theological wrote: » The point of Brexit isn't to seek to control legislation in other countries, it's to increase control over what happens in the UK.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Oh dear, the penny/cent hasn't dropped yet for many has it? But I suppose post Brexit we will be regaled with the positives, the benefits of gaining back control, of sovereignty and the immigrants and trade deals in a week and so on. Best of luck to them.
CelticRambler wrote: » Of course there will. And the UK will have to comply 100% with every EU regulation in order to sell into the EU (as does every other non-EU country). Are you happy for the UK to be obliged to follow rules over which they have no control - in contrast the current situation where they have directy input into the final shape of each and every regulation?
CelticRambler wrote: » In that case, give us an example of what is happening in the UK today that isn't under the UK's control - something that will make life better or easier for British citizens after Brexit.
theological wrote: » There are more reasons than trade alone for wanting to leave the EU. The belief that you have about the UK not being able to "replace market access" is absurd. Firstly, nobody is arguing for no trade with the EU going forward. No matter what scenario there will be continued trade with the EU. Secondly, how big of a deficit in EU trade post-Brexit do you think there'll be such that the UK in time immemorial won't be able to develop in terms of trade. Posts like this are baseless and irrational rhetoric. Please provide solid reasons as to why you believe things like this.
theological wrote: » Specific about what? The outcome of trade negotiations that haven't happened yet? I agree, I can't be specific about things that haven't happened. More importantly, neither can you. We're not Nostradamus. In the scenario that neither of us have mystical powers, the best thing we can do is look to precedent and look to other countries even countries that are smaller that have managed to build successful economies outside of the EU.
I agree with you that the UK needs a good FTA with the EU, the same is also true the other way around.
This is the assumption that I don't agree with you on. There is no good reason as to why the UK cannot negotiate good deals with other countries. Other smaller countries have done so. I also don't agree with what you've said about FTA's that the UK has rolled over being only beneficial to other countries. That's a matter of your opinion and not a matter of fact. You are trying to be Nostradamus without any good basis for believing that the UK cannot succeed in building a new trade policy.
I disagree. The EU is also one of the most protectionist places on Earth for trade. Within its borders sure, it's pretty open. Outside I don't think so.
You've misread my post. I replied to your point "Why hasn't this been done before?" the answer is because the EU forbids individual member states from negotiating trade deals. There are obviously more countries that the UK will want to negotiate free trade with. The US is one of the first that should be pursued. The first priority should be to go through countries where the UK is already doing a lot of trade with outside the EU and to explore expanding trade both in terms of goods and services.
Totally disagree with this conclusion. The EU requires much more control to be handed over for membership than any other trading bloc on earth today. Control of fishing waters,
unlimited migration
handing over complete control over trade policy amongst other things. Can you please provide any examples of a FTA that requires more control than this to be handed over?
theological wrote: » Please read my recent posts. I've already answered these questions.
theological wrote: » ... The belief that you have about the UK not being able to "replace market access" is absurd.
listermint wrote: » Pie in the sky stuff. They can do all this inside the EU. They'll never replace that market access. Never.
briany wrote: » Isn't Boris Johnson's deal really just no-deal by the back door? Pundits are sceptical that an FTA can be arranged by the end of 2020, and Johnson is currently saying he will not extend the transition period. If the Conservatives get a large enough majority, they could perhaps shoot down the possibility of adding amendments to the deal that would give parliament more control. In that case, it's really a shrewd move for the BP to support it. Better for them that no-deal happens a little later than not at all.
Water John wrote: » Isn't Sabine Weyand taking charge of trade deal negotiations for the EU? Best of luck to them, she'll take them to the cleaners.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Now forgive me, but I thought it might be Phil Hogan. I may be wrong of course, I often am...https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/phil-hogan-honoured-as-he-is-confirmed-eu-trade-commissioner-1.4036822
Joe_ Public wrote: » A fta cannot be agreed before the end of 2020, even the most deluded in the tory party cannot believe that fantasy. But even with a majority i think there would be enormous pressure on johnson to agree an extension next june when it has to be agreed. Whats one more broken promise among a litany of them?
RobMc59 wrote: » EU goods have to comply to US regulations and standards in the same way as you describe and vice versa but I doubt you would describe the US as having to follow rules they have no control over as if they were some inferior nation
Joe_ Public wrote: » Yes thats fair. I think there's an understanding that when it comes to elections immigration isnt much of a vote winner. I mean, it delivered in 2016, but not a year later when ukip crashed in the GE. I think even farage understands that because i notice he tends not to bring it up in his interviews very much. Maybe its different in his radio shows, dont listen to them.
boring accountant wrote: » I think it's a bit wishful to suggest that immigration is not a vote getter. Immigration was the primary motivator for the Brexit vote. UKIP crashed for a variety of reasons. Internal squabbles. Lack of a raison d'etre in Brexit. The conservatives becoming increasingly hardline. There's only a hair's breath between 2015 UKIP and 2019 Tory, so UKIP have no reason to exist anymore. You might not see as much talk about immigration from Farage et al now because the priority delivering Brexit, and lumping immigration in is bad optics for the Brexiters. Rest assured, once Brexit is done and dusted the immigration debate will continue with even more ferocity.
briany wrote: » Say the Conservatives returned with a resounding majority of 340 MPs. It would be interesting to see how many would rebel from the whip and vote in favour of an amendment adding parliamentary oversight.
theological wrote: The evidence shows there are lots of opportunities for the UK after leaving.
Bannasidhe wrote: » This whole 'The UK will trade' narrative falls down when asked what exactly will the UK trade? Take this vague 'Goods' for example. What 'goods' are made in the UK that cannot be purchased elsewhere?
Rolls-Royce, the British manufacturer of aircraft engines is setting aside another 1.4 billion pounds this year due to problems with its Trent 1000 engines. This provision is at the expense of the operating profit for the entire year.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Unbelievably, in 2014, Britain added drugs and prostitution to its stats on GDP. This change will have added nearly 1% to their GDP.
storker wrote: » Brexit could well turn out to be like the French Revolution. Two hundred years from now when someone asks if it was a good idea, the answer will be "It's too early to tell."
Even a "relatively benign" no-deal Brexit would push UK debt to its highest since the 1960s, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said. The think tank said borrowing was likely to rise to £100bn and total debt would soar to 90% of national income.
stefanovich wrote: » The UK is one of 28 members. Any agreements need to suit all 28 which means a big opportunity cost for the UK.
theological wrote: » Last post for today: Obviously if I sell things into the EU I will have to comply with EU standards. If I sell things into the US I will have to comply with US standards. The point of Brexit isn't to seek to control legislation in other countries, it's to increase control over what happens in the UK.
Janey Mack wrote: » Tony Connelly had a good article on the EUs preparations/expectations for the FTA negotiationshttps://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/1109/1089604-brexit-future-relationship/ A long read but a good indication of the tough choices ahead for the U.K. I am still trying to find out what exactly the plan for ‘Global Britain’ is.
