Brexit - merged threads

[Tamus]

10 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Let's look at those points. 

First you need to separate the EU from Europe. Brussels has set itself up as the de facto central European government, and tried to make every one believe this is what you want and need. 

The fact they have done this without a single democratic vote in any country, should ring alarm bells TBH, but I digress. 

The fact is, if your business wants to trade with a European business, for mutual benefit, then what's stopping you? 

An EU law, a tariff? If these laws or tarrifs are going to hurt day to day business for 10s of millions of EUROPEANS including us, then those laws or tariffs, conditions, whatever, are not going to be popular, at all. So, let's vote these people out, who are hurting Europe so badly, oh I forgot, you can't. 

Much easier to make it all someone else's fault, like us, the US, or the Russians.... 

So if we can't have no deal, because the EU holds UK business to ransom/threats ect, what are we left with? 

Whatever 'deal' the EU LET'S us have... is this OK? 

If we didn't have our own politicians actively assisting Brussels in this, it would certainly help with negotiating 'the easiest deal in history' but I'm afraid that horse has bolted. 

If it comes to tariffs, because I believe  a WTO Brexit is now inevitable, remember that they work both ways, and should be short lived, before common sense takes hold, and businesses , the real driving force in European trade, take control, in this sorry tale of a proxy, pseudo government, putting its own interests before the people it's supposed to represent. 

I've read your post over several times and even drunk a cup of coffee before responding.

I have no reply to offer that won't be inflammatory.

Sorry, but your evident grasp of how the EU is constituted (from the Treaty of Rome onwards) is quite 'interestingly selective'. You seem to be about 'blame'. I'm only asking about the practical matter of what might happen in the event of a No Deal.

On a practical level, I note we have already been in negotiations for three years and do not appear to have moved beyond square one. The notion that it will 'all get fixed quickly' was there three years ago and still seems to prevail with people like yourself. I hope you're right, but the current evidence isn't supporting that. Indeed I wouldn't even bet on 'Brexit' actually happening now, which is a thought that would never even have crossed my mind three years ago.

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Tamus said:

Yes I've read these people too. The idea that we are fully aligned is for the birds, since there's already a raft of legislation in every sector that we should be working toward ratifying but aren't so we're already falling our of alignment at a considerable rate. It's very messy, isn't it?

This blog post from 2017 illustrates just how barking mad the desire for a no-deal Brexit is. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86387. And as North also points out elsewhere, trade deals are usually decades in the making and so, without an interim agreement, the UK will be effectively shutting itself off for a very long time not only from normal trade with its biggest trade partner, but also normal trade with other trade partners with whom it presently does business with under the umbrella of previously signed EU-3rd party agreements. And if anyone thinks that 3rd party countries or trade blocs are going to grant the UK more favourable terms than were agreed against the EUs negotiating muscle, I've a bridge to sell them. 

But it's difficult to bring reality to bear on the discussion. For the die-hards, Brexit has become a religion and nothing can shake The Faith!

 

1 hour ago, Tamus said:

Far from having the English speaking world beating a path to the door at Westminster (to do a deal), they're all getting into bed with our big neighbours (The EU).

Well, I've commented on this board before that the world is almost wholly divvied up into regional trade blocs these days that basically do deals with each other and quite how a solitarily UK is going to fare in this Brave New World is uncertain to say the least. But nobody seems concerned, so what can you say? 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Retsdon

[panoma1]

If you try for three years to negotiate a deal, the terms on offer from the other side are unacceptable, they refuse to renegotiate, and take a "that's it, take it or leave it" stance what do you do? Surrender and accept their terms, which you know will be detrimental to your interests, now and in the future.........or walk away? 

[dead eye alan]

2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

If you try for three years to negotiate a deal, the terms on offer from the other side are unacceptable, they refuse to renegotiate, and take a "that's it, take it or leave it" stance what do you do? Surrender and accept their terms, which you know will be detrimental to your interests, now and in the future.........or walk away? 

The eu have never negotiated just dictated! We should have RUN away years ago. Now the next president will be an ex German defence minister! Talking of a eu army. Bit scary I think! 

[Retsdon]

2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

If you try for three years to negotiate a deal, the terms on offer from the other side are unacceptable, they refuse to renegotiate, and take a "that's it, take it or leave it" stance what do you do? Surrender and accept their terms, which you know will be detrimental to your interests, now and in the future.........or walk away? 

In normal circumstances you walk away because you're just going back to where you were before. Nothing lost. But it's not the same with Brexit. A better analogy here would be a family that doesn't like the terms of the agreement they have with the  housing association. So then the family ( of its own free will mark you because everyone else in the association was begging them to stay), insists on making itself homeless before even knowing what other sorts of accomodation might be available.  Sorry, but it's the stuff of the Darwin Awards....

[Rewulf]

39 minutes ago, Tamus said:

Sorry, but your evident grasp of how the EU is constituted (from the Treaty of Rome onwards) is quite 'interestingly selective'. You seem to be about 'blame'. I'm only asking about the practical matter of what might happen in the event of a No Deal.

As youve already stated in multiple posts that you expect 'pain' ect , and you dont believe the EU has done anything wrong, its us deciding to leave ect, it begs the he question, why are you asking about 'what might happen in the event of no deal' ?
It seems youve already decided for yourself that its not going to be anything good.

You talk about me apportioning blame, yet you place the blame squarely with the people who voted to leave ?
What were we supposed to do, ignore the vote ?
Well theyve tried that for the last 3 years, and it hasnt worked, come election time, a reckoning will be had.

I sympathize with farmers, theyve had a rough time, but most of the ones I speak to dont blame Brexit , they blame the EU , and cant wait to get out.

30 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

But it's difficult to bring reality to bear on the discussion. For the die-hards, Brexit has become a religion and nothing can shake The Faith!

That very much works both ways, the difference between the 2 'faiths' is we won the vote, thats the reality.

[pinfireman]

13 hours ago, Tamus said:

It'll be the easiest 'deal' in History. Or so they told us three years ago... but we're now talking about No Deal...

The people who told you that 3 years ago were ALL Remainers, lulling you into a sense of false security, while they planned to screw us!  

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Retsdon said:

In normal circumstances you walk away because you're just going back to where you were before. Nothing lost. But it's not the same with Brexit. A better analogy here would be a family that doesn't like the terms of the agreement they have with the  housing association. So then the family ( of its own free will mark you because everyone else in the association was begging them to stay), insists on making itself homeless before even knowing what other sorts of accomodation might be available.  Sorry, but it's the stuff of the Darwin Awards....

As analogies go thats pretty poor.
Why did the family want to leave ? Because they wanted a better house, or the living conditions were unbearable ?

Why did the other residents beg them to stay ? Because they loved them so much, or because they constantly needed to beg borrow or steal from them ?

We havnt moved house anyway, weve ended our membership of the housing association, because they were taking the ****.

[Retsdon]

4 minutes ago, dead eye alan said:

The eu have never negotiated 

To be fair, May's 'Red Lines' hampered everyone's room for movement.

[Rewulf]

Just now, Retsdon said:

To be fair, May's 'Red Lines' hampered everyone's room for movement.

What red lines ?

She offered them everything they wanted, she just couldnt get it past Parliament.

[Retsdon]

6 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

The people who told you that 3 years ago were ALL Remainers

Liam Fox was a closet Remainer? He disguised it pretty well!

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, Tamus said:

Used to be dairy, sheep and grain, but for the last twenty odd years it's been mainly beef cattle and sheep production. Since we voted to leave we can see the world has moved on and the protections the EU gives its members are clearly already ceasing to apply to the UK, witness the new Japan/EU and Mercosur/EU trade deals and of course the Aus/NZ EU trade talks in progress. Far from having the English speaking world beating a path to the door at Westminster (to do a deal), they're all getting into bed with our big neighbours (The EU). As I already said, anything that diminishes 'frictionless' trade with the EU hurts my sector. I anticipate pain, but I've no idea how much or when, or indeed 'if' it will actually all happen.

The fact that the EU is trying to get into bed with the rest of the English speaking world does not mean that we will not have trade deals with them! It,s more like the EU have finally started to wake up to the fact that they are NOT the only players in the game!

I,ve read your posts, and it seems to me, that, far from being  curious as to what will happen, you are really actively pushing a Remain aganda?

18 minutes ago, dead eye alan said:

The eu have never negotiated just dictated! We should have RUN away years ago. Now the next president will be an ex German defence minister! Talking of a eu army. Bit scary I think! 

Yes, and the next President (the German ex-Defence Minister) was not even on the ballot paper!   Elected by a secret ballot! How democratic is that?

[Newbie to this]

13 hours ago, Tamus said:

It'll be the easiest 'deal' in History. Or so they told us three years ago... but we're now talking about No Deal...

It was offered.

 

 

 

The problem has always been the anti-democratic Remainers in Government and Parliament. People elected on the lie, that they would honour the referendum result, all the while doing their best to thwart it!!!

 

[Tamus]

24 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

It was offered.

 

 

 

The problem has always been the anti-democratic Remainers in Government and Parliament. People elected on the lie, that they would honour the referendum result, all the while doing their best to thwart it!!!

 

Yes I remember the 'high alignment' 'tariff free' free trade agreement being offered. Personally, I liked the sound of that... But 'our' Red Lines issues meant we said No! to a Single Market and No! to the implicit Customs Union because those two things meant we would have had to accept the free movement of people, capital, etc... which 'we' were not prepared to do. So, Yes! we were offered it, but we declined it on the grounds that it would have been completely contrary to what people had expressed a wish for when they voted 'Leave'.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Tamus

[Newbie to this]

15 minutes ago, Tamus said:

Yes I remember the 'high alignment' 'tariff free' free trade agreement being offered. Personally, I liked the sound of that... But 'our' Red Lines issues meant we said No! to a Single Market and No! to the implicit Customs Union because those two things meant we would have had to accept the free movement of people, capital, etc... which 'we' were not prepared to do. So, Yes! we were offered it, but we declined it on the grounds that it would have been completely contrary to what people had expressed a wish for when they voted 'Leave'.

Not according to Steve Baker, what was offered would have delivered on the referendum and it's mandate.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Newbie to this

[Tamus]

7 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Not according to Steve Baker, what was offered would have delivered on the referendum and it's mandate.

Oh, I tend to agree. It didn't bother me if we stayed in the S.M. and the C.U. but then it wasn't me that laid down the 'red lines' that said No! to both of those. Having said that, it did seem to me to be a bit weird to 'Leave' and still have to accept the EU regulation and control of S.M. and C.U. with the attendant EU 'freedoms'. If I'm honest I'm not sure what the point of leaving really was, but I'm pretty sure we didn't want to leave and give up our seats in the European Parliament and all of the EU's other institutions just to be left, effectively, still accepting their rules. So, I do understand why this 'Offer' was deemed unacceptable. Was it really because of devious 'Remainers' though? I definitely recall Rees-Mogg and Francois being very vocal in expressing their disapproval of these proposals. So, I don't accept your assertion, or Steve Baker's, that Remainers 'sabotaged' this offer. Leavers said No to it too. In fact, I only recall Leavers being really angry at it at the time. No way were they going to allow the 'freedoms' to continue, that was totally against the whole point of the exercise, said they.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Tamus said:

Oh, I tend to agree. It didn't bother me if we stayed in the S.M. and the C.U. but then it wasn't me that laid down the 'red lines' that said No! to both of those. Having said that, it did seem to me to be a bit weird to 'Leave' and still have to accept the EU regulation and control of S.M. and C.U. with the attendant EU 'freedoms'. If I'm honest I'm not sure what the point of leaving really was, but I'm pretty sure we didn't want to leave and give up our seats in the European Parliament and all of the EU's other institutions just to be left, effectively, still accepting their rules. So, I do understand why this 'Offer' was deemed unacceptable. Was it really because of devious 'Remainers' though? I definitely recall Rees-Mogg and Francois being very vocal in expressing their disapproval of these proposals. So, I don't accept your assertion, or Steve Baker's, that Remainers 'sabotaged' this offer. Leavers said No to it too. In fact, I only recall Leavers being really angry at it at the time. No way were they going to allow the 'freedoms' to continue, that was totally against the whole point of the exercise, said they.

We must be talking about something completely different. Steve Baker said the FTA offered delivered on the referendum mandate, that mandate as laid out by Cameron's government meant, out of the single market, out of the customs union, an end to freedom of movement and the ECJ's jurisdiction. But May turned it down for closer alignment with the EU.

Nowhere does he say that the advanced FTA was keeping us in the single market and customs union or keeping freedom of movement or the ECJ's jurisdiction over the UK.

And according to him it was May's decision to turn it down.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Newbie to this

[Yellow Bear]

It now looks like the remoaners at Westminster and BBC are ramping up project fear again now that their other things seem to have failed

[Tamus]

36 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

We must be talking about something completely different. Steve Baker said the FTA offered delivered on the referendum mandate, that mandate as laid out by Cameron's government meant, out of the single market, out of the customs union, an end to freedom of movement and the ECJ's jurisdiction. But May turned it down for closer alignment with the EU.

Nowhere does he say that the advanced FTA was keeping us in the single market and customs union or keeping freedom of movement or the ECJ's jurisdiction over the UK.

And according to him it was May's decision to turn it down.

No, we are definitely talking about the same thing. In the first video link you included in your post above... Quite early on, Steve Baker says he was ok with "something like a customs union". On the principle that 'if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and looks like a duck... it is a duck' 'Something like a Customs Union... is a Customs Union"... Indeed, despite the close editing of the video and a general air of denial and exclusion of full detail, there was an explicit requirement at the time, from the EU side, for Customs Union and observance of Single Market regulation as part of the deal they were offering. Now, people can try and rewrite the story to exclude those facts if they want to, and some people might buy it, but that doesn't change what was actually offered, or why it was refused. 

I don't intend to say any more on the matter. I'll take it that the view from this forum is, on Nov 1st we move to "WTO rules. Simples."  That's what I asked for. Personally, I don't see it being likely to happen or working out well if it does happen but I accept the answer given here. Thanks.

[JohnfromUK]

2 hours ago, Tamus said:

So, Yes! we were offered it, but we declined it on the grounds that it would have been completely contrary to what people had expressed a wish for when they voted 'Leave'.

The real problem here is that remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union means we are still subject to much EU regulation and restriction and particularly removes the right to do our own trade deals outside the EU.  Personally, I would consider remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union as effectively remaining in the EU - but without any say in the rules the govern the Single Market and Customs Union - and that is totally unacceptable.

I, in fact originally voted Remain - because I couldn't see how leaving would be accomplished.  However - I have accepted that we had a Leave outcome - and have supported leaving since - but accept that leaving must mean also leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.  If there was another referendum (and I hope there isn't because we have not yet carried out the outcome of the first referendum), I would now vote leave - because I believe we must see the referendum result put into practice.

I accept there will be some short term 'fallout' and economic disturbance from leaving, but think that in the long term things can be good outside the EU.  In fact - things can be very good IF people want, but I remain convinced that the EU as an institution (not necessarily the individual member countries) will do it's best to 'punish' us for leaving because it is worried that others will follow us out if we are seen to prosper after leaving.

[Gordon R]

Tamus - no trace of bias at all.😀

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Tamus - no trace of bias at all.😀

I cant see what the whole point of that was, he was asking whats going to happen, a question no one can truly answer.
He gets a few possible scenarios, with explanations why, doesnt like the answers, says its going to be rubbish and probably wont happen, then flounces off.

Bizarre .

[ditchman]

parliament........is voting again..........

the way this is going the Boris Johnson govt is going to be totally tied and it will end up as Teresa May Mk 2........................total stalemate......

[Newbie to this]

 

1 hour ago, Tamus said:

No, we are definitely talking about the same thing. In the first video link you included in your post above... Quite early on, Steve Baker says he was ok with "something like a customs union". On the principle that 'if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and looks like a duck... it is a duck' 'Something like a Customs Union... is a Customs Union"... Indeed, despite the close editing of the video and a general air of denial and exclusion of full detail, there was an explicit requirement at the time, from the EU side, for Customs Union and observance of Single Market regulation as part of the deal they were offering. Now, people can try and rewrite the story to exclude those facts if they want to, and some people might buy it, but that doesn't change what was actually offered, or why it was refused. 

I don't intend to say any more on the matter. I'll take it that the view from this forum is, on Nov 1st we move to "WTO rules. Simples."  That's what I asked for. Personally, I don't see it being likely to happen or working out well if it does happen but I accept the answer given here. Thanks.

No in the video he says there were 2 options available a high alignment such as EEA  and a customs union OR a normal advanced FTA. He then says Tusk offered the normal advanced FTA (no mention of customs union or single market). He then goes on to say that it was then forced upon us by our government to go for a high alignment deal.

 

So again an FTA was offered and our remainer government (mainly May) forced us to seek a closer alignment deal, which is where we are now. The EU know our Government and Parliament want to remain and are playing hardball.

Hopefully this will change under our new PM. But I won't hold my breathe just yet.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Newbie to this

[panoma1]

55 minutes ago, ditchman said:

parliament........is voting again..........

the way this is going the Boris Johnson govt is going to be totally tied and it will end up as Teresa May Mk 2........................total stalemate......

That's what our remainer MP's/Parliament have been doing from day one! They want to make leaving without a deal impossible, and they will not vote for ANY deal put in front of them..........so the options are A) a permanent state of limbo or B) remain!........Job done!