Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

PeadarCo · 16-06-2021 9:23pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to this link,the UK has been beavering away in regards to trade deals post brexit.
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/ey-brexit/status-of-uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries

The challenge for the UK won't be getting a deal. Any country can negotiate a trade deal quickly if it gives the other side exactly what it wants. So the challenge for the UK is getting good deal. Based on what we've seen so far at best the UK have matched what they had in the EU. Which raises whats the point of Brexit.

When it comes to the UK trade deal with its biggest trade partner the EU, the trade deal is unambiguously worse than pre Brexit. At this is the thing to remember none of the other trade deals will replace the EU especially if the UK wants them done quickly. So the UK EU trade deal is the UK's most important trade deal and will be in the short to medium term. This is dictated by the nature of trade.

If you are going to measure the success of Brexit based on trade deals it's been a disaster regardless of future deals. Their trade deal with the EU is a massive downgrade on pre Brexit situation.

Strazdas · 16-06-2021 9:37pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to this link,the UK has been beavering away in regards to trade deals post brexit.
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/ey-brexit/status-of-uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries

The problem with it is that even many British Eurosceptics never believed in the trade deals aspect. This was tacked onto the referendum campaign ; "We can leave the EU and will be free to sign lots of wonderful new trade deals", but even quite a few veteran Leave campaigners thought this was complete bull and false promises (akin to the NHS bus thing). They knew full well that leaving the EU would probably leave the country worse off economically.

Peregrinus · 17-06-2021 1:28am

Leaving the EU does enable the UK to negotiate its own trade deals, and this Australian deal - when it is actually negotiated, agreed and signed - looks likely to be the first new trade deal put in place by the UK post-Brexit. (The other deals it has done since Brexit are continuations of existing EU deals, which the UK could have continued to benefit from by simply not Brexiting.) So, yeah, it is a milestone.

But what this effectively means is that Brexit enables the UK to put in place its own network of trade deals, rather than participate in the EU's network. Unless you assume that this is inherently a good thing regardless of the outcome, this is not a good thing. The EU's network of trade deals is the largest and deepest network of trade deals that the world has ever seen. There is no possible way in which a UK-negotiated network can possibly match it, not least because Brexit involves the UK erecting substantial new barriers to trade with what is, and always will be, its largest trading partner by far.

The bit about the Australian trade deal being a precursor to free trade with the Pacific region is just flim-flam. If a trade deal with a signficant player in the region is a precursor to freeer trade with the region as a whole, then the EU has a trade deal with Japan - a more significant player than Australia - so the UK could have had its "precursor deal" just as well by staying in the EU as by leaving.

(Indeed, the UK also has a trade deal with Japan. Why was that not hailed as a precursor like the Australian one? Because it's basically an EU deal, so to the Brexiter mind can't be any good. Whereas the Australian deal is not an EU deal and so, to the Brexiter mind, must be good. It sad for the Brexit movement that Brexit hasn't relieved them of their fixation with the EU. The UK would probably be better off if governed by people who spend more time thinking about the UK than they do obsessing about the EU.)

Capt'n Midnight · 17-06-2021 10:47am

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to this link,the UK has been beavering away in regards to trade deals post brexit.
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/ey-brexit/status-of-uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries

According to this like, the Australia deal is the first trade agreement negotiated from scratch by the UK since it left EU.

Before Brexit, the UK was automatically part of any trade deal the EU had negotiated with another country. At the time the UK left, the EU had about 40 trade deals covering more than 70 countries.

The UK has negotiated rollover deals with 66 of these countries.

And we all know that Australian deal hasn't been completed yet let alone signed off.

All the other 'deals' are rollovers / continuity agreements at best. And AFAIK none offer the UK better terms than they would have had by staying in the EU. And not all of those deals are Fully Ratified

Seth Brundle · 17-06-2021 11:25am

Seems like the DUP are having concerns about the UK's marvellous deal with Australia due to the likleihood of price undercutting and a lowering of standards, all of which were forecasted by "remainers" but ignored by the DUP prior to the referendum.
So maybe the suggestion that the DUP simply wanted Brexit because they wanted a hard border on the island is now revealing itself to be accurate?

https://twitter.com/irish_news/status/1405446041105743872

ancapailldorcha · 17-06-2021 11:36am

Post with insults removed.

murphaph · 17-06-2021 11:39am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Seems like the DUP are having concerns about the UK's marvellous deal with Australia due to the likleihood of price undercutting and a lowering of standards, all of which were forecasted by "remainers" but ignored by the DUP prior to the referendum.
So maybe the suggestion that the DUP simply wanted Brexit because they wanted a hard border on the island is now revealing itself to be accurate?

https://twitter.com/irish_news/status/1405446041105743872

All Poots has to do is implement the protocol and NI farmers will be spared the harm. Indeed NI meat might become the premium meat in UK supermarkets as it will be produced to EU standards ;-)

BonnieSituation · 17-06-2021 11:42am

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to the link you provided British citizens can extend their stay up to three years under the proposed agreement whilst EU citizens can stay for one year according to information online.

Having used the WH visa scheme about 15 years ago, it's quite clear that this extra year is a nonsense.

If you are in anyway useful and want to stay longer than your year or 2, you can get, and probably did get sponsorship and you would then dispense with the limitations of the WHV.

Having to jump between jobs every 3 months over 3 years will get a bit old. Unless.this has been done away with?

It's really not that big of a win as it seems on the face of it.

Snickers Man · 17-06-2021 12:18pm

The chasm between spin and detail can be seen perfectly in yesterday's (Jun 16 2021) edition of the Daily Telegraph.

A nearly full page article, with banner headline across the top, discusses the deal.
"Australian agreement is a model for what Britain can achieve with the rest of the world" trumpets the headline.

Below the main article is a panel headlined "UK's fast-moving negotiators_ The Deal from Down Under that proved Remainers wrong"
The panel goes on to say that "a litany of experts [had] warned that it could take the UK a decade to reach a new trade relationship with Brussels and even longer to strike deals with other countries"
But, the deal with Australia "represents a truly 'ground-up' deal just half a year into Britain's time as a newly independent trading nation."

So "Neener Neener" to all you Remoaners then!

But wait. Reading the article fully, rather than just scanning the headline, you see that the panel is a half-hearted attempt at reassurance against the rather pessimistic message presented by such details of the deal as are known and discussed in the main piece.

Some quotes: "UK negotiators have delivered an agreement rich in symbolism"
Translation: this is the Brexiteers' equivalent of footballers "taking the knee" before a match. So, BOOO!!!!

"Not only does no one have a clue exactly what is in the deal, there will be no parliamentary vote on whether to accept the deal. Those hoping for a new post-Brexit age of accountability, parliamentary democracy and sovereignty will be rightly disappointed."
Indeed. Bloody faceless bureaucrats controlling our lives without a "by your leave"!

"The UK is attractive but it cannot have the heft and pull of the 450m consumers in the EU's single market."
No sh1t!!

"It can however strike quicker and more bespoke deals. Not every agreement needs to be a blockbuster."
It's official then, it may be a good (and small) deal, not a great deal. Why is that?

"Australia is a free-trading nation with low tariffs, so the cuts in them are not immediately impressive. It is also a long way away so the trade volumes with the UK are correspondingly small."
So not only is it not a Blockbuster deal, it's actually "not immediately impressive"!!!!! NB this is the rabidly Pro-Brexit Daily Telegraph talking, not me.

"the goal of any trade deal is to remove barriers to trade. On this basis the Aussie agreement is a success, especially if you are an Australian.
Again, this is the rabidly Pro-Brexit Daily Telegraph talking, not me.

"..zero tariffs [on agricultural products] being phased in over 10 to 15 years...has ramifications for British farmers, who will fear they are being sold down the river for a Brexit win."
Well Duhh!!! There are 68 million Brits, 26 millon Aussies. ie your market is 2.5 times the size of theirs. They can sell you their beef and lamb, you can sell them your black puddings and Cornish pasties. Who do you think is going to come out on top in that scenario? What are you going to make the shortfall up with? Kent wine? Gimme a break!

"The British wins don't stack up to much when compared with what Australia's negotiators secured."
What kind of woke, pinko, defeatist, BLM, Remoaner nonsense is this? (er, the Daily Telegraph)

And how does the article end?
"It is a win that must have outstripped Australian negotiators' hopes and expectations. It is hard to shake the feeling that Britain may have given away too much too cheaply. ......it will be unforgivable if that mistake forms the blueprint for all the trade deals to follow. The Government will have to toughen up, wise up, and..be prepared to walk away from a bad deal if it wants to make a success of Brexit."

For those tempted to say TLDR, here's the takeaway:
Despite bombastic headlines of "achievement" and "proving Remainers wrong" the core article about the new deal with Australia progressively takes the reader down a pessimistic tunnel from "not a Blockbuster" to "not immediately impressive" to being a "mistake" that would be "unforgivable" were it to be repeated.
And all this from the Daily F***ing Telegraph!!

BlitzKrieg · 17-06-2021 12:23pm

On the northern Ireland protocol I know the solution the EU offered was that the UK align with the EU in food standards and animal welfare which the UK has disregarded because they are holding out for those potential treaties with the USA etc which will require the UK to be flexible.

Which fine, if thats what they want.

But couldnt the UK enforce a standards alignment only for exports to Northern Ireland. While keeping any products going out of the UK elsewhere can be whatever the hell they want them to be. I mean I know there is a lot of trade between Northern Ireland and the UK but my understanding is it all goes through a small selection of ports, this is a big part why the border was put on the irish sea, it's easier to keep a specific standard at 2-3 trading ports then across a land border.

Yes it still requires a border check between northern ireland and the UK, but A) that check will be primarily done by the UK themselves and

Until the prospect of a US trade deal materializes or the Australian deal is formally signed none of the UK's standards are shifting. So initially the check is a basic formality because the UK's standards are still aligned with the EU

So In an immediate sense little changes and the whole fear mongering of banning sausages etc is resolved.

Eventually when the UK starts moving away from EU standards, the EU will take an interest in confirming that the UK is keeping to the required EU standards for Northern Ireland, and the EU is established to make those spot checks as per the Protocol but it will still be primarily the UK doing the process. So the UK will be producing standards for two different markets, one aligned with the EU that all goes through Northern Ireland and one for whatever crackpot deal they signed up to.

I understand the EU's fears that they cant trust the UK to slap produced in UK to EU standards labels on chlorianted chickens from Alabama, but thats why they've been allowed to establish a body in northern Ireland to catch such naughty boris lies and take the appropriate response.

Also wouldnt this ease some of the fears of trade deals like the upcoming Australian Meat horde. Firstly Northern Ireland is protected from the horror show and secondly UK farmers will have an avenue to still export to the wider EU, they just need to go through Northern Ireland. It allows them to keep their high standard and still have a market to export to, rather then being blocked out of the EU and drowned in australian beef which is the current prospect.

A lot of the issues with the northern Ireland protocol stinks of simply laziness by the current british government to actually do anything. Which is sadly on brand for them since every other crisis has been bred from them being too lazy to properly respond or prepare.

JamesFlynn · 17-06-2021 12:54pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

This link shows the UK see any potential deal as a gateway to that region which is a burgeoning market.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/business/britain-australia-trade-deal.html

The correction at the bottom of this NYTimes article gave me a chuckle:

"Correction: June 16, 2021
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the increase in gross domestic product a trade deal between Britain and Australia would yield for Britain's economy. It would be an increase of about $700 million, not $700 billion"

The journalist thought, with all the hullabaloo, that it was a big deal.

Turns out it was a thousand times smaller.

Nody · 17-06-2021 1:04pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

On the northern Ireland protocol I know the solution the EU offered was that the UK align with the EU in food standards and animal welfare which the UK has disregarded because they are holding out for those potential treaties with the USA etc which will require the UK to be flexible.

Which fine, if thats what they want.

What EU offered was an open ended deal which means UK could announce, at any time, they will no longer align with the EU rules with a 3 month notice basically. This would allow them to strike their USA deal anyway while sort out the issues not only for NI but for UK as a whole for 80% of the controls. Not acceptable because it's EU rules. It's the same how they simply can't allow "unfettered musicans to come in" from EU but it's perfectly fine for non EU countries such as Norway and Lichtenstein.

The problem is very simple, if it has anything to do with EU the disciples of Brexit can't accept it even if it's a boon to them and UK, because EU. Same deal and terms with another country/block? No issues and celebrated as a great success story for Brexit. That's the crux of the NI deal and nothing else, it's not the details of the deal, it's not the laws, it's not the alignment to regulation or personalities, it's because it's an EU deal and anything EU is unacceptable at any time in any form to them. EU could propose it pays UK 350 million a week and they would still reject it as being unfair and unjust.

Snickers Man · 17-06-2021 1:40pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

On the northern Ireland protocol I know the solution the EU offered was that the UK align with the EU in food standards and animal welfare which the UK has disregarded because they are holding out for those potential treaties with the USA etc which will require the UK to be flexible.

Which fine, if thats what they want.

But couldnt the UK enforce a standards alignment only for exports to Northern Ireland. While keeping any products going out of the UK elsewhere can be whatever the hell they want them to be. I mean I know there is a lot of trade between Northern Ireland and the UK but my understanding is it all goes through a small selection of ports, this is a big part why the border was put on the irish sea, it's easier to keep a specific standard at 2-3 trading ports then across a land border.

Yes it still requires a border check between northern ireland and the UK, but A) that check will be primarily done by the UK themselves and Until the prospect of a US trade deal materializes or the Australian deal is formally signed none of the UK's standards are shifting. So initially the check is a basic formality because the UK's standards are still aligned with the EU

So In an immediate sense little changes and the whole fear mongering of banning sausages etc is resolved.

Eventually when the UK starts moving away from EU standards, the EU will take an interest in confirming that the UK is keeping to the required EU standards for Northern Ireland, and the EU is established to make those spot checks as per the Protocol but it will still be primarily the UK doing the process. So the UK will be producing standards for two different markets, one aligned with the EU that all goes through Northern Ireland and one for whatever crackpot deal they signed up to.

I understand the EU's fears that they cant trust the UK to slap produced in UK to EU standards labels on chlorianted chickens from Alabama, but thats why they've been allowed to establish a body in northern Ireland to catch such naughty boris lies and take the appropriate response.

Also wouldnt this ease some of the fears of trade deals like the upcoming Australian Meat horde. Firstly Northern Ireland is protected from the horror show and secondly UK farmers will have an avenue to still export to the wider EU, they just need to go through Northern Ireland. It allows them to keep their high standard and still have a market to export to, rather then being blocked out of the EU and drowned in australian beef which is the current prospect.

A lot of the issues with the northern Ireland protocol stinks of simply laziness by the current british government to actually do anything. Which is sadly on brand for them since every other crisis has been bred from them being too lazy to properly respond or prepare.

I don't mean to be rude but where have you been all year?
It is precisely the "standards border in the Irish Sea" that you advocate which has been the focus of Unionist ire in recent months. They think (with some justification) that it cuts them off, practically if not symbolically, from "the mainland".

This was always going to be the case with Brexit: one of the two identity groups in N Ireland had to lose something that had been agreed in the GFA, and subsequent deals.
Brexit means borders.
It had to go somewhere: on the island of Ireland, the nationalists lost; in the Irish Sea, the Unionists lost. Boris favoured Brexit over the Brethern.
Now he's posturing that he's going to welch on the deal before the ink on it is dry. (Not for the first time)

RobMc59 · 17-06-2021 3:20pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

According to this like, the Australia deal is the first trade agreement negotiated from scratch by the UK since it left EU.

And we all know that Australian deal hasn't been completed yet let alone signed off.

All the other 'deals' are rollovers / continuity agreements at best. And AFAIK none offer the UK better terms than they would have had by staying in the EU. And not all of those deals are Fully Ratified

I couldn't understand why the UK government kept insisting no alignment with EU standards at any cost which has resulted in the UK getting a trade deal with the EU which, although tariff free is inferior to what we previously had.
As others have pointed it out,I now understand that the brexiteers plan from the very beginning was to be able to make multiple deals with no restraints.
Not the way I would have wanted things to go but that's how it is.
As far as I can tell, the only things the UK has actually come out better is more control of fishing grounds and the deal with Japan appears to give the UK enhanced digital services access beyond any other deal Japan has.

BlitzKrieg · 17-06-2021 4:39pm

As far as I can tell, the only things the UK has actually come out better is more control of fishing grounds and the deal with Japan appears to give the UK enhanced digital services access beyond any other deal Japan has.

both are debatable benefits

The fishing control has come at the loss of access not only to european fishing waters but also tragically from their poor negotiation Norwegian waters too which was were most of the British Cod fishing was done.

As for the enhanced digital services that came at the price of the UK rolling back it's data protection to be more inline with Asian data protection

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/what-the-uk-japan-trade-deal-means-for-digital-rights/

So it's a benefit if you think data protection was something worth trading for.

Enzokk · 17-06-2021 4:59pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

As for the enhanced digital services that came at the price of the UK rolling back it's data protection to be more inline with Asian data protection

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/what-the-uk-japan-trade-deal-means-for-digital-rights/

So it's a benefit if you think data protection was something worth trading for.

Isn't this like having a new bucket to enjoy on a warm day to cool off with and bragging about it, totally ignoring you had access and were swimming in a lovely swimming pool before you threw a tantrum?

RobMc59 · 17-06-2021 5:13pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

both are debatable benefits

The fishing control has come at the loss of access not only to european fishing waters but also tragically from their poor negotiation Norwegian waters too which was were most of the British Cod fishing was done.

As for the enhanced digital services that came at the price of the UK rolling back it's data protection to be more inline with Asian data protection

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/what-the-uk-japan-trade-deal-means-for-digital-rights/

So it's a benefit if you think data protection was something worth trading for.

I think the key is this arrangement is more inline with the Pacific alliance and US set up.
Perhaps this is an indication where the UK is looking for the future.
Regarding fishing ,Britain can now regulate fishing in its waters responsibily.

The Raging Bile Duct · 17-06-2021 5:42pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think the key is this arrangement is more inline with the Pacific alliance and US set up.
Perhaps this is an indication where the UK is looking for the future.
Regarding fishing ,Britain can now regulate fishing in its waters responsibily.

Ah, so decimating their fishing industry was part of their cunning plan to regulate fishing in their waters. I have to congratulate them. That's 3D chess moves.

BlitzKrieg · 17-06-2021 6:58pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think the key is this arrangement is more inline with the Pacific alliance and US set up.
Perhaps this is an indication where the UK is looking for the future.

Yes the UK is looking towards 'a' future and it might in the end pay off in some form, but I was responding to the statement that the UK had come out 'better' in terms of it's UK Japanese trade deal vs the EU Japanese trade deal, which I think is a debatable 'better' since the UK had to trade a protection for it's citizens which the EU was not willing to do full stop. Its not that the UK got a better deal overall it's that it gave up more to secure gains.

Those gains paying off is something we would have to wait and see.

hence it's debatable, Like a lot of things Boris/Brexit related it's a gamble, and Boris's plan does appear to be to gamble every time and hope something sticks which they occasionally do, or at least appear to.

An Ciarraioch · 17-06-2021 7:33pm

https://twitter.com/DanielFerrie/status/1405590614381674500

More UK kicking the can down the road!

Capt'n Midnight · 17-06-2021 7:53pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

As for the enhanced digital services that came at the price of the UK rolling back it's data protection to be more inline with Asian data protection

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/what-the-uk-japan-trade-deal-means-for-digital-rights/

So it's a benefit if you think data protection was something worth trading for.

They still haven't a deal on services. And still haven't Data Adequacy signed off.

The whole risk/reward probability thing can be fierce difficult to understand.

The Japan deal is worth £1.9Bn after 15 years*

Against that
In 2019, UK exports to the EU were £294 billion ...
Services accounted for 42% of the UK’s exports to the EU in 2019.
£123.5Bn is £2.375Bn a week (close to £350m a day) is at risk

* https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-japan-trade-benefits/
It’s worth clarifying that these benefits are relative to 2018 when the UK (as part of the EU) had no FTA with Japan. It’s not relative to the existing EU-Japan trade deal which currently governs trade between the UK and Japan.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-06-2021 8:03pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DanielFerrie/status/1405590614381674500

More UK kicking the can down the road!

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_21_3060

The UK has requested that it be extended to 30 September 2021. The Commission will now assess this request.

The Commission has already indicated its openness to finding solutions in line with the Protocol.

However, for that to happen, the UK must fully implement the Protocol, which is the solution found to protect the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement, the functioning of the all-island economy, and the integrity of the EU's Single Market. There is no alternative to the Protocol.

When looking for solutions, providing stability and predictability for the people of Northern Ireland will be of paramount importance.

My highlighting

Wait till the DUP see that bit, it'll make their day.

CelticRambler · 17-06-2021 8:12pm

All stakeholders were expected to use this time effectively to adapt supply chains for chilled meats sold in Northern Ireland.

Halting the construction of inspection posts hardly counts as using the time effectively to adapt, does it? :rolleyes:

RobMc59 · 17-06-2021 8:20pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_21_3060My highlighting

Wait till the DUP see that bit, it'll make their day.

The protocol puts NI in an advantageous position,just a pity the DUP can`t see that.

pixelburp · 17-06-2021 8:31pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

[/B]

The protocol puts NI in an advantageous position,just a pity the DUP can`t see that.

This is the utterly hair pulling frustration about the whole sorry enterprise. The DUP know the potential benefits of the Protocol - though there would be logistical downsides as well. They see it, and IIRC lobby groups have made noises to this effect too (open to correction). The party are intentionally scuppering a scenario where if they played their cards right, NI could see a boom by dint of being the economic grey area between the UK and EU. And the only reason I can see for their intransigence - beyond an engrained policy of resistance - is they know to do so would be to steer the province ever so slightly more towards Dublin, and further away from London. The border would become a little more pointless. A loyalist party can't willingly sacrifice loyalty, despite the potential benefits to its constituents.

Strazdas · 17-06-2021 8:41pm

pixelburp wrote: »

This is the utterly hair pulling frustration about the whole sorry enterprise. The DUP know the potential benefits of the Protocol - though there would be logistical downsides as well. They see it, and IIRC lobby groups have made noises to this effect too (open to correction). The party are intentionally scuppering a scenario where if they played their cards right, NI could see a boom by dint of being the economic grey area between the UK and EU. And the only reason I can see for their intransigence - beyond an engrained policy of resistance - is they know to do so would be to steer the province ever so slightly more towards Dublin, and further away from London. The border would become a little more pointless. A loyalist party can't willingly sacrifice loyalty, despite the potential benefits to its constituents.

They can't publicly admit Brexit is a disaster, this is where they lose all sympathy. If they said 'ditch the Protocol but we also admit Brexit has failed and should never have happened', people would be much more open to their viewpoint. Instead, they are clinging to the Tory Party / Daily Telegraph line that Brexit was and is a great idea.

54and56 · 17-06-2021 9:10pm

RTE reporting that Edwin Poots has resigned as DUP leader after an internal revolt.

Just when you thought the DUP couldn't become any more DUP

:D:D

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2021/0617/1228725-dup-politics/

RobMc59 · 17-06-2021 9:24pm

Strazdas wrote: »

They can't publicly admit Brexit is a disaster, this is where they lose all sympathy. If they said 'ditch the Protocol but we also admit Brexit has failed and should never have happened', people would be much more open to their viewpoint. Instead, they are clinging to the Tory Party / Daily Telegraph line that Brexit was and is a great idea.

There are a lot of British people unhappy about brexit.
Having said that,some things about the way the EU operates,demanding all members fall into line and follow brussels lead is disturbing and certainly one of the concerns I`ve always had. The discussion earlier today regarding the trade deal between the UK and Japan is an example of `EU or nothing`attitude from many posters here.If countries like the US and Japan for example have a different approach to privacy laws,why is it wrong? Just because it differs from EU privacy laws is`nt a good enough reason imo,whose to say the EU approach is`nt OTT?

Mr.Nice Guy · 17-06-2021 9:26pm

Apparently the DUP's next tactic will be to pull the plug on devolution unless the protocol goes.

https://twitter.com/StephenNolan/status/1405618432679235588

Nody · 17-06-2021 9:29pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are a lot of British people unhappy about brexit.
Having said that,everything about the way the EU does things,demanding all members fall into line and follow brussels lead is disturbing and certainly one of the concerns I`ve always had. The discussion earlier today regarding the trade deal between the UK and Japan is an example of `EU or nothing`attitude from many posters here.If countries like the US and Japan for example have a different approach to privacy laws,why is it wrong? Just because it differs from EU privacy laws is`nt a good enough reason imo,whose to say the EU approach is`nt OTT?

Because EU laws are considered to be among the strongest in the world? Or how about they don't allow a country to spy on their own citizens without any court approving it or doing mass surveillance because they might catch something interesting? I could go on for a very long while why but let's be clear here there's a lot of reasons not to want to go the other direction inc. selling of personal data to highest bidder...

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Comments