How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 10)
Discussion
Sway said:
Far too simplistic a view - "basically free trade" is everything from unilateral removal of all tariffs, through to structured and focused tariff schedules that don't raise costs on things we cannot or don't want to produce, whilst using either tariffs or standards to "protect" British businesses.
What "buffer" does the EU provide, other than raising costs for things we don't produce in order to "protect" inefficient European businesses? After all, NTBs ensure that it's purely a cost comparison, as standards are consistent.
If you believe the Treasury "gravity model" (which I find hard to in light of the success of China globally), then British businesses have an inherent advantage.
I think free trade would be a great idea. However the chance of China or US giving us a true free trade deal, rather than one that massively is to their advantage, is unlikelyWhat "buffer" does the EU provide, other than raising costs for things we don't produce in order to "protect" inefficient European businesses? After all, NTBs ensure that it's purely a cost comparison, as standards are consistent.
If you believe the Treasury "gravity model" (which I find hard to in light of the success of China globally), then British businesses have an inherent advantage.
Ie would the US ever agree to free trade on trucks? Or sugar? Given the power of domestic lobbies. No. And they are liberals compared to China.
Crackie said:
It isn't difficult to paint a picture that confirms your own bias; there certainly are polls which show the positive views you mention. This doesn't necessarily mean that amgmcqueen is wrong does it...…...it could just be that there are fewer don't knows or don't cares in the polls. Support for Eurosceptic parties in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Poland. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006
There are also polls which show two thirds of Europeans are not happy with the direction the Commission is taking the EU. https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...
There are recent polls that show the citizens of most EU countries ( all but three of them ) think the EU will be gone by 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/majo...
Posting "According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U." is all very well but I think your perspective is somewhat skewed & rose tinted; things are far from rosy in the EU garden.
Well seeing as I never claimed things were all rosy I don’t think that accusation would be fair.There are also polls which show two thirds of Europeans are not happy with the direction the Commission is taking the EU. https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...
There are recent polls that show the citizens of most EU countries ( all but three of them ) think the EU will be gone by 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/majo...
Posting "According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U." is all very well but I think your perspective is somewhat skewed & rose tinted; things are far from rosy in the EU garden.
I’m sure most people globally are unhappy with the way their governments are taking their country so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that many don’t like what the E.U. commission is doing but that apparently doesn’t equate to euroscepticism.
Your first link just shows a rise in nationalist parties, whether people are voting for them because they are unhappy with a domestic situation (usually immigration related) or specifically because they are eurosceptic would require some rather more in depth analysis.
As for the E.U. collapsing that’s perfectly believable especially if any of the other big players decide to leave like we have. That view doesn’t seem to have lead the same people to form a negative view of the bloc though.
There’s no need for bias, people were polled and two thirds said they viewed the E.U. in a positive light, none of the links you posted change that or offer any real counter evidence they’re largely separate issues.
wisbech said:
Sway said:
Far too simplistic a view - "basically free trade" is everything from unilateral removal of all tariffs, through to structured and focused tariff schedules that don't raise costs on things we cannot or don't want to produce, whilst using either tariffs or standards to "protect" British businesses.
What "buffer" does the EU provide, other than raising costs for things we don't produce in order to "protect" inefficient European businesses? After all, NTBs ensure that it's purely a cost comparison, as standards are consistent.
If you believe the Treasury "gravity model" (which I find hard to in light of the success of China globally), then British businesses have an inherent advantage.
I think free trade would be a great idea. However the chance of China or US giving us a true free trade deal, rather than one that massively is to their advantage, is unlikelyWhat "buffer" does the EU provide, other than raising costs for things we don't produce in order to "protect" inefficient European businesses? After all, NTBs ensure that it's purely a cost comparison, as standards are consistent.
If you believe the Treasury "gravity model" (which I find hard to in light of the success of China globally), then British businesses have an inherent advantage.
Ie would the US ever agree to free trade on trucks? Or sugar? Given the power of domestic lobbies. No. And they are liberals compared to China.
None of what I've posted relies on agreement with any other nation.
djc206 said:
Crackie said:
It isn't difficult to paint a picture that confirms your own bias; there certainly are polls which show the positive views you mention. This doesn't necessarily mean that amgmcqueen is wrong does it...…...it could just be that there are fewer don't knows or don't cares in the polls. Support for Eurosceptic parties in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Poland. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006
There are also polls which show two thirds of Europeans are not happy with the direction the Commission is taking the EU. https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...
There are recent polls that show the citizens of most EU countries ( all but three of them ) think the EU will be gone by 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/majo...
Posting "According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U." is all very well but I think your perspective is somewhat skewed & rose tinted; things are far from rosy in the EU garden.
Well seeing as I never claimed things were all rosy I don’t think that accusation would be fair.There are also polls which show two thirds of Europeans are not happy with the direction the Commission is taking the EU. https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...
There are recent polls that show the citizens of most EU countries ( all but three of them ) think the EU will be gone by 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/majo...
Posting "According to Eurobarometer two thirds of Europeans have a positive view of the E.U." is all very well but I think your perspective is somewhat skewed & rose tinted; things are far from rosy in the EU garden.
I’m sure most people globally are unhappy with the way their governments are taking their country so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that many don’t like what the E.U. commission is doing but that apparently doesn’t equate to euroscepticism.
Your first link just shows a rise in nationalist parties, whether people are voting for them because they are unhappy with a domestic situation (usually immigration related) or specifically because they are eurosceptic would require some rather more in depth analysis.
As for the E.U. collapsing that’s perfectly believable especially if any of the other big players decide to leave like we have. That view doesn’t seem to have lead the same people to form a negative view of the bloc though.
There’s no need for bias, people were polled and two thirds said they viewed the E.U. in a positive light, none of the links you posted change that or offer any real counter evidence they’re largely separate issues.
The implications on those states still up to their armpits in the E.U. at that point are?
I dread to reopen this can of worms, but let’s start with the T2 bill. Who pays? And perhaps most importantly, who decides who pays?
SeeFive said:
Re bold - and that doesn’t worry you?
The implications on those states still up to their armpits in the E.U. at that point are?
I dread to reopen this can of worms, but let’s start with the T2 bill. Who pays? And perhaps most importantly, who decides who pays?
It doesn’t matter to me, we’re leaving. Clearly it’s not as concerning to a lot of Europeans as it would be to you. That may be ignorance, it may be optimism.The implications on those states still up to their armpits in the E.U. at that point are?
I dread to reopen this can of worms, but let’s start with the T2 bill. Who pays? And perhaps most importantly, who decides who pays?
I’m very glad we never joined the Euro though.
djc206 said:
SeeFive said:
Re bold - and that doesn’t worry you?
The implications on those states still up to their armpits in the E.U. at that point are?
I dread to reopen this can of worms, but let’s start with the T2 bill. Who pays? And perhaps most importantly, who decides who pays?
It doesn’t matter to me, we’re leaving. Clearly it’s not as concerning to a lot of Europeans as it would be to you. That may be ignorance, it may be optimism.The implications on those states still up to their armpits in the E.U. at that point are?
I dread to reopen this can of worms, but let’s start with the T2 bill. Who pays? And perhaps most importantly, who decides who pays?
I’m very glad we never joined the Euro though.
Wars have been started for greatly lesser sums.
djc206 said:
Well seeing as I never claimed things were all rosy I don’t think that accusation would be fair.
I’m sure most people globally are unhappy with the way their governments are taking their country so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that many don’t like what the E.U. commission is doing but that apparently doesn’t equate to euroscepticism.
Your first link just shows a rise in nationalist parties, whether people are voting for them because they are unhappy with a domestic situation (usually immigration related) or specifically because they are eurosceptic would require some rather more in depth analysis.
As for the E.U. collapsing that’s perfectly believable especially if any of the other big players decide to leave like we have. That view doesn’t seem to have lead the same people to form a negative view of the bloc though.
There’s no need for bias, people were polled and two thirds said they viewed the E.U. in a positive light, none of the links you posted change that or offer any real counter evidence they’re largely separate issues.
Just to clarify...you claimed amg was incorrect about Euroscepticism. There is evidence aplenty regarding the rise of Euroscepticism but I'm sure you know that. https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/11/eurosceptic-pa...I’m sure most people globally are unhappy with the way their governments are taking their country so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that many don’t like what the E.U. commission is doing but that apparently doesn’t equate to euroscepticism.
Your first link just shows a rise in nationalist parties, whether people are voting for them because they are unhappy with a domestic situation (usually immigration related) or specifically because they are eurosceptic would require some rather more in depth analysis.
As for the E.U. collapsing that’s perfectly believable especially if any of the other big players decide to leave like we have. That view doesn’t seem to have lead the same people to form a negative view of the bloc though.
There’s no need for bias, people were polled and two thirds said they viewed the E.U. in a positive light, none of the links you posted change that or offer any real counter evidence they’re largely separate issues.
If you look at my post, I didn't say you thought everything was rosy did I? I said you has a rose tinted perspective; I think your response reinforces rather refutes that view.
I appreciate that many have a positive view of the EU whilst also not liking where it is going. I used to be very pro EU and was pretty much 50:50 in the run up to the ref; I was very close indeed to voting remain. The deciding factor, which changed my mind to leave on the day of the ref, was thinking about what the EU originally like, the subsequent changes and what the EU Commission has stated its longer term are...…….
Not many want to go there but the EU are not listening...….time to get out whilst we still can.
Mark Blythe's take on Brexit is interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg
Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 21st May 15:49
Elysium said:
Your argument is that managed no-deal is sorted. If that is true and we have agreed terms of withdrawal then that is fine. However, that is not what the Govt or the EU are saying and I will take their view over yours.
This one sentence really suggests that you don't actually understand what a 'Managed No Deal' actually is.Once again - you do not 'agree terms of withdrawal' for No Deal, managed or otherwise. It's an oxymoron. Switching to WTO rules requires no consent from or agreement with the EU. We just have to say "Right, that's it, we're off". Or wait until October. Or vote for someone who is willing to take action.
And also again - it's on record that the Government carried out all 'No Deal' preparations in secret and have refused to publish an overview of the agreements and preparations they have put in place. So the fact that you've not seen that is neither surprising, nor an indication that nothing is ready for a WTO exit.
Tuna said:
This one sentence really suggests that you don't actually understand what a 'Managed No Deal' actually is.
Once again - you do not 'agree terms of withdrawal' for No Deal, managed or otherwise. It's an oxymoron. Switching to WTO rules requires no consent from or agreement with the EU. We just have to say "Right, that's it, we're off". Or wait until October. Or vote for someone who is willing to take action.
And also again - it's on record that the Government carried out all 'No Deal' preparations in secret and have refused to publish an overview of the agreements and preparations they have put in place. So the fact that you've not seen that is neither surprising, nor an indication that nothing is ready for a WTO exit.
I thought the 'managed' part referred to stuff like aircraft until the UK is in a position to assume responsibility. WTO is just trade.Once again - you do not 'agree terms of withdrawal' for No Deal, managed or otherwise. It's an oxymoron. Switching to WTO rules requires no consent from or agreement with the EU. We just have to say "Right, that's it, we're off". Or wait until October. Or vote for someone who is willing to take action.
And also again - it's on record that the Government carried out all 'No Deal' preparations in secret and have refused to publish an overview of the agreements and preparations they have put in place. So the fact that you've not seen that is neither surprising, nor an indication that nothing is ready for a WTO exit.
Squiddly Diddly said:
I thought the 'managed' part referred to stuff like aircraft until the UK is in a position to assume responsibility. WTO is just trade.
Yes, no deal often seems to mean ‘no deal except all those agreements that are still required’. Could an Italian lorry and lorry driver still deliver to a factory in the UK? Wouldn’t the driver need a work visa in a no deal scenario? I honestly don’t know. wisbech said:
Squiddly Diddly said:
I thought the 'managed' part referred to stuff like aircraft until the UK is in a position to assume responsibility. WTO is just trade.
Yes, no deal often seems to mean ‘no deal except all those agreements that are still required’. Could an Italian lorry and lorry driver still deliver to a factory in the UK? Wouldn’t the driver need a work visa in a no deal scenario? I honestly don’t know. I do currently need a visitor visa for the USA, Australia New Zealand, Middle East etc, but not a work visa for short visits to work there. Might be different if the period of work exceeded the 183 days (or whatever the country states) as a valid period to be non resident in their country. We have that now even in E.U. countries, I can’t live or work in Spain for longer than 183 days per year without registering on the Padron.
So I guess unless the E.U. get s
tty and make that a problem for UK people working in their jurisdiction, we probably won’t either. It is kind of reciprocal.BBC reporting MPs will now get a vote on a second referendum if May’s withdrawal agreement is voted through.
'One last chance' to get Brexit done, says PM https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48357017
'One last chance' to get Brexit done, says PM https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48357017
SeeFive said:
It is a while back, but I don’t remember having to have a visa to travel from my permanent UK address to work in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Denmark, Italy etc for short visits prior to the E.U. being formed in its current state. My brother drove HGVs internationally before I started working abroad and he didn’t either.
I do currently need a visitor visa for the USA, Australia New Zealand, Middle East etc, but not a work visa for short visits to work there. Might be different if the period of work exceeded the 183 days (or whatever the country states) as a valid period to be non resident in their country. We have that now even in E.U. countries, I can’t live or work in Spain for longer than 183 days per year without registering on the Padron.
So I guess unless the E.U. get stty and make that a problem for UK people working in their jurisdiction, we probably won’t either. It is kind of reciprocal.
True, but aren’t all the above agreements and deals that need to be done? WTO doesn’t cover, and I can’t see that the default is ‘same rules as existed in 1992’ or ‘New Zealand’ if no deal really means no deal. I do currently need a visitor visa for the USA, Australia New Zealand, Middle East etc, but not a work visa for short visits to work there. Might be different if the period of work exceeded the 183 days (or whatever the country states) as a valid period to be non resident in their country. We have that now even in E.U. countries, I can’t live or work in Spain for longer than 183 days per year without registering on the Padron.
So I guess unless the E.U. get s
tty and make that a problem for UK people working in their jurisdiction, we probably won’t either. It is kind of reciprocal.Unlikely that the EU will cause a problem, but what if a UK HGV driver has an accident in Belgium, can insurance refuse to cover as they and their tacho and truck no longer are EU legal (even if still compliant). That was the killer for aviation- not that a UK inspector would ground a EASA certified aircraft as no UKCAD/ EASA deal, but that insurers, without the framework of such deals, won’t touch the legal black hole with a barge pole.
In aviation, looks like pragmatic extensions/ mini deals are in place. Which means that it isn’t a no deal exit.
Another one brought up was bio security on wooden pallets. Sounds stupid, but without a deal
SeeFive said:
It is a while back, but I don’t remember having to have a visa to travel from my permanent UK address to work in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Denmark, Italy etc for short visits prior to the E.U. being formed in its current state. My brother drove HGVs internationally before I started working abroad and he didn’t either.
I do currently need a visitor visa for the USA, Australia New Zealand, Middle East etc, but not a work visa for short visits to work there. Might be different if the period of work exceeded the 183 days (or whatever the country states) as a valid period to be non resident in their country. We have that now even in E.U. countries, I can’t live or work in Spain for longer than 183 days per year without registering on the Padron.
So I guess unless the E.U. get stty and make that a problem for UK people working in their jurisdiction, we probably won’t either. It is kind of reciprocal.
If you are suggesting you are visiting the US on a visitor visa but doing some work while you are there then you are breaching US law. You need a work visa to work even for1 day. Do you remember Top Gear where stopped from filming.I do currently need a visitor visa for the USA, Australia New Zealand, Middle East etc, but not a work visa for short visits to work there. Might be different if the period of work exceeded the 183 days (or whatever the country states) as a valid period to be non resident in their country. We have that now even in E.U. countries, I can’t live or work in Spain for longer than 183 days per year without registering on the Padron.
So I guess unless the E.U. get s
tty and make that a problem for UK people working in their jurisdiction, we probably won’t either. It is kind of reciprocal.jb2410 said:
BBC reporting MPs will now get a vote on a second referendum if May’s withdrawal agreement is voted through.
'One last chance' to get Brexit done, says PM https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48357017
How low can she go, I don't think there's anything she won't do to to get her retarded deal through. She's going to destroy the Tories if thery're not careful, she needs to be shown the door tonight.'One last chance' to get Brexit done, says PM https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48357017
wisbech said:
True, but aren’t all the above agreements and deals that need to be done? WTO doesn’t cover, and I can’t see that the default is ‘same rules as existed in 1992’ or ‘New Zealand’ if no deal really means no deal.
Unlikely that the EU will cause a problem, but what if a UK HGV driver has an accident in Belgium, can insurance refuse to cover as they and their tacho and truck no longer are EU legal (even if still compliant). That was the killer for aviation- not that a UK inspector would ground a EASA certified aircraft as no UKCAD/ EASA deal, but that insurers, without the framework of such deals, won’t touch the legal black hole with a barge pole.
In aviation, looks like pragmatic extensions/ mini deals are in place. Which means that it isn’t a no deal exit.
Another one brought up was bio security on wooden pallets. Sounds stupid, but without a deal
Common sense says that the current agreements like insurance, aviation etc carry on as normal. I accept they no longer have to and there is a limbo effectively between the present and what's to come, but really being immediately picky at 00.01 hours from 'leaving' benefits no one? Unlikely that the EU will cause a problem, but what if a UK HGV driver has an accident in Belgium, can insurance refuse to cover as they and their tacho and truck no longer are EU legal (even if still compliant). That was the killer for aviation- not that a UK inspector would ground a EASA certified aircraft as no UKCAD/ EASA deal, but that insurers, without the framework of such deals, won’t touch the legal black hole with a barge pole.
In aviation, looks like pragmatic extensions/ mini deals are in place. Which means that it isn’t a no deal exit.
Another one brought up was bio security on wooden pallets. Sounds stupid, but without a deal
Ok two sides/governments would be battling it out so that they try and come out better than the other side but meanwhile all us individuals just want to carry on as normal, and utilising the current rules would make that happen, smooth the transition. I believe there is little will among individuals to stick to the EU member citizens and see no reason to suspect the average Joe in Spain/France/German wants us to go to a special place in hell?
This will probably get labelled 'unicorn' thinking but ultimately, the battles around other issues can happen thereafter, EU potentially want to replace some of our contribution somehow and fair enough we can't be allowed to 100% take advance of our new found position? but all the talk of disruption of medical supplies etc just smacks of officialdom playing games to some extent.....
Scootersp said:
Common sense says that the current agreements like insurance, aviation etc carry on as normal. I accept they no longer have to and there is a limbo effectively between the present and what's to come, but really being immediately picky at 00.01 hours from 'leaving' benefits no one?
Yes, but that needs an agreement - to agree to carry on with such arrangements even if in a legal limbo, or to remove the legal limbo. It benefits an insurance company that no longer has to pay out x million in the event of an incident.
Yes, the whole point behind the WA is to continue using current rules to smooth out the transition while we agree on the long term rules, but HOC have voted it down, and it has been denounced as BRINO.
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 21st May 17:54
wisbech said:
Yes, but that needs an agreement - to agree to carry on with such arrangements even if in a legal limbo, or to remove the legal limbo.
It benefits an insurance company that no longer has to pay out x million in the event of an incident.
But if they don't cover the customer then after the partial premium refund they aren't offering an business so yes reduce their risk of payout but equally reduce their own turnover? Counter productive no? It benefits an insurance company that no longer has to pay out x million in the event of an incident.
The arrangements needed are common sense, neither side gains much in a year or two of 'as you were' everyone, everyone stands to lose from red tape for red tapes sake.
paulrockliffe said:
Norfolkit said:
How low can she go, I don't think there's anything she won't do to to get her retarded deal through. She's going to destroy the Tories if thery're not careful, she needs to be shown the door tonight.
It's already finished, they'll not recover from this now.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff