters have been bigging it up to be either.

theological

First Up wrote: »

I hope the UK negotiators have a better understanding of this than you.

The EU's overall export exposure to the UK is 8%. Slightly less for Germany and France; slightly more (11%) for Ireland.

The UK's export exposure to the EU is 45%.

An 8% drop in exports overall would still be hugely significant.

Also - as the EU isn't a single country, there are regions that would be more exposed than others to a drop in UK trade. Keeping a united front would be tricky.

In any case I'm supportive of an agreement, but the UK does have some advantages in these discussions despite what people may post here.

First Up

theological wrote:

The UK only wants the same level of access to the EU market as Canada has. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

There is much more to market access than tariffs. The EU's trade with Canada is very different to its trade with the UK. Canadian merchandise entering the EU is still subject to customs inspections and clearance and the suppliers and customers are not connected by a tunnel.

theological wrote:

Also - as the EU isn't a single country, there are regions that would be more exposed than others to a drop in UK trade. Keeping a united front would be tricky.

The EU member states have long understood that their collective strength vastly outweighs any regional or national interests. If the UK thinks it will drive a wedge between members it will be just the latest in its long list of disastrous miscalculations.

cryptocurrency

Been away for a few days and it seems nothing changes here. Does everyone still believe Barnier is doing even remotely OK in this battle. He's making an horrendous start.

Padre_Pio

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Been away for a few days and it seems nothing changes here. Does everyone still believe Barnier is doing even remotely OK in this battle. He's making an horrendous start.

You could have been away three years and nothing has changed.

UK still running around like headless chickens making this up on the fly.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

No, the trade deficit the UK has with the EU means that the UK buys more from them than the UK sells to them. So it is important for EU member states also to have a deal also.

The EU doesn't need a deal as long as UK customers still want - or need - to buy stuff. Most of what they want or are likely to buy from China, they're already buying from China; most of what they want or need to buy from the EU, they'll still want or need to buy from the EU if Johnson walks away with no deal, and the EU will happily sell to them, deal or no deal.

timetogo1

theological wrote: »

An 8% drop in exports overall would still be hugely significant.

How likely is it do you think that the EU exports to the UK will drop from 8% to 0%

Leroy42

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Been away for a few days and it seems nothing changes here. Does everyone still believe Barnier is doing even remotely OK in this battle. He's making an horrendous start.

This isn't a battle, or shouldn't be. I think, though, that therein lies one of the fundamental issues with Brexit. Brexiteers are selling this as a battle, when in fact it should be about garnering relationships, helping trade, closer union (without the political aspect).

But instead, Johnson et al are pursuing this as a zero sum game. Its about who wins. The major issue there is that the UK is so small in relative terms. This is exactly the type of issue that the EU was designed to protect against. A relatively large country, a match for any of the individual members, but the union gives them collectively a greater power.

Much like the UK itself. But even in that, the current narrative is all about telling Scotland what to do. The irony of that seems totally lost on the Brexiteers.

One big reason to believe that the EU will do better is that already the position that Barnier has been told to work towards has already been discussed among the 27 and a consensus reached. Whilst the UK position, in as much as it is even known, has been decided by the cabinet in total secrecy with no input from anyone except themselves.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

One big reason to believe that the EU will do better is that already the position that Barnier has been told to work towards has already been discussed among the 27 and a consensus reached. Whilst the UK position, in as much as it is even known, has been decided by the cabinet in total secrecy with no input from anyone except themselves.

The consensus doesn't particularly matter if the terms that they are offering are going to be flatly rejected by the British side particularly if they think that the UK is going to automatically copy the EU rule book.

No third country agreement with the EU has this, so the UK should reject it on that basis.

The British public gave the Conservatives the mandate to negotiate on their behalf by re-electing them. I'm quite happy for the cabinet to decide on the direction of the talks. That's why I voted Conservative in December. To break the stupid parliamentary deadlock we had and to get Brexit done.

The idea that every move in these talks should be made public is bizarre.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

The EU doesn't need a deal as long as UK customers still want - or need - to buy stuff. Most of what they want or are likely to buy from China, they're already buying from China; most of what they want or need to buy from the EU, they'll still want or need to buy from the EU if Johnson walks away with no deal, and the EU will happily sell to them, deal or no deal.

So no deal means a 20% tariff on beef, but the UK does a deal with the US or Argentina where no tariffs apply.

How will that go down in rural iteland?

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

but the UK does a deal with the US or Argentina where no tariffs apply.

In exchange for what?

Aegir wrote: »

How will that go down in rural iteland?

Probably better than in rural, beef-rearing Britain. At least Ireland will still be able to export tarif-free to the rest of Europe.

sondagefaux

theological wrote: »

The consensus doesn't particularly matter if the terms that they are offering are going to be flatly rejected by the British side particularly if they think that the UK is going to automatically copy the EU rule book.

No third country agreement with the EU has this, so the UK should reject it on that basis.

The British public gave the Conservatives the mandate to negotiate on their behalf by re-electing them. I'm quite happy for the cabinet to decide on the direction of the talks. That's why I voted Conservative in December. To break the stupid parliamentary deadlock we had and to get Brexit done.

The idea that every move in these talks should be made public is bizarre.

The EU's DCFTAs with Ukraine and Georgia have similar provisions to those set out in the EU's negotiating mandate: there is no need to adopt EU 'standards', but to commit not to go below the minimum standards in key areas (environmental law, particularly as it applies to production, labour rights, state aid and competition), which the UK is committed to in any case through its adherence to international treaties. The basis of much of EU law in these areas is its adherence to the same international treaties.

In terms of jurisdiction for the CJEU, this only applies when a dispute arises over a matter of EU law implementing an aspect of the deal *within* the EU.

If the UK and the EU have a dispute over whether or not such an EU law correctly or adequately implements *within* the EU, a measure jointly agreed by the UK and the EU to be part of any trade deal, the CJEU can make a ruling about the EU law only.

The proposed dispute procedure mandates independent arbitration if the parties can't resolve disputes between them.

The only role for the CJEU is that set out above, only if the dispute touches on matters of EU law. Even then, the CJEU can only tell the independent arbitration panel if it thinks the EU law implementing an agreed measure *within* the EU is correct or adequate.

The CJEU will have no power to rule on UK law implementing an agreed measure and it won't have the power to overturn decisions of the independent arbitration panel.

*Every* free trade agreement the EU has with third countries has a dispute resolution mechanism.

Those it has with Ukraine and Georgia have mechanisms similar to what is proposed by the EU for this potential deal with the UK.

cryptocurrency

Leroy42 wrote: »

This isn't a battle, or shouldn't be. I think, though, that therein lies one of the fundamental issues with Brexit. Brexiteers are selling this as a battle, when in fact it should be about garnering relationships, helping trade, closer union (without the political aspect).

But instead, Johnson et al are pursuing this as a zero sum game. Its about who wins. The major issue there is that the UK is so small in relative terms. This is exactly the type of issue that the EU was designed to protect against. A relatively large country, a match for any of the individual members, but the union gives them collectively a greater power.

Much like the UK itself. But even in that, the current narrative is all about telling Scotland what to do. The irony of that seems totally lost on the Brexiteers.

One big reason to believe that the EU will do better is that already the position that Barnier has been told to work towards has already been discussed among the 27 and a consensus reached. Whilst the UK position, in as much as it is even known, has been decided by the cabinet in total secrecy with no input from anyone except themselves.

Well if they are so small and they are skill about to KO the EU.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

So no deal means a 20% tariff on beef, but the UK does a deal with the US or Argentina where no tariffs apply.

How will that go down in rural iteland?

How many times have the Brexiters predicted the Irish folding and gotten it wrong by now?

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

The consensus doesn't particularly matter if the terms that they are offering are going to be flatly rejected by the British side particularly if they think that the UK is going to automatically copy the EU rule book.

No third country agreement with the EU has this, so the UK should reject it on that basis.

The British public gave the Conservatives the mandate to negotiate on their behalf by re-electing them. I'm quite happy for the cabinet to decide on the direction of the talks. That's why I voted Conservative in December. To break the stupid parliamentary deadlock we had and to get Brexit done.

The idea that every move in these talks should be made public is bizarre.

So you voted for Tories on the basis of the WA and PD. And now Johnson is saying that he will live up to neither, and yet you have no issue with that? They have no mandate for that, they only, in as far as one can take a mandate out of a GE, take a mandate based on the WA and PD.

So border checks on the Irish sea. Payment of 39bn and a LPF. They are all things you agreed to vote for. You must be really annoyed that Johnson is looking so go back on all of that.

They can be flatly rejected, and the outcome of that is know to everyone. The EU have always stated they wanted, and expected as it was in the agreed PD, that the UK agreed to it to. The fact that Johnson now thinks that his majority gives him licence to go back on the word of the UK is the real issue here.

First Up

And Boris is still going on about "mutual recognition" of UK/EU standards.

That pipe dream was comprehensively put to sleep at least two years ago. The fact the Boris still clings it shows how little else they have been able to think of.

Leroy42

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Well if they are so small and they are skill about to KO the EU.

I said relatively small. You think the UK are the same size as the EU? Really?

So 450m people are the same as 60m? Is that the world that you live in?

And again, nobody is going to get killed. You need to work out what all this is about. What ever happens the EU and the UK will still exist, for whatever time they they remain.

Trade will still happen. People will still work, live etc. The only question is how easy or hard it is all going to be. At the moment the UK, through treatment of their own citizens in ending FoM, in their treatment of farmers, in their treatment of industry, seem intent on making everyone's lives as complicated as possible. For no other reason than to say they won!

cryptocurrency

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How many times have the Brexiters predicted the Irish folding and gotten it wrong by now?

They had Cameron and May, total saps. Now the real game is on and Boris has been playing hard ball and winning since October.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you voted for Tories on the basis of the WA and PD. And now Johnson is saying that he will live up to neither, and yet you have no issue with that? They have no mandate for that, they only, in as far as one can take a mandate out of a GE, take a mandate based on the WA and PD.

So border checks on the Irish sea. Payment of 39bn and a LPF. They are all things you agreed to vote for. You must be really annoyed that Johnson is looking so go back on all of that.

They can be flatly rejected, and the outcome of that is know to everyone. The EU have always stated they wanted, and expected as it was in the agreed PD, that the UK agreed to it to. The fact that Johnson now thinks that his majority gives him licence to go back on the word of the UK is the real issue here.

I voted for the Conservatives in December because it was the best chance to unblock parliament and get decisions made on Brexit. They do have a mandate to do this and to negotiate for the UK.

The political declaration does not require auto-copying of EU rules. Maintaining a level playing field can be done through an impartial arbitration mechanism with a third party observer.

cryptocurrency

Leroy42 wrote: »

I said relatively small. You think the UK are the same size as the EU? Really?

So 450m people are the same as 60m? Is that the world that you live in?

And again, nobody is going to get killed. You need to work out what all this is about. What ever happens the EU and the UK will still exist, for whatever time they they remain.

Trade will still happen. People will still work, live etc. The only question is how easy or hard it is all going to be. At the moment the UK, through treatment of their own citizens in ending FoM, in their treatment of farmers, in their treatment of industry, seem intent on making everyone's lives as complicated as possible. For no other reason than to say they won!

The EU is toast, this is happening, put your house on it.

BTW I never onced said about EU and UK sizes onf populations in this exchange. Stop reading what you want to read.

ancapailldorcha

cryptocurrency wrote: »

They had Cameron and May, total saps. Now the real game is on and Boris has been playing hard ball and winning since October.

He gave the EU the first thing they wanted. May wouldn't budge because she cared about the union. Johnson struggles with no such impediments.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How many times have the Brexiters predicted the Irish folding and gotten it wrong by now?

I didn't say anything about Ireland folding, I was giving an example.

You are completely misrepresenting what I said.