Brexit trade deals

Green&Red

Saw this, while not unexpected it is really going to British and Irish farmers. Cheaper food, created to a lower standard, I’d imagine it was a prerequisite of any US deal


https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/10/12/government-overturns-measures-aiming-to-guarantee-uk-food-standards-in-new-law/

richie123

Green&Red wrote: »

Saw this, while not unexpected it is really going to British and Irish farmers. Cheaper food, created to a lower standard, I’d imagine it was a prerequisite of any US deal


https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/10/12/government-overturns-measures-aiming-to-guarantee-uk-food-standards-in-new-law/

Tories are hell bent on importing from America or anywhere or else just using it as leverage to get a better deal out of the eu.tis one big sorry mess.

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

Tories are hell bent on importing from America or anywhere or else just using it as leverage to get a better deal out of the eu.tis one big sorry mess.

Sure the germans want to import beef from south america to be able to sell cars etc

Ireland will be in a bad place with Britain out of Europe. Tax harmonisation etc will hurt ireland and I can see the agri sector suffering very badly

richie123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure the germans want to import beef from south america to be able to sell cars etc

Ireland will be in a bad place with Britain out of Europe. Tax harmonisation etc will hurt ireland and I can see the agri sector suffering very badly

I think Europe imports a certain amount tariff free...the British are looking for a free for all ..or just looking to leverage it to extract a better deal more than likely

Grueller

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure the germans want to import beef from south america to be able to sell cars etc

Ireland will be in a bad place with Britain out of Europe. Tax harmonisation etc will hurt ireland and I can see the agri sector suffering very badly

Not really. The German Ag minister has torpedoed the Mercosur deal for the minute over food standards. Makes a bit of a mockery of the we need big Phil narrative after he pushed the deal.

_Brian

Grueller wrote: »

Not really. The German Ag minister has torpedoed the Mercosur deal for the minute over food standards. Makes a bit of a mockery of the we need big Phil narrative after he pushed the deal.

It would appear to me he was bullying that deal through for some personal reason, soon as they got rid of him in Europe the others started standing against it.

richie123

_Brian wrote: »

It would appear to me he was bullying that deal through for some personal reason, soon as they got rid of him in Europe the others started standing against it.

If you read up on that deal...it benefited Ireland overall better in other industries .. pharma and dairy would u believe...hammered beef alright but overall ireland would have done better overall. Plus beef is week fcjed either way so!I'll be hammered for saying that

_Brian

richie123 wrote: »

If you read up on that deal...it benefited Ireland overall better in other industries .. pharma and dairy would u believe...hammered beef alright but overall ireland would have done better overall. Plus beef is week fcjed either way so!I'll be hammered for saying that

No matter what that deal was at the cost of more and more reainforest being destroyed, even while its a possibility they are burning in advance... Kill it, and kill it forever..


I would go further and say we should boycot all amazonian based countries where the amazon rainforest is shrinking..

richie123

_Brian wrote: »

No matter what that deal was at the cost of more and more reainforest being destroyed, even while its a possibility they are burning in advance... Kill it, and kill it forever..


I would go further and say we should boycot all amazonian based countries where the amazon rainforest is shrinking..

You'd think land was never reclaimed in this country..we reclaimed thousands of acres in this country over the years forestry low lying ground etc...why can't they ? That's the argument your up against

_Brian

richie123 wrote: »

You'd think land was never reclaimed in this country..we reclaimed thousands of acres in this country over the years forestry low lying ground etc...why can't they ? That's the argument your up against

Suppose the answer is allot of lowland here with at was reclaimed out of bog could easy enough be going back. That might be closer than many are comfortable with.

The case majority of the forestry cleared here was forced under British colonial rule to steal the timber for shipbuilding

richie123

_Brian wrote: »

Suppose the answer is allot of lowland here with at was reclaimed out of bog could easy enough be going back. That might be closer than many are comfortable with.

The case majority of the forestry cleared here was forced under British colonial rule to steal the timber for shipbuilding

Tell that to a struggling farmer in Brazil ..
The reasons are irrelevant really it happened and it's very hard tell others then that they can't do it ...very hard to know wat the answer is
We were just lucky in this country that we had it reclaimed before the climate became a serious issue

Bass Reeves

richie123 wrote: »

Tell that to a struggling farmer in Brazil ..
The reasons are irrelevant really it happened and it's very hard tell others then that they can't do it ...very hard to know wat the answer is
We were just lucky in this country that we had it reclaimed before the climate became a serious issue

First off it not struggling farmers that clear rain Forrest. It large cattle ranchers and land speculators. It's actually a no win situation. As well indegenous tribal communities are dislocated or even killed as rainforest is cleared.

It a highly inefficient way to produce beef. At the the start when first cleared most land will sustain an animal/ HA. However within 10 years it will need 5-10HA to support an animal. As land is cleared any better type land is changed over to tillage soya,maize or sugar cane production.

While deforestation had shrunk it has accelerated again. This year it is expected that 10k sq kilometres will be cleared.

It was part of the mecour deal that this stopped it never happened and it accelerated over the last 2-3 years. As the timber is no longer in demand they just start fires and burn huge area's and these fires never stop.

jaymla627

richie123 wrote: »

Tell that to a struggling farmer in Brazil ..
The reasons are irrelevant really it happened and it's very hard tell others then that they can't do it ...very hard to know wat the answer is
We were just lucky in this country that we had it reclaimed before the climate became a serious issue

Desertifiction is the issue, think back to the dust bowl that occured in America in the 1930's and multiply it by a thousand, that's the scenario that will occur in the next few decades in south America if they continue what they are at

richie123

jaymla627 wrote: »

Desertifiction is the issue, think back to the dust bowl that occured in America in the 1930's and multiply it by a thousand, that's the scenario that will occur in the next few decades in south America if they continue what they are at

True no easy answer as long as bolsonaro stays in control it's fcked.

K.G.

Well if you were gambling today deal or no deal

older by the day

Jes lads I taught it was brexit we are talking about. I have 500 kg beef animals for the Mart tomorrow. Are the prices changing in recent days

alps

K.G. wrote: »

Well if you were gambling today deal or no deal

If I were negotiating for the UK....better off leaving now..

The purpose of the vote was to regain sovereignty...they are failing miserably on that now.

Instead of trying to negotiate solutions on the way out, I think they would find it far more practical at this stage to leave, reclaim ALL sovereignty (foreign fishermen out) and from that clean slate, negotiate towards the free trade deal..

Every move would then be a gain for both sides....currently every move is a loss..

Tonynewholland

alps wrote: »

If I were negotiating for the UK....better off leaving now..

The purpose of the vote was to regain sovereignty...they are failing miserably on that now.

Instead of trying to negotiate solutions on the way out, I think they would find it far more practical at this stage to leave, reclaim ALL sovereignty (foreign fishermen out) and from that clean slate, negotiate towards the free trade deal..

Every move would then be a gain for both sides....currently every move is a loss..

What will they do with all the extra fish that they land At present most of their catch is sold in Spain and France.

Duke of Schomberg

alps wrote: »

If I were negotiating for the UK....better off leaving now.. The purpose of the vote was to regain sovereignty...

Too bloody right! The EU is dominated by feckless Catholic countries bleeding the industrious Protestant countries of the north dry. The sooner the UK is out of this Vatican-controlled scheme to bleed us to death and thereby control Europe the better.

grange mac

older by the day wrote: »

Jes lads I taught it was brexit we are talking about. I have 500 kg beef animals for the Mart tomorrow. Are the prices changing in recent days

I had 2yo store's sold outa shed. Prices r static at moment but up well in last 6 weeks. Just taking money off table in case Brexit fcuks whole thing up.
Mart prices are up to 150 ahead of factory. My guys were 620kg and got 1360 from shed.

older by the day

grange mac wrote: »

I had 2yo store's sold outa shed. Prices r static at moment but up well in last 6 weeks. Just taking money off table in case Brexit fcuks whole thing up.
Mart prices are up to 150 ahead of factory. My guys were 620kg and got 1360 from shed.

Good weight I know. But thats good money. I think it was a wise move to lessen your numbers. Can northern Irish buyers buy our cattle and sell it as british beef if there's a bad brexit. Can they buy calfs

grange mac

older by the day wrote: »

Good weight I know. But thats good money. I think it was a wise move to lessen your numbers. Can northern Irish buyers buy our cattle and sell it as british beef if there's a bad brexit. Can they buy calfs

Just lessened by 1/3 still have plenty but rest are alot younger.
Don't think any knows what's gonna happen with UK. All I know is they have trucks going from skibb mart & Gortalea up to North last month...
Can't get enough heavy cattle and skibb is probably most southerly mart in country so tells how stuck they are for anything heavy.

alps

Duke of Schomberg wrote: »

Too bloody right! The EU is dominated by feckless Catholic countries bleeding the industrious Protestant countries of the north dry. The sooner the UK is out of this Vatican-controlled scheme to bleed us to death and thereby control Europe the better.

Think the control is a bit on the Northern side of the Continent...

But in fairness they do look after the feckless..

alps

Tonynewholland wrote: »

What will they do with all the extra fish that they land At present most of their catch is sold in Spain and France.

Dont believe they have the fleet to catch enough to export..

Fish stocks could take a nice replenishing

Tonynewholland

alps wrote: »

Dont believe they have the fleet to catch enough to export..

Fish stocks could take a nice replenishing

they export something like 70% of their catch to the EU. Fishing is just a distraction they will happily sell it out for a no conditions deal to the EU single market

alps

Tonynewholland wrote: »

they export something like 70% of their catch to the EU. Fishing is just a distraction they will happily sell it out for a no conditions deal to the EU single market

Is this catch landed by UK or non UK boats?

Pile of fish landed here in Ireland by foreign boats and ""exported" or "repatriated"

Donegalforever

alps wrote: »

If I were negotiating for the UK....better off leaving now..

The purpose of the vote was to regain sovereignty...they are failing miserably on that now.

Instead of trying to negotiate solutions on the way out, I think they would find it far more practical at this stage to leave, reclaim ALL sovereignty (foreign fishermen out) and from that clean slate, negotiate towards the free trade deal..

Every move would then be a gain for both sides....currently every move is a loss..

?????

alps

Donegalforever wrote: »

?????

Its confusing for us alright.......maybe we only hear one side of this debate..

richie123

Donegalforever wrote: »

?????

Boris is bluffing with a bad poker hand every one can see.all the eu need to do is hang tough.
If he does crash out it's curtains for the Tory's as electorate will be hit hard especially with food pricerises.boris knows this he will fold.

bogman_bass

richie123 wrote: »

Boris is bluffing with a bad poker hand every one can see.all the eu need to do is hang tough.
If he does crash out it's curtains for the Tory's as electorate will be hit hard especially with food pricerises.boris knows this he will fold.

That could be the plan. Make a balls of it call a snap election and leave Labour to pick up the pieces

kk.man

richie123 wrote: »

Boris is bluffing with a bad poker hand every one can see.all the eu need to do is hang tough.
If he does crash out it's curtains for the Tory's as electorate will be hit hard especially with food pricerises.boris knows this he will fold.

Plus 1. They are not many votes from fishermen it's all a front for what appears territory reclaiming.

He needs his party and euro sceptics to see he fought hard and got the best deal.

If there is no deal Europe is going to have to open the purse to support all the sectors affected. I think Europe's purse is bigger than the UKs. In that scenario Scotland will leave the UK which without North Sea Oil the rest of the UK will be in a much weaker position. It be a major political gamble to make.

Trump politics seems to have run it's course and Johnson should have that in the back of his mind.

richie123

kk.man wrote: »

Plus 1. They are not many votes from fishermen it's all a front for what appears territory reclaiming.

He needs his party and euro sceptics to see he fought hard and got the best deal.

If there is no deal Europe is going to have to open the purse to support all the sectors affected. I think Europe's purse is bigger than the UKs. In that scenario Scotland will leave the UK which without North Sea Oil the rest of the UK will be in a much weaker position. It be a major political gamble to make.

Trump politics seems to have run it's course and Johnson should have that in the back of his mind.

Also the eu need to punish this type of behaviour by the British..this colonial backward way of doing buisness has no place in today's society..I think the eu have bent over backwards so far in conceding ground to the British.

If you want to trade with another country you play by an agreed set of rules fullstop.
Boris is some bull****ter and needs to be called out badly.i wish the eu would would just call it eitherway tommorow and be done with this brexit bull****.
You'd be sick listening to it,call his bluff and end it.

yosemitesam1

richie123 wrote: »

Also the eu need to punish this type of behaviour by the British..this colonial backward way of doing buisness has no place in today's society..I think the eu have bent over backwards so far in conceding ground to the British.

If you want to trade with another country you play by an agreed set of rules fullstop.
Boris is some bull****ter and needs to be called out badly.i wish the eu would would just call it eitherway tommorow and be done with this brexit bull****.
You'd be sick listening to it,call his bluff and end it.

The EU stance seems totally unreasonable on fair competition. It should be fair to both sides but the EU is pushing to hold all the aces around it and it's very hard to see how anyone with any sort of backbone could agree to that.

Europe won't give two f**ks about throwing Ireland under the bus if there's going to be any economic fallout

20silkcut

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The EU stance seems totally unreasonable on fair competition. It should be fair to both sides but the EU is pushing to hold all the aces around it and it's very hard to see how anyone with any sort of backbone could agree to that.

Europe won't give two f**ks about throwing Ireland under the bus if there's going to be any economic fallout

EU stance is a level playing field for 27 countries.
The U.K. is the one with the problem with that.
EU more than happy to trade with them.
What more can they do?
Ireland have had the full backing of the EU in this debacle no sign of being thrown under a bus.

tanko

Boris "there's zero chance of the U.K. leaving the EU without a deal" Johnson has no backbone and is a useless liar anyway so we'll see what he agrees to yet.

yosemitesam1

20silkcut wrote: »

EU stance is a level playing field for 27 countries.
The U.K. is the one with the problem with that.
EU more than happy to trade with them.
What more can they do?
Ireland have had the full backing of the EU in this debacle no sign of being thrown under a bus.

EU want to have all of the control over deciding what level is, have the ability to impose tariffs on UK without retaliatory tariffs on EU and it will be the EU who makes the decision on disputes.
How could you sign up to that even if you were fully committed to a level playing field?

Bass Reeves

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The EU stance seems totally unreasonable on fair competition. It should be fair to both sides but the EU is pushing to hold all the aces around it and it's very hard to see how anyone with any sort of backbone could agree to that.

Europe won't give two f**ks about throwing Ireland under the bus if there's going to be any economic fallout

At present Norway and Switzerland have complete free trade deals with the EU. They subscribe to EU laws and regulations. The UK wants FT with out term and conditions. There is no way the EU can concede that and remain in place. Other countries could decide to leave and look for the same deal as the UK.

It holding out on three main issues, fishing, EU regulations and how these regulations are inforced. It is free to leave but look at the cost.

It's fishermen will have all these extra fishing grounds but access to it main markets the EU with tariffs in place. The UK exports a large amount of lamb to the EU as well. As well it industry I'd interlinked to the EU and it is the largest financial services sector in the EU.

If it leaves there will be tariffs on it fish and lamb going into the EU thereby making these strapless competitive. It's importing of fresh food and meat will be subject to tariffs. While on the Beef side it could cripple Ireland as we are so dependent on the UK market on the fresh food and wine from the EU as well as pork and dairy products World prices will force tariffs to be paid by the consumer rather than the producer. This will mean inflation.

As well if sterling reduced in value this will cause more expensive oil and food in the short to medium term in the UK. The EU can weather the storm, France and Germany know that a bad deal now for the EU has medium to long term issues. France prefers to take the pain.nie rather than 2-5years time.

The UK on the other hand could lose 2-300k jobs(a UK economist said last week that Brexit would be as bad as COVID for the UK economy) have a 10% inflation hit in the short term. Norris six pack will not forgive the Conservatives for twenty years. Borris might talk about not being afraid of an Australian trade deal but it's not an option.

Having said all that they are just stupid enough to go ahead with it.

20silkcut

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

EU want to have all of the control over deciding what level is, have the ability to impose tariffs on UK without retaliatory tariffs on EU and it will be the EU who makes the decision on disputes.
How could you sign up to that even if you were fully committed to a level playing field?

The U.K. can impose tariffs as well.
The U.K. can do as it pleases, can trade with whoever it likes.
They don’t have to trade with the EU at all.

If the do want to trade with the EU those are the rules.
Don’t like the rules trade with someone else.

What’s unfair about that.

richie123

20silkcut wrote: »

The U.K. can impose tariffs as well.
The U.K. can do as it pleases, can trade with whoever it likes.
They don’t have to trade with the EU at all.

If the do want to trade with the EU those are the rules.
Don’t like the rules trade with someone else.

What’s unfair about that.

That's fair enough,why don't they **** off and do that?? Go and be gone the greatest shower of clowns God love them.
It's actually unbelievable how thick an establisment can be.
If they want to trade with the eu they'll trade under agreed terms fullstop.
Eu will never throw Ireland under he bus that you can be sure off .
27 nation's are in complete solidarity.

20silkcut

richie123 wrote: »

That's fair enough,why don't they **** off and do that?? Go and be gone the greatest shower of clowns God love them.
It's actually unbelievable how thick an establisment can be.
If they want to trade with the eu they'll trade under agreed terms fullstop.
Eu will never throw Ireland under he bus that you can be sure off .
27 nation's are in complete solidarity.

They are not doing that because their negotiating strategy is give me what I want I have a gun to my head and it’s your fault if I pull the trigger.
The absolute worst cack handed negotiating strategy any sane country has ever come up with.

richie123

20silkcut wrote: »

They are not doing that because their negotiating strategy is give me what I want I have a gun to my head and it’s your fault if I pull the trigger.
The absolute worst cack handed negotiating strategy any sane country has ever come up with.

Agreed, in other words they have no interest Ina deal they want there sovereignty what ever the hell that means,and at any cost.
I hope the eu hold firm.

alps

Bass Reeves wrote: »

At present Norway and Switzerland have complete free trade deals with the EU. They subscribe to EU laws and regulations. The UK wants FT with out term and conditions. There is no way the EU can concede that and remain in place. Other countries could decide to leave and look for the same deal as the UK.

.

Switzerland and Norway were never in the EU. They did not have to negotiate a deal from a position of having been inside.

This agreement would be a lot more straightforward if negotiated from a position of the UK being completely outside the EU..

The British government have correctly taken the position that its electorate instructed it to regain its sovereignty. We can mock and jeer all we want about the stupidity of the decision, but is a government correct or not in trying it's best to implement decision?

A deal whereby Britain have to follow all the rules but have none of the influence in those rules doesn't seem to me to be an agreement that they can accept.

The tone of many of the contributors here is that the British should be punished...I reckon that's what the people of the UK think is the sole purpose of the European negotiators.

Europe don't have a huge amount to loose here, bar 5 million unhappy campers on the offshore island..

Danzy

20silkcut wrote: »

The U.K. can impose tariffs as well.
The U.K. can do as it pleases, can trade with whoever it likes.
They don’t have to trade with the EU at all.

If the do want to trade with the EU those are the rules.
Don’t like the rules trade with someone else.

What’s unfair about that.

I get why they voted leave and would have if I was there.

Yet I'm also aware that the EU is a big part of British GDP, the same doesn't apply in reverse.

Jizique

alps wrote: »

Switzerland and Norway were never in the EU. They did not have to negotiate a deal from a position of having been inside.

This agreement would be a lot more straightforward if negotiated from a position of the UK being completely outside the EU..

The British government have correctly taken the position that its electorate instructed it to regain its sovereignty. We can mock and jeer all we want about the stupidity of the decision, but is a government correct or not in trying it's best to implement decision?

A deal whereby Britain have to follow all the rules but have none of the influence in those rules doesn't seem to me to be an agreement that they can accept.

The tone of many of the contributors here is that the British should be punished...I reckon that's what the people of the UK think is the sole purpose of the European negotiators.

Europe don't have a huge amount to loose here, bar 5 million unhappy campers on the offshore island..

The one thing the British electorate did not vote for was this definition of sovereignty, this version of the hardest brexit imaginable; it is not about punishment, the British are now a third country, outside the EU and treated as same.
The most recent vote a mere 12months ago saw the current ruling party run on a deal, an agreement, an over-ready deal, which they have since ditched; they could have run on this version of brexit but they knew they would get hammered if they did - this is why they put so much focus on reaching the Withdrawal Agreement before the election; this gave them 44% of the vote but a clear majority of the seats due to the FPTP system they use.

Tonynewholland

It has always been the British way to push everything to the absolute limit. London and Europe are joined at the hip and I’m guessing the can will be kicked down the road again tomorrow night.
Europe isn’t for changing at this point so it’s all down to Borris.

Danzy

Tonynewholland wrote: »

It has always been the British way to push everything to the absolute limit. London and Europe are joined at the hip and I’m guessing the can will be kicked down the road again tomorrow night.
Europe isn’t for changing at this point so it’s all down to Borris.

Ideologically there isn't a hair breadth between the Tories and the EU Commission. Maybe too alike, they will find a solution but it'll drag out longer probably than expected.

Fudge all round.

alps

alps wrote: »

Switzerland and Norway were never in the EU. They did not have to negotiate a deal from a position of having been inside.

This agreement would be a lot more straightforward if negotiated from a position of the UK being completely outside the EU..

The British government have correctly taken the position that its electorate instructed it to regain its sovereignty. We can mock and jeer all we want about the stupidity of the decision, but is a government correct or not in trying it's best to implement decision?

A deal whereby Britain have to follow all the rules but have none of the influence in those rules doesn't seem to me to be an agreement that they can accept.

The tone of many of the contributors here is that the British should be punished...I reckon that's what the people of the UK think is the sole purpose of the European negotiators.

Europe don't have a huge amount to loose here, bar 5 million unhappy campers on the offshore island..

You're being charitable.

I like to think I have a fair few friends in the UK, and I honestly wish those decent normal people the very best.

Their Government, and those figures that have created this Brexit thing, on the other hand........

Bass Reeves

alps wrote: »

Switzerland and Norway were never in the EU. They did not have to negotiate a deal from a position of having been inside.

This agreement would be a lot more straightforward if negotiated from a position of the UK being completely outside the EU..

The British government have correctly taken the position that its electorate instructed it to regain its sovereignty. We can mock and jeer all we want about the stupidity of the decision, but is a government correct or not in trying it's best to implement decision?

A deal whereby Britain have to follow all the rules but have none of the influence in those rules doesn't seem to me to be an agreement that they can accept.

The tone of many of the contributors here is that the British should be punished...I reckon that's what the people of the UK think is the sole purpose of the European negotiators.

Europe don't have a huge amount to loose here, bar 5 million unhappy campers on the offshore island..

No Switzerland and Norway were not in the EU but both traded a lot of sovereignty to have a free trade agreement with the EU. The British think they should be entitled to trade into the biggest economic market in the world on there terms.

It not about punishing the British but not allowing a country outside the EU which has full free trade with the largest market in the world to undermine the working of that market. At the end of time if that happens it ordinary workers that pay the price.

If the UK is allowed to give unrestricted grant aid to certain foreign investment and then these companies have access to the EU market, it's not in our long-term interest.

It could use trade to undercut jobs and wages within the EU. It could allow US , Australian and Brazilian beef into the UK in a trade agreement and use it as backdoor access to the EU giving British food companies an advantage.

It cannot have it both ways access to the largest market in the world and undermine that market at the same time

alps

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No Switzerland and Norway were not in the EU but both traded a lot of sovereignty to have a free trade agreement with the EU. The British think they should be entitled to trade into the biggest economic market in the world on there terms.

It not about punishing the British but not allowing a country outside the EU which has full free trade with the largest market in the world to undermine the working of that market. At the end of time if that happens it ordinary workers that pay the price.

If the UK is allowed to give unrestricted grant aid to certain foreign investment and then these companies have access to the EU market, it's not in our long-term interest.

It could use trade to undercut jobs and wages within the EU. It could allow US , Australian and Brazilian beef into the UK in a trade agreement and use it as backdoor access to the EU giving British food companies an advantage.

It cannot have it both ways access to the largest market in the world and undermine that market at the same time

And that is why we have this difficult situtation. Neither side can move from where they are now...its like a game of chess with a rook and a king in the same corner..

Unless one gives..the only option is to get out completely and negotiate common ground on the way "back in"

yosemitesam1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No Switzerland and Norway were not in the EU but both traded a lot of sovereignty to have a free trade agreement with the EU. The British think they should be entitled to trade into the biggest economic market in the world on there terms.

It not about punishing the British but not allowing a country outside the EU which has full free trade with the largest market in the world to undermine the working of that market. At the end of time if that happens it ordinary workers that pay the price.

If the UK is allowed to give unrestricted grant aid to certain foreign investment and then these companies have access to the EU market, it's not in our long-term interest.

It could use trade to undercut jobs and wages within the EU. It could allow US , Australian and Brazilian beef into the UK in a trade agreement and use it as backdoor access to the EU giving British food companies an advantage.

It cannot have it both ways access to the largest market in the world and undermine that market at the same time

What you need to prevent that on both sides is an independent arbitration process.
That does not seem to be forthcoming from the eu's side.

yosemitesam1

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

What you need to prevent that on both sides is an independent arbitration process.
That does not seem to be forthcoming from the eu's side.

I saw a video of Cameron presenting "the facts" online presumably around the referendum time. British sales to EU = 50% of their exports, EU sales to UK = 7%, UK populations 60 million vs 440m in EU + common market, Brexit negotiations reality 27 nations vs 1.

Fine if they want to be out, but no point in ignoring the reality of who holds the cards.