nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

reslfj

RobMc59 wrote: »

...
In regards to German car manufacturers,my last three cars have been German but if the cost went up due to tit for tat tariffs I'd reluctantly look elsewhere.

In the case of a WTO based no deal (WA only) all car models will pay the same tariff into the UK (the UK WTO MFN tariff for cars).

German cars will be more expensive, but so will all other imported cars.

Price increases in the UK for UK assembled cars will depend upon the tariffs on imported auto parts (about 2/3 of the cars value).

However car export to the EU27 will end due to the 10% tariffs into the EU27 market.

The UK production will be for a little export to non EU countries and to the UK market. This smaller production will likely be more expensive - and may not survive the next major factory retooling for new car models.

The net result will be far fewer UK assembled cars and UK consumers will pay more for cars (sometime) after Dec 31. 2020.

Lars

sondagefaux

reslfj wrote: »

In the case of a WTO based no deal (WA only) all car models will pay the same tariff into the UK (the UK WTO MFN tariff for cars).

German cars will be more expensive, but so will all other imported cars.

Price increases in the UK for UK assembled cars will depend upon the tariffs on imported auto parts (about 2/3 of the cars value).

However car export to the EU27 will end due to the 10% tariffs into the EU27 market.

The UK production will be for a little export to non EU countries and to the UK market. This smaller production will likely be more expensive - and may not survive the next major factory retooling for new car models.

The net result will be far fewer UK assembled cars and UK consumers will pay more for cars (sometime) after Dec 31. 2020.

Lars

Most probably.

sondagefaux

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`m aware there are no British owned manufacturers,as are you..
The UK agreeing to follow EU standards from the very beginning would be the way to go imo.It`s very worrying that before negotiations begin the UK is saying they won`t follow standards which would allow access to the largest trading block in the world.
Like yourself,I`m a layman and have no`inside` knowledge of what will happen but I think there are three possible scenarios:1.The UK will make a humiliating climbdown(I don`t see that happening after making so much fuss).
2.There will be an agreement where both sides give ground(unlikely as the EU has the upper hand and has no reason to give ground).
3.The UK fully intends to leave without a deal and take it`s chances,having to take a hit(I believe this is the likely outcome going on the current UK and EU stance).
In addition,I`ve racked my brains as to why the UK is taking this stance with the EU-the rumours of Russian interference in the brexit referendum are worrying as is johnson in cahoots with trump-both Russia and the US see the EU as a threat and would like to see the EU fall,it`s unlikely Russia sees the UK as a serious threat.

Specifically on car standards, these are set by UNECE for cars made in most of the 56 UNECE members, including the UK and all the EU member states, plus Japan etc:

https://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/region.html

https://www.unece.org/fr/transport/areas-of-work/vehicle-regulations/reglementation-des-vehicules-accueil.html

Unless the UK goes absolutely nuts and leaves UNECE, it's going to be following the UNECE standards which the EU uses.

The bigger potential bump in the road in terms of standards is type-approval certificates for car models, these may have to be duplicated for UK-made cars, one for the UK, one for the EU and potentially vice versa for EU-made cars

This will add to the time and expense of getting UK-made cars into the EU/Single Market, and EU-made cars into the UK, tariffs or no tariffs.

Obviously, if there are tariffs, there will be further costs, but even without them, new cars will most likely become more expensive.

I have no idea what the outcome of the negotiations might be (if there are any: they could be abandoned if there's not enough common ground for them to even begin), although I share your suspicion that the UK may not really want a deal.

sondagefaux

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Just read an article on BBC website that is headlined Michel Barnier: UK can't have Canada trade deal with EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

'"A trade agreement that includes in particular fishing and includes a level playing field, with a country that has a very particular proximity - a unique territorial and economic closeness - which is why it can't be compared to Canada or South Korea or Japan."

The Barnier slide from late 2017 showed that the Canada deal was one of the last ones before No Deal, anyone know what is going on?

What's going on is that the UK and EU jointly negotiated, signed and ratified an international agreement which does not include a set of slides.

Both parties agreed, via the Political Declaration, that they would try to work towards an agreement that would be far more comprehensive than any agreement the EU has with any other state or entity that doesn't include free movement of people.

The UK agreed to this and ratified the agreement just last month.

Now the UK wants a much less comprehensive agreement, but the EU doesn't want that, and wants to negotiate on the basis of the jointly agreed Political Declaration.

So we have one party which wants to negotiate on the basis of an international agreement, negotiated, signed and ratified by both parties, and one party which wants to negotiate on the basis of some slides...

That's what's going on.

A Dub in Glasgo

Thanks, I know about the WA and about the PD and I know that the WA is the international agreement bit and the PD is the words bit that is non-binding so not sure why you felt the need to restate it. The slide Barnier presented showed an eventual deal scenario if the UK does not rescind red lines. The what is going on bit was answered in post 6904

Thargor

Fears raised that EU will back Greece over return of Elgin Marbles in Brexit trade talks

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/18/fears-raised-eu-will-back-greece-return-elgin-marbles-brexit/

Beautiful, thats a genius idea, stuff like this will help reality sink in for the UK.

ancapailldorcha

Thargor wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/18/fears-raised-eu-will-back-greece-return-elgin-marbles-brexit/

Beautiful, thats a genius idea, stuff like this will help reality sink in for the UK.

If they don't care about Northern Ireland, why would they care about something the overwhelming majority of people don't even know exists?

Enzokk

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Greeks want the Elgin Marbles back.

The Spanish want Gibraltar.

We want no border on the island of Ireland.

Anything else?

This trade negotiator has the view that the one strategy the UK has may just work against them,

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1229866146784055296?s=20

Basically it is better for the UK if the EU is united because it will mean nations will be more focused on the ultimate goal. Once you get them fighting against each other then each nation will have its own demands in the deal negotiations. Makes sense.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Why is pointing out that German exports will take a hit being unhelpful?It`s the truth-I still think voluntary alignment with EU is the best way forward and totally disagree with the current UK tack.

Because you didn't post about a hit but total collapse.

I'm very pro EU but would imagine the sudden loss of an export market of 73.6 billion euros to the UK in less than a year would have adverse effects on any country-even Germany.

Those were your words.

Leroy42

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Just read an article on BBC website that is headlined Michel Barnier: UK can't have Canada trade deal with EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662

'"A trade agreement that includes in particular fishing and includes a level playing field, with a country that has a very particular proximity - a unique territorial and economic closeness - which is why it can't be compared to Canada or South Korea or Japan."

The Barnier slide from late 2017 showed that the Canada deal was one of the last ones before No Deal, anyone know what is going on?

Here a good thread explaining it.

http://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1229905966310838276?s=19

ThePanjandrum

reslfj wrote: »

German cars will be more expensive, but so will all other imported cars.

Price increases in the UK for UK assembled cars will depend upon the tariffs on imported auto parts (about 2/3 of the cars value).

Lars

German cars will be more expensive with the tariffs on but imports from other countries already have the same tariff applied under EU rules so EU cars will be more expensive, cars from other countries remain the same price.

Auto parts have no tariffs added per the UK's WTO schedule.

ThePanjandrum

Thargor wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/18/fears-raised-eu-will-back-greece-return-elgin-marbles-brexit/

Beautiful, thats a genius idea, stuff like this will help reality sink in for the UK.

Elgin bought them before the Greek State existed.

Peregrinus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Elgin bought them before the Greek State existed.

Doesn't matter. If there is a claim against the UK arising out of the acquisition of the Marbles and the circumstances in which it happened, Greece is unquestionably the state entitled to pursue that claim.

NB: I intentionally say "if". This thread is not really the place for a discussion of whether there is, or is not, a claim against the UK in respect of the Elgin Marbles.

Other points worth noting:

1. While no doubt Greece's sensitivity on the question of the return of cultural artefacts arises in part out of their strong feelings about the Elgin Marbles, this clause isn't really about the Elgin Marbles, and it isn't really anything new. It's quotes from an existing Directive, adopted in 2014, already in force in the UK (and throughout the EU) on the return of stolen artefacts, and Greece (and Italy and Cyprus) want to ensure that it remains in place in the UK on account of London't signficance as a centre of the art and artefacts trade. A lot of stuff that goes missing is located when offered for sale in the London market, and continuing existing UK law in this regard means that the opportunity this presents for the recovery of stolen art will continue to arise.

2. In so far as this is driven by concerns about the Elgin Marbles, it's the logical consequence of the "divide-and-conquer" strategy that so many Brexiters have urged, of seeking to break up the unanimity of the EU by identifying wedge issues on which different Member States and different, and sometimes competing, interests. But this runs directly counter to Johnson's professed strategy of getting a deal by the end of 2020. That's a punishing timescale, but it's even less realistic if each Member State is going to seek to get its own particular concerns bolted on to the trade deal.

3. It does bring out the wisdom, on Ireland's part, of having our particular concern addressed early on, in the Withdrawal Agreement, rather than competing with other Member States to get it space and priority for it in the trade deal. I've said it before, but it's worth saying again: all credit to the lads and lasses at an Roinn Gnóthaí Eachtracha who saw to this.

RobMc59

Enzokk wrote: »

This trade negotiator has the view that the one strategy the UK has may just work against them,

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1229866146784055296?s=20

Basically it is better for the UK if the EU is united because it will mean nations will be more focused on the ultimate goal. Once you get them fighting against each other then each nation will have its own demands in the deal negotiations. Makes sense.

Because you didn't post about a hit but total collapse.

Those were your words.

The best scenario I see for the UK is a humiliating climbdown,agreeing to abide by EU rules which it should have agreed to in the first place and wouldn't be in this situation. . I'd take that anyday of the week right now.
If a no deal happens then the fallout would effect all nations,not just the UK but obviously the UK the most unless johnson has something up his insidious sleeve.

Peregrinus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

German cars will be more expensive with the tariffs on but imports from other countries already have the same tariff applied under EU rules so EU cars will be more expensive, cars from other countries remain the same price.

This is correct. But "the same price" is a pretty expensive price, which is why right now the UK imports very few cars, except from EU countries or from countries with a trade deal that entitles them to export cars tariff-free to the EU. Of the top 15 countries from which the UK takes car imports, accounting for more than 95% of all the UK's car imports, every single one of them is either an EU member state or a country which, under an EU trade deal, does not suffer tariffs on car imports. Specialist markets aside, imported cars that attract tariffs are simply not competive in the UK market.

So, yeah, the ability to buy cars subject to WTO tariffs will still represent a sharp price increase for consumers who have been accustomed to buying cars not subject to WTO tariffs.

The price of domestically produced cars will also rise in a WTO Brexit - such a Brexit largely eliminates their export market, and breaks their production model, and both of these things are going to impose signidicant costs on them.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

The best scenario I see for the UK is a humiliating climbdown,agreeing to abide by EU rules which it should have agreed to in the first place and wouldn't be in this situation. . I'd take that anyday of the week right now.

There are better solutions, involving slightly less humiliating, slightly more mutual, climbdowns. The UK is steamed up about, e.g., subjecting itself to ECJ jurisdiction, but I think they can understand why the EU is steamed up about the possiblity of dumping, undermining of standards, etc that the EU faces. So they need to find agreement on some mechanism for ensuring that can't happen which isn't direct submission to ECJ jurisdiction. Which we know is possible, because it has been done in other cases, e.g. for EFTA countries.

This would still require quite a lot of climbing down by the UK, albeit with a bit of face-saving as well, and a certain amount of blustering denial - all of which is fine, from an EU point of view. We know the UK is capable of that because, if they weren't, there would never have been a Withdrawal Agreement.

Zubeneschamali

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

German cars will be more expensive with the tariffs on but imports from other countries already have the same tariff applied under EU rules

Japan just concluded a FTA with the EU abolishing tariffs. The top 10 best-selling car brands in the UK in 2019 were:

1 Ford
2 Volkswagen
3 Mercedes-Benz
4 BMW
5 Vauxhall
6 Audi
7 Toyota
8 Kia
9 Nissan
10 Hyundai

EU built, Japanese, or Korean and yes, the EU has a FTA with Korea too.

Not much joy in places 10-20 either. Maybe everyone can buy a Range Rover.

Dyr

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Japan just concluded a FTA with the EU abolishing tariffs. The top 10 best-selling car brands in the UK in 2019 were:

1 Ford
2 Volkswagen
3 Mercedes-Benz
4 BMW
5 Vauxhall
6 Audi
7 Toyota
8 Kia
9 Nissan
10 Hyundai

EU built, Japanese, or Korean and yes, the EU has a FTA with Korea too.

Not much joy in places 10-20 either. Maybe everyone can buy a Range Rover.

They'll bring back the Morris Minor and Robin Reliant

MrMusician18

The UK had published it's new immigration regime this morning, effectively closing the door to low skill migration. This points based system is to take effect from January and there doesn't appear to be any transition period envisaged.

The policy goal appears to be to kill off the low wage/skill portion of the economy, particularly that that relies on immigrant labour. It's a rather radical shake up that will see many UK companies become uncompetitive, particularly those difficult to automate. As these jobs aren't currently filled by Brits, the UK government doesn't seem to think they're important. Looks like they're forgetting that these roles largely serve the British economy.

Fascinating to see how this experiment works out.

LuckyLloyd

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The UK had published it's new immigration regime this morning, effectively closing the door to low skill migration. This points based system is to take effect from January and there doesn't appear to be any transition period envisaged.

The policy goal appears to be to kill off the low wage/skill portion of the economy, particularly that that relies on immigrant labour. It's a rather radical shake up that will see many UK companies become uncompetitive, particularly those difficult to automate. As these jobs aren't currently filled by Brits, the UK government doesn't seem to think they're important. Looks like they're forgetting that these roles largely serve the British economy.

Fascinating to see how this experiment works out.

Link on this? Wtf are they at?

Xertz

I suspect they will have to get realistic about that as the CBI and others will be putting huge pressure on over the next few months and I would assume they may find exact reciprocation from many EU countries. There are loads of brits working in low pay jobs around the EU, particularly in holiday resort type places - loads of bar workers and shop assistants and all sorts of people like that in Spain and so on.

Then add in people like students doing low paid retail and similar work travelling or relocating. You’ve language teachers who’ve very limited qualifications like those quickie TEFL courses and so on.

You’ve also swathes of British pensioners living in small incomes and lump sums from house sales and so on.

All of those people are potentially going to be open to the realities of means testing and so on in various EU countries and may not be as openly welcome as they imagine, particularly if there’s cold economic analysis done around say low income pensioners who might even be a burden on local social and health services.

I’m also seeing very regular discussion of “the fact” that the EU will somehow solve this in the UK’s favour. They forget the EU doesn’t even have a common immigration system. Long term migrant visas and so on are national competencies. The Schengen visa only covers short stay stuff and has nothing to do with work permits, yet I keep hearing “the EU will do x, y and z” for brits in Europe. The reality is they’ll be dealing with 27 different legal and bureaucratic processes, and even if they’re granted say a Spanish residency and work permit they won’t be able to use that anywhere else.

It’s a complete mess and the media in the UK is doing nobody any favours by refusing to even read the basic facts and continuing to discuss these topics in an information vacuum, allowing talking heads, often either oblivious or with agendas, to spout absolute nonsense with complete confidence.

At this stage ALL news anchors and interviewers should know the basic facts about what the EU is even legally able to negotiate, what the limits of its competencies are and so on. Yet, the arrogant ignorant just keep waffling on and nobody challenges them.

They also don’t seem to comprehend two facts:

1. They’ve left the EU and the EU no longer has any legal or political duty of care or interest in the UK and will absolutely protect EU members interests. They keep talking like as if the EU will be sympathetic or has some obligation to them. It doesn’t.

The UK rhetoric and actions have also been nasty, agressive an unnecessarily unpleasant and they forget that the EU is a human organisation. A lot of people are probably very annoyed and even upset by what’s going on. You can’t treat people like that and expect a warm response.

Also attempting to create a narrative that blames the EU for Brexit being a mess may play to a British domestic audience but it’s irrelevant to the EU. The UK has left and British domestic politics is as relevant as Japanese domestic politics.

Leaving is one thing, but attempting to kick the doors and trash talking the place on your way out just erodes any soft power they may have once had and has undermined their reputation as a sensible partner.

2. The EU isn’t a single person or some authoritarian government minister making things up on the fly. It’s a multilateral body and represents the interests of 27 member states and is accountable to them and their democratic systems. So the EU can only be conduct negotiations within an authorised and agreed framework. If there’s some completed mess, it’s going to have to get approval from 27 parliamentary democracies and possibly even regions within those as well as working within its own treaty law frameworks.

Also agressive moves will just trigger mechanical responses that are basically preprogrammed into treaties. You ignore or breech article X.1.2.4 subsection A and you will automatically trigger some other measure.

It’s difficult to bully the EU, particularly when your own leverage is basically self destruction and it’s also very hard to push it as it moves at its own pace, which can be glacial. Things get processed extremely methodically and without much likelihood of being annoyed or stressed by any of it. If it takes a decade, it will take a decade. That’s how it’s always done business and it’s not that it won’t change. It quite literally can’t go faster or be more reactive because it’s a huge multilateral body and rules based market. So basically the UK going off on a intemperate rant will be a bit like shouting at a mountain and telling it to move. It’s pointless.

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The UK had published it's new immigration regime this morning, effectively closing the door to low skill migration. This points based system is to take effect from January and there doesn't appear to be any transition period envisaged.

The policy goal appears to be to kill off the low wage/skill portion of the economy, particularly that that relies on immigrant labour. It's a rather radical shake up that will see many UK companies become uncompetitive, particularly those difficult to automate. As these jobs aren't currently filled by Brits, the UK government doesn't seem to think they're important. Looks like they're forgetting that these roles largely serve the British economy.

Fascinating to see how this experiment works out.

I think you will find that any benefits will be tied to work. With unskilled immigration gone, there will be plenty of low level, low paid jobs looking for people and my guess is that the Tories will say that you must work or lose your benefits. So companies get their workforce, unemployment falls.

Everyone wins. Except of course wages won't rise since the employer effectively has a tied in workforce.

Nody

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The UK had published it's new immigration regime this morning, effectively closing the door to low skill migration. This points based system is to take effect from January and there doesn't appear to be any transition period envisaged.

The policy goal appears to be to kill off the low wage/skill portion of the economy, particularly that that relies on immigrant labour. It's a rather radical shake up that will see many UK companies become uncompetitive, particularly those difficult to automate. As these jobs aren't currently filled by Brits, the UK government doesn't seem to think they're important. Looks like they're forgetting that these roles largely serve the British economy.

Fascinating to see how this experiment works out.

Oh this will be a glorious inflation driving change but that may be intentional well; if you keep the salary requirements in place but drive up inflation business will get around it to a point. Then again it will hit the smaller fishing fleet (congratulations; not only can you not sell fresh fish to EU but now your local fisheries can't process it either) and elderly care; both great excuses to then to "enhance it" with American support since it's not utilized properly / crying for help / not working.

johnnyskeleton

Leroy42 wrote: »

Here a good thread explaining it.

http://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1229905966310838276?s=19

What has changed I suppose is that while the EU maintained the same position over the last 3.5 years, the UK have changed it so many times that the Canada deal no longer seems viable for a state that refuses to sign up to the most basic level playing field standards.

But what is funny is that Brexiteers think that this reasoned change over time in the EU is somehow a criticism of them, but yet don't consider the fact that even now they are still unclear on what type of post Brexit Britain they want is any kind of criticism of difficulty.

MrMusician18

Nody wrote: »

Oh this will be a glorious inflation driving change but that may be intentional well; if you keep the salary requirements in place but drive up inflation business will get around it to a point. Then again it will hit the smaller fishing fleet (congratulations; not only can you not sell fresh fish to EU but now your local fisheries can't process it either) and elderly care; both great excuses to then to "enhance it" with American support since it's not utilized properly / crying for help / not working.

I think the idea is not to increase inflation but to increase productivity. The UK has been calling behind the rest of the West in that regard for some time so has lots of ground to make up.

Introducing lots of automation could help the UK economy survive, or even thrive without low skill migration. It's not entirely without precedent either. Japan for example, practically let's zero foreigners in to work and it's economy has adjusted and stayed competitive through automation primarily. But it was always thus in Japan - how the UK manages transition in it's immigration system from open to closed and deals with those that cannot adapt fast enough will be what I find most interesting.

Nody

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What has changed I suppose is that while the EU maintained the same position over the last 3.5 years, the UK have changed it so many times that the Canada deal no longer seems viable for a state that refuses to sign up to the most basic level playing field standards.

I'd argue UK has not changed their position (which is we the English British get all the benefits and EU get to suck a lollypop and like it) as much as their wording of their position when EU said, "Eeh, no, that's not happening because facts & reality". The Brexiteers still think they can get what they though they could get 3.5 years ago; they have only been moving the chairs on the Titanic around to make it look more aesthetically pleasing to the EU.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I think the idea is not to increase inflation but to increase productivity. The UK has been calling behind the rest of the West in that regard for some time so has lots of ground to make up.

Introducing lots of automation could help the UK economy survive, or even thrive without low skill migration. It's not entirely without precedent either. Japan for example, practically let's zero foreigners in to work and it's economy has adjusted and stayed competitive through automation primarily. But it was always thus in Japan - how the UK manages transition in it's immigration system from open to closed and deals with those that cannot adapt fast enough will be what I find most interesting.

Except the fact the automation does not work anymore and they are starting to allow low skilled immigrants because they don't have enough workers for low skill cap jobs such as nurseries. And keeping in mind Japan's work culture is about as far away from UK as you can get, from employed for life, dedication to the company, Lean Six Sigma traditions etc.

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I think the idea is not to increase inflation but to increase productivity. The UK has been calling behind the rest of the West in that regard for some time so has lots of ground to make up.

Introducing lots of automation could help the UK economy survive, or even thrive without low skill migration. It's not entirely without precedent either. Japan for example, practically let's zero foreigners in to work and it's economy has adjusted and stayed competitive through automation primarily. But it was always thus in Japan - how the UK manages transition in it's immigration system from open to closed and deals with those that cannot adapt fast enough will be what I find most interesting.

You have to consider the views of the likes of Raab and Patel, who wrote in a book that the UK worker was unproductive and lazy. On top of that, it is taken that many in the UK don't want the type of jobs that unskilled immigrant were prepared to do.

Taken together, I don't think it is a stretch that they will demand that UK workers fill any void left behind. "you wanted to get rid of immigrants, well we did and now we need you to pick the fruit, man the pubs etc". And if you don't you will lose your benefits.

What it won't do is increase costs to business as they will effectively have access to a captive work force. The person can up and quit as they would leave with nothing, and get no support.

Xertz

The other problem is if they have more or less stated that they can’t and won’t be bound by any agreement as is impinges upon their sovereignty.
How do you even negotiate anything with someone who says that?
It’s like the “Freemen of the Land” type logic and they’re blatantly negotiating in bad faith.

Their basic premise is that the UK state should not have the authority to sign treaties, as no future government should be bound by them. That’s basically saying that international agreements are impossible.

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

I'd argue UK has not changed their position (which is we the English British get all the benefits and EU get to suck a lollypop and like it) as much as their wording of their position when EU said, "Eeh, no, that's not happening because facts & reality". The Brexiteers still think they can get what they though they could get 3.5 years ago; they have only been moving the chairs on the Titanic around to make it look more aesthetically pleasing to the EU.

I would argue the UK has changed its position. The UK made it clear (and again, this slide is not an offer, it is an explanation to the EU itself of the different forms an agreement could take) that they wanted far more than the Canada deal. Remember Canada +++?

Now they are faced with No Deal they are demanding that the EU offer them what they already rejected (and again it was never actually offered) so this direct tweeting to the EU from No 10 asking why they won't give them what they never offered is bizarre.

sondagefaux

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Thanks, I know about the WA and about the PD and I know that the WA is the international agreement bit and the PD is the words bit that is non-binding so not sure why you felt the need to restate it. The slide Barnier presented showed an eventual deal scenario if the UK does not rescind red lines. The what is going on bit was answered in post 6904

Firstly, your question, with accompanying last paragraph talking about the Barnier slide is very similar to the question tweeted out by the No. 10 Downing Street press office, minus the actual slide.

Secondly, I didn't think that post answered your/Downing Street's question fully. Feel free to disagree.

Regarding Canada, the EU said in March 2018 that the UK won't get a deal similar to Canada's unless it accepts a great deal more on Level Playing Field provisions, because of its geographical proximity to the EU and because of the existing high levels of trade between the EU and the UK.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

I would argue the UK has changed its position. The UK made it clear (and again, this slide is not an offer, it is an explanation to the EU itself of the different forms an agreement could take) that they wanted far more than the Canada deal. Remember Canada +++?

Now they are faced with No Deal they are demanding that the EU offer them what they already rejected (and again it was never actually offered) so this direct tweeting to the EU from No 10 asking why they won't give them what they never offered is bizarre.

It is totally clear that the UK changed its position. The 'offer' was made to May over two years ago (as a suggestion by Barnier). Brexit UK under Johnson has gone for a much harder Brexit, thus nullifying the original suggestion.