How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
Brooking10 said:
Crackie said:
Brooking10 said:
pgh said:
Tuna said:
wilful misrepresentation and deceit
Sums up some posters perfectly (sadly)Caught the clip of Gove on Guido earlier. What an improvement in our negotiating stance from the Theresa years.
Of our hard line Brexiteer buddies today.
Exhibit A was our correspondent lauding a new report for its straightforwardness and reporting of fact which in fact relied not insignificantly on background briefing from No 10’s spinners
Now we enjoy exhibit B a condemnation of those who seek to wilfully misrepresent and deceive followed by the gem of “watching on Guido”
Keep ‘em coming they make for cracking light relief and are much funnier than the hardline remainer rants
The same Soupdragon1 who posted "IMPORTANT REMINDER: Clocks go back 46 years tonight!" and "The mask slips again Sway, we know your sort of lined up with Cummings"
He's no Brexiteer………..hard line or otherwise
I'll stand by the fact that its deeply amusing watching a news report relying on an OTR briefing from central govt lauded as impartial.
DeepEnd said:
Got it.
You have absolutely no problem with the EU requesting regulatory alignment
Yup, they can ask for anything they like, I'm not going to be upset. Doesn't mean I'll accept it without question though.You have absolutely no problem with the EU requesting regulatory alignment
DeepEnd said:
You have a massive problem with the UK even considering agreement to any regulatory alignment
They aren't just asking for regulatory alignment, are they? Please stop misrepresenting their position. Given the concerns you and others have raised over things like Nissan and Honda, yes, I think that the EU deciding key economic choices on our behalf would put us at serious risk.DeepEnd said:
You can't mention a single regulation where this would be a problem
I can give an example if you like. Imagine that the UK produces a competitive product that is a challenge to incumbents on the mainland. What would happen if they lobbied the EU regulators to impose rules that penalises the UK innovation? Wouldn't that be a problem?DeepEnd said:
If the UK decided to completely reject regulatory alignment and plunge into damaging no deal in a kind of tantrum as a result you would be wryly amused.
It's not specifically regulatory alignment though is it? Barnier's "level playing field" includes environment, labour, taxation and state aid - those last two would prevent reform to CAP, would put UK industries such as motor manufacture at further risk and would prevent projects aimed at regenerating the north and rural regions. The alignment the EU is requesting is specifically to restrict the UK's economic options - "level playing field" - the clue's in the name.Your pathological need to lie about the points being discussed is ridiculous.
B'stard Child said:
Ridgemont said:
And one of the reasons I love NPE: you went off looking for it
I have good news and bad newsGood news for your love of NPE - I did go looking
But unfortunately I couldn't find one
Bad news - that's my best effort as a potato shop
B'stard Child said:
Ridgemont said:
B'stard Child said:
Ridgemont said:
And one of the reasons I love NPE: you went off looking for it
I have good news and bad newsGood news for your love of NPE - I did go looking
But unfortunately I couldn't find one
Bad news - that's my best effort as a potato shop
Tuna said:
DeepEnd said:
Got it.
You have absolutely no problem with the EU requesting regulatory alignment
Yup, they can ask for anything they like, I'm not going to be upset. Doesn't mean I'll accept it without question though.You have absolutely no problem with the EU requesting regulatory alignment
DeepEnd said:
You have a massive problem with the UK even considering agreement to any regulatory alignment
They aren't just asking for regulatory alignment, are they? Please stop misrepresenting their position. Given the concerns you and others have raised over things like Nissan and Honda, yes, I think that the EU deciding key economic choices on our behalf would put us at serious risk.DeepEnd said:
You can't mention a single regulation where this would be a problem
I can give an example if you like. Imagine that the UK produces a competitive product that is a challenge to incumbents on the mainland. What would happen if they lobbied the EU regulators to impose rules that penalises the UK innovation? Wouldn't that be a problem?DeepEnd said:
If the UK decided to completely reject regulatory alignment and plunge into damaging no deal in a kind of tantrum as a result you would be wryly amused.
It's not specifically regulatory alignment though is it? Barnier's "level playing field" includes environment, labour, taxation and state aid - those last two would prevent reform to CAP, would put UK industries such as motor manufacture at further risk and would prevent projects aimed at regenerating the north and rural regions. The alignment the EU is requesting is specifically to restrict the UK's economic options - "level playing field" - the clue's in the name.Your pathological need to lie about the points being discussed is ridiculous.
I think it is just that he doesn't understand. He listens to JoB and then regurgitates what he says on here not realising that it is a radio entertainment program he is listening to and not real life.
Piha said:
Keep up at the back.janesmith1950 said:
Will we stop giving DVLA keeper details to the foreign rozzers and allowing said foreign rozzers to chase us through UK courts for speeding sheckles?
That would make Euro jaunts more interesting.
Think we should hinge all the negotiations on a good outcome for this specific point.
That will just mean euro cops will take more cars to the scrapperThat would make Euro jaunts more interesting.
Think we should hinge all the negotiations on a good outcome for this specific point.
Tuna said:
You really are struggling with this, aren't you?
I have no problem with their regulations as a member, and would have quite happily remained a member with those regulations.
I would have a problem with our regulations being decided by a 'competitor' (their words), with no representation (their proposition) - that's not moaning, it's just an objective view of the risks it would impose on the UK. If you don't think that's the case, why don't you let me manage your next salary negotiation? Remember, according to you, if you reject my offer, you're moaning.
It's difficult to disagree with this.I have no problem with their regulations as a member, and would have quite happily remained a member with those regulations.
I would have a problem with our regulations being decided by a 'competitor' (their words), with no representation (their proposition) - that's not moaning, it's just an objective view of the risks it would impose on the UK. If you don't think that's the case, why don't you let me manage your next salary negotiation? Remember, according to you, if you reject my offer, you're moaning.
I would have rather we stayed in, clearly.
But (cliche time) we are where we are and whilst I might not be a fan of some of the language and tone used some of the time (the whole "they need us more" vibe of a lot of it) I have shifted position that if we are where we are it doesn't seem to make sense to let the EU dictate our position.
Whether Boris and his teams position is one I agree with is a different matter, but it does seem slightly odd at this point to see the EU making demands about regulation and alignment.
Gove is one of my dirty little pleasures as I can't bring myself to dislike him as much as I probably should and I do think a lot of what he said actually made sense.
Of course the counter to that is it will be interesting to see if Johnson adopts the same "no deal" stance when negotiations with the US and other countries start.
Edited by b
hstewie on Friday 28th February 08:23
hstewie on Friday 28th February 08:23bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Tuna said:
You really are struggling with this, aren't you?
I have no problem with their regulations as a member, and would have quite happily remained a member with those regulations.
I would have a problem with our regulations being decided by a 'competitor' (their words), with no representation (their proposition) - that's not moaning, it's just an objective view of the risks it would impose on the UK. If you don't think that's the case, why don't you let me manage your next salary negotiation? Remember, according to you, if you reject my offer, you're moaning.
It's difficult to disagree with this.I have no problem with their regulations as a member, and would have quite happily remained a member with those regulations.
I would have a problem with our regulations being decided by a 'competitor' (their words), with no representation (their proposition) - that's not moaning, it's just an objective view of the risks it would impose on the UK. If you don't think that's the case, why don't you let me manage your next salary negotiation? Remember, according to you, if you reject my offer, you're moaning.
I would have rather we stated in, clearly.
But (cliche time) we are where we are and whilst I might not be a fan of some of the language and tone used some of the time (the whole "they need us more" vibe of a lot of it) I have shifted position that if we are where we are it doesn't seem to make sense to let the EU dictate our position.
Whether Boris and his teams position is one I agree with is a different matter, but it does seem slightly odd at this point to see the EU making demands about regulation and alignment.
Gove is one my dirty little pleasures as I can't bring myself to dislike him as much as I probably should and I do think a lot of what he said actually made sense.
Of course the counter to that is it will be interesting to see if Johnson adopts the same "no deal" stance when negotiations with the US and other countries start.
On your last point, I've never heard of any nation engaging in negotiations for a FTA to have ever demanded such things as the things crossing Johnson/Gove's stated red lines, so I don't think it's particularly likely to be an issue.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's difficult to disagree with this.
I would have rather we stated in, clearly.
But (cliche time) we are where we are and whilst I might not be a fan of some of the language and tone used some of the time (the whole "they need us more" vibe of a lot of it) I have shifted position that if we are where we are it doesn't seem to make sense to let the EU dictate our position.
Whether Boris and his teams position is one I agree with is a different matter, but it does seem slightly odd at this point to see the EU making demands about regulation and alignment.
Gove is one my dirty little pleasures as I can't bring myself to dislike him as much as I probably should and I do think a lot of what he said actually made sense.
Of course the counter to that is it will be interesting to see if Johnson adopts the same "no deal" stance when negotiations with the US and other countries start.
On your last point, I don't see other countries insisting upon the same political levers. I would have rather we stated in, clearly.
But (cliche time) we are where we are and whilst I might not be a fan of some of the language and tone used some of the time (the whole "they need us more" vibe of a lot of it) I have shifted position that if we are where we are it doesn't seem to make sense to let the EU dictate our position.
Whether Boris and his teams position is one I agree with is a different matter, but it does seem slightly odd at this point to see the EU making demands about regulation and alignment.
Gove is one my dirty little pleasures as I can't bring myself to dislike him as much as I probably should and I do think a lot of what he said actually made sense.
Of course the counter to that is it will be interesting to see if Johnson adopts the same "no deal" stance when negotiations with the US and other countries start.
They are used to not starting from that point and so it's not a "red line" that they'd typically even raise.
The reason for our current position is that the EU are not yet thinking of us as a third party. They still don't like that we've left and I suspect still think that we accepted these rules before therefore why wouldn't we now. They are clinging to remainer panic about harmed trade.
It might serve both sides better to start on WTO and revisit this a period down the line as a genuine third party if politics cannot be put to one side. Economically that would not help either side and would be a wasted opportunity. But it may end up being the only way to get sense to the fore.
From a UK perspective the implications of accepting the nonsense the EU are setting out are grave. It cannot happen.
It does depend on where we want to end up and how it is portrayed.
If it is cast as “being under the jackboot of the EU” then the angry brigade will never accept.
If it is a case of the UK deciding to align with the EU where it suits us, that is rather different and would be the case in any trade deal.
Pascal WTO was just on LBC and said the UK had not yet said where it wants to diverge.
No one here can say either.
No deal is just as much of a bluff now as it was under May. That is obvious to all but the fanatics.
If it is cast as “being under the jackboot of the EU” then the angry brigade will never accept.
If it is a case of the UK deciding to align with the EU where it suits us, that is rather different and would be the case in any trade deal.
Pascal WTO was just on LBC and said the UK had not yet said where it wants to diverge.
No one here can say either.
No deal is just as much of a bluff now as it was under May. That is obvious to all but the fanatics.
DeepEnd said:
It does depend on where we want to end up and how it is portrayed.
If it is cast as “being under the jackboot of the EU” then the angry brigade will never accept.
If it is a case of the UK deciding to align with the EU where it suits us, that is rather different and would be the case in any trade deal.
Pascal WTO was just on LBC and said the UK had not yet said where it wants to diverge.
No one here can say either.
No deal is just as much of a bluff now as it was under May. That is obvious to all but the fanatics.
The salient word in your post is "deciding". If it is cast as “being under the jackboot of the EU” then the angry brigade will never accept.
If it is a case of the UK deciding to align with the EU where it suits us, that is rather different and would be the case in any trade deal.
Pascal WTO was just on LBC and said the UK had not yet said where it wants to diverge.
No one here can say either.
No deal is just as much of a bluff now as it was under May. That is obvious to all but the fanatics.
Which, as you well know, is not the choice the EU want to give. They want to decide, and the UK be forced to accept.
DeepEnd said:
It does depend on where we want to end up and how it is portrayed.
If it is cast as “being under the jackboot of the EU” then the angry brigade will never accept.
If it is a case of the UK deciding to align with the EU where it suits us, that is rather different and would be the case in any trade deal.
Pascal WTO was just on LBC and said the UK had not yet said where it wants to diverge.
No one here can say either.
No deal is just as much of a bluff now as it was under May. That is obvious to all but the fanatics.
That's where I would hope cool heads will prevail over rhetoric.If it is cast as “being under the jackboot of the EU” then the angry brigade will never accept.
If it is a case of the UK deciding to align with the EU where it suits us, that is rather different and would be the case in any trade deal.
Pascal WTO was just on LBC and said the UK had not yet said where it wants to diverge.
No one here can say either.
No deal is just as much of a bluff now as it was under May. That is obvious to all but the fanatics.
I've no time for the "EU Jackboot" brigade either.
But whilst I wouldn't expect us to be tearing up rules and regulations simply to try and prove a point because "sovereignty" or to keep the likes of Francois happy, as a point of principle I'd struggle with coming up with a good answer on why we should decide where we want to diverge by default rather than why we want to align by default.
If we choose to align fine, but I don't think that should be a pre-requisite.
God I'm starting to sound like Francois or Steve Baker, the nuance of this stuff is quite difficult to get across in written text
Crackie said:
Brooking10 said:
pgh said:
Tuna said:
wilful misrepresentation and deceit
Sums up some posters perfectly (sadly)Caught the clip of Gove on Guido earlier. What an improvement in our negotiating stance from the Theresa years.
Of our hard line Brexiteer buddies today.
Exhibit A was our correspondent lauding a new report for its straightforwardness and reporting of fact which in fact relied not insignificantly on background briefing from No 10’s spinners
Now we enjoy exhibit B a condemnation of those who seek to wilfully misrepresent and deceive followed by the gem of “watching on Guido”
Keep ‘em coming they make for cracking light relief and are much funnier than the hardline remainer rants
The same Soupdragon1 who posted "IMPORTANT REMINDER: Clocks go back 46 years tonight!" and "The mask slips again Sway, we know your sort of lined up with Cummings"
He's no Brexiteer………..hard line or otherwise
I live in NI so all I care about is that we're given consideration in the whole piece. On the one hand, Boris says life will be great for NI - don't worry - but the political declaration says it may or may not be that simple - depending on what the eventual agreement turns out to be. That's where my vested interest is. I have no real passion for the UK or the EU - coming from where I come from, we're a bit of a misfit population with no real identity as such.
I think overall, that helps me be 'relatively' impartial with the Cummings and goings of the Brexit twists and turns
The only upside about living in NI is that if Brexit goes absolutely tits up, we can sort of quietly whistle and saunter back over to rejoin the EU and likewise, if Brexit turns out great, we can stay put and enjoy the land of milk and honey
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: But whilst I wouldn't expect us to be tearing up rules and regulations simply to try and prove a point because "sovereignty" or to keep the likes of Francois happy, as a point of principle I'd struggle with coming up with a good answer on why we should decide where we want to diverge by default rather than why we want to align by default.
If we choose to align fine, but I don't think that should be a pre-requisite.
It's just an attempt to invalidate the concept of the UK having control over it's alignment/divergence via the means of "if you can't list every divergence upfront, theres no point in having that control"If we choose to align fine, but I don't think that should be a pre-requisite.
It's not very convincing.
Murph7355 said:
On your last point, I don't see other countries insisting upon the same political levers.
They are used to not starting from that point and so it's not a "red line" that they'd typically even raise.
The reason for our current position is that the EU are not yet thinking of us as a third party. They still don't like that we've left and I suspect still think that we accepted these rules before therefore why wouldn't we now. They are clinging to remainer panic about harmed trade.
It might serve both sides better to start on WTO and revisit this a period down the line as a genuine third party if politics cannot be put to one side. Economically that would not help either side and would be a wasted opportunity. But it may end up being the only way to get sense to the fore.
From a UK perspective the implications of accepting the nonsense the EU are setting out are grave. It cannot happen.
Certainly WTO would shake the fruit from the treesThey are used to not starting from that point and so it's not a "red line" that they'd typically even raise.
The reason for our current position is that the EU are not yet thinking of us as a third party. They still don't like that we've left and I suspect still think that we accepted these rules before therefore why wouldn't we now. They are clinging to remainer panic about harmed trade.
It might serve both sides better to start on WTO and revisit this a period down the line as a genuine third party if politics cannot be put to one side. Economically that would not help either side and would be a wasted opportunity. But it may end up being the only way to get sense to the fore.
From a UK perspective the implications of accepting the nonsense the EU are setting out are grave. It cannot happen.
It would be a massive wake up call and show all
parties who are the winners and losers
Possibly the way to go I’d imagine it would rationalise thought
My own view is that it would hurt the EU more than the U.K. clearly more impact in some parts. I think the ROI would be decimated, Croatia not so much so
But, it might be the reset required
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Here's the quandary. Can I make a buck out of this?
What product is imported from the EU, may suffer high UK tariffs on WTO, and has a long shelf life so that I can sell on at a profit post 01/01/2021?
Dunno, but asking the internet is usually how most successful ventures start What product is imported from the EU, may suffer high UK tariffs on WTO, and has a long shelf life so that I can sell on at a profit post 01/01/2021?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff