Graculus
LE
They aren't. The are aking for us to have a bash at supplying a solution to a situation that we have created. Something more concrete than "stuff" "technology" or " thinking out of the box."
Army Rumour Service
Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!
Brexit Phase Two - Trade
- Thread starter Auld-Yin
- Start date
- Status
LE
corby
War hero
Why would anyone apoligise to someone with a sandwich board over their shoulders? BL's granduer is embarrassingly cringeworthy. The type of trolling persona that does need apologising for.
Anyone know if Bagofshoit/shitt... has found a job? Her position as elect SPOTY is concerningly decreasing. That's for another thread so don't bother...
clambuster
Old Salt
The "Malta Dog"! Annoying but not fatal.
Anybody seen or heard Olly lately?
CaptainCowpat
Old Salt
Some thoughts.
Both sides could sign a free trade agreement tomorrow. The EU would even get £40b in return (over the course of a few decades). The fact this isn't happening it's simply down to the EU deciding that the best way to protect the future of the EU is to punish the UK with as damaging relationship as possible.
Looking at the group photo as Salzburg it strikes a strange sight; so much bristling confidence. But the EU could not protect itself in any conflict, it totally relies on the UK and France to have any real muscle on the continent. What force could be mustered when the UK leaves? Combined could it deal with even Turkey? France wouldn't want to be the major player and take the most of any casualties for the defence of any Balkan nation.
It could have gone on day one like this:
EU *We really need the security the the UK military and intelligence provides, we don't want to take a big hit by loosing a big market either, let's propose a free trade deal and try to get as much money as possible without risking the relationship.*
UK *We want a free trade deal and are prepared to pay towards it and will continue providing intelligence and defence to the EU in addition*
Afternoon of Day 1, free trade deal agreed: all markets and businesses are happy. Voter's everywhere are happy. UK is happy, EU is happy. Everyone works towards a stronger Europe together.
Why can't this be signed tomorrow?
Everyone knows the answer, even the most ardent remainer. That same answer is why the majority of voters decided that they don't want to be a part of a club with members such as that.
Just leave. Everyone knew the economy would stagnant for a decade or so as a result, it's a price will worth paying to get be removed from such a horrible organisation. We paid a similar price to bail out banks, doing so again to get out of the EU is a far better reason.
Time for May to play a real hand, arrange a video conference and say our last offer is a full free trade agreement and the £40b and we will continue our intelligence and defense commitments.
If not then it's clear the EU doesn't want a future relationship with the UK so the UK will walk and take all off its commitments with it, including all intelligence services and military deployments apart from with those NATO nations that contribute the 2% GDP target. Hang up the phone.
I really don't see why you wouldn't negotiate with all of your strongest cards. It's quite clear the the EU doesn't care or respect the contribution the UK made to it, so why continue extending it?
Both sides could sign a free trade agreement tomorrow. The EU would even get £40b in return (over the course of a few decades). The fact this isn't happening it's simply down to the EU deciding that the best way to protect the future of the EU is to punish the UK with as damaging relationship as possible.
Looking at the group photo as Salzburg it strikes a strange sight; so much bristling confidence. But the EU could not protect itself in any conflict, it totally relies on the UK and France to have any real muscle on the continent. What force could be mustered when the UK leaves? Combined could it deal with even Turkey? France wouldn't want to be the major player and take the most of any casualties for the defence of any Balkan nation.
It could have gone on day one like this:
EU *We really need the security the the UK military and intelligence provides, we don't want to take a big hit by loosing a big market either, let's propose a free trade deal and try to get as much money as possible without risking the relationship.*
UK *We want a free trade deal and are prepared to pay towards it and will continue providing intelligence and defence to the EU in addition*
Afternoon of Day 1, free trade deal agreed: all markets and businesses are happy. Voter's everywhere are happy. UK is happy, EU is happy. Everyone works towards a stronger Europe together.
Why can't this be signed tomorrow?
Everyone knows the answer, even the most ardent remainer. That same answer is why the majority of voters decided that they don't want to be a part of a club with members such as that.
Just leave. Everyone knew the economy would stagnant for a decade or so as a result, it's a price will worth paying to get be removed from such a horrible organisation. We paid a similar price to bail out banks, doing so again to get out of the EU is a far better reason.
Time for May to play a real hand, arrange a video conference and say our last offer is a full free trade agreement and the £40b and we will continue our intelligence and defense commitments.
If not then it's clear the EU doesn't want a future relationship with the UK so the UK will walk and take all off its commitments with it, including all intelligence services and military deployments apart from with those NATO nations that contribute the 2% GDP target. Hang up the phone.
I really don't see why you wouldn't negotiate with all of your strongest cards. It's quite clear the the EU doesn't care or respect the contribution the UK made to it, so why continue extending it?
Kromeriz
LE
Well you won't be able to see the bottom then; happy landing.
Tired_Tech
LE
by whom?
Tired_Tech
LE
the proposal was more concrete than the vague notions of the eu.
I get it that 'we created' brexit, that doesn't absolve the eu of any responsibility for it's success. Especially as they'd really like some money out of us at the end.
AfghanAndy
LE
How many cliches in there?
You'd have thought that NATO being dissolved would have made bigger news headlines. Why am I only just reading about it?
Tired_Tech
LE
he's doing his best.
If @Medic_Cop22 wants to nail SPOTY 2018 he's got scant time to nail it.
let's see how he performs first.
Tired_Tech
LE
there are existing int and military agreements are without NATO. There are also agreements on criminal int.
Tired_Tech
LE
There are some pretty dense people out there.
Some 16 million voted remain. That's a LOT of stupid.
terminal
LE
To cover a bit of background, if you recall, the last time I posted I mentioned that shortly after the Brexit vote Canada privately proposed that Britain become a third signatory to the CETA treaty. The UK rejected this and Canada stepped back from the fray. The UK wanted "more" than was in CETA.
Another bit of background is that the EU have said that they plan on basing future trade treaties with other parties on CETA. That is, the CETA treaty will be used as a template that will be modified to suit specific circumstances.
So, from the EU's perspective, the default treaty arrangement for the UK as a third party would be to start with CETA and work from there. Apparently, some factions in the UK government have a similar opinion.
To address one of your comments, CETA does cover services, including financial services.
Where the "plus" comes in is what gets added to it. For example, the UK may wish to remain part of the European air transport safety regulation system or pharmaceutical regulation. That isn't something covered by CETA.
Another aspect involves mutual recognition of regulations involving food safety, product safety, labelling, and other considerations. Canada begins from a different starting point than the EU, so there will be ongoing work finding ways of bridging those differences. Consider for example what you would have to do to make a frozen pizza in Canada and ship it to the EU (or visa versa). What sanitary procedures do you follow? What ingredients are allowed? Do you need to get government food inspectors from both parties to inspect it, or will each accept the approval of the other party? Ideally, you would prefer the latter and work towards making it feasible.
The UK starts from already having a history of being part of the EU and so UK regulations and standards are already equivalent. That means there isn't any need to work towards some sort of regulatory convergence, the two sides are already there. The UK should be able to ship regulated goods to the EU, and visa versa, and have them recognized as meeting local standards from day one rather than something that is worked towards. This may be part of the "plus".
The above two paragraphs are very, very, important to understand. There is much talk about how Canada faces more regulatory barriers in trading with the EU (this cuts both ways of course). The people who mention this though seem to miss the point that the reason for it is that the regulations are different. There will be ongoing work to bring regulations more closely in line to reduce those, but that will be a work in progress. Unlike Canada, the UK starts from a position of already being completely aligned with the EU and so doesn't face the same problem that Canada and the EU do with respect to each other. The two parties just need to formally recognize this situation.
To what degree Canada Plus differs from Chequers may be in the eye of the beholder, as we don't know how much plus would be in "Plus" as negotiated and how much minus would get subtracted from Chequers in negotiation.
I believe that how the Irish border question would need to be addressed would be independent of which trade arrangement was chosen.
- Status
