Brexit trade deals

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.

Bass Reeves

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.

The EU have offered (AFAIK) that UK courts can arbitrate, to do this the UK must pass legislation to allow this. The UK dose not wish to allow this it wants complete unpoliced free trade

tanko

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 Brits should have thought about all this before they decided to leave.

Where is that fool David Cameron now?

tanko

tanko wrote: »

The Brits should have thought about all this before they decided to leave.

Where is that fool David Cameron now?

Retiring on a massive pension probably doing a speaking tour, like Bertie. Who's the fool

Tonynewholland

tanko wrote: »

The Brits should have thought about all this before they decided to leave.

Where is that fool David Cameron now?

He probably has a nice house somewhere sunny in France or Italy

Danzy

tanko wrote: »

The Brits should have thought about all this before they decided to leave.

Where is that fool David Cameron now?

Cameron pretty much was the only driving force for Remain.

tanko

Danzy wrote: »

Cameron pretty much was the only driving force for Remain.

He has admitted himself that he made a complete balls of the whole thing.
The remain campaign was a shambles.

Danzy

tanko wrote: »

He has admitted himself that he made a complete balls of the whole thing.
The remain campaign was a shambles.

It was but it was pretty much himself and Osborne that did it all, without them there was no campaign.

Jizique

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.

That is incorrect, but if you want to believe the tabloids fine.

dh1985

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 weren't to long throwing ireland under the bus in 2010 making the public exchequer pick up the debts of private institutions.
As well as that they rejected any debt reduction whilst at the same time brokering a deal with Greece on the same. If you think the likes of the French,Germans.or Dutch give a damn about Ireland your sadly mistaken. In fact the sad thing about Brexit is we are losing our closest allie in the EU and biggest trading partner and not just the bunch of clowns

richie123

dh1985 wrote: »

They weren't to long throwing ireland under the bus in 2010 making the public exchequer pick up the debts of private institutions.
As well as that they rejected any debt reduction whilst at the same time brokering a deal with Greece on the same. If you think the likes of the French,Germans.or Dutch give a damn about Ireland your sadly mistaken. In fact the sad thing about Brexit is we are losing our closest allie in the EU and biggest trading partner and not just the bunch of clowns

I'll agree with you there.
They won't throw Ireland under the bus this time because it would risk gfa and the breakup of the eu,i hope I'm right.
Closet Ally? Boris Johnson gives a **** about Ireland ? Give me a break