How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 15)
Discussion
jsf said:
If there is no legal means to carry out a transfer, the transfer can't happen, the agreements between commercial entities become obsolete.
UK or the EU doesn't have to do anything with regards to interfering with a commercial contract to destroy the market, it is within their power to end any market if they legislate to do so. See the slave trade and the opium trade for high profile examples.
This is the entire basis of how government power works, the market works within a framework created by governments, investments are placed on those frameworks being applied with logic, sometimes big changes occur which means your business model no longer works.
Obviously the UK government can take over regulation of a market but interference in commercial contracts in an international market will not go down well with the trumpet. UK or the EU doesn't have to do anything with regards to interfering with a commercial contract to destroy the market, it is within their power to end any market if they legislate to do so. See the slave trade and the opium trade for high profile examples.
This is the entire basis of how government power works, the market works within a framework created by governments, investments are placed on those frameworks being applied with logic, sometimes big changes occur which means your business model no longer works.
Mortarboard said:
More than a few occasions in this thread 
)
And the view that the EU doesnt give a flying fig may well be true- but they very much do need to be seen to protect the interests of its members. Especiallly with more small members than large members, n'est pas?
M.
Thank God you've cleared that up. I guess Greece and tiny Cyprus didn't get the memo.)And the view that the EU doesnt give a flying fig may well be true- but they very much do need to be seen to protect the interests of its members. Especiallly with more small members than large members, n'est pas?
M.
Murph7355 said:
Mrr T said:
paulrockliffe said:
There will be not article 9 or annex 4 of any protocol if we end up in a situation where the French have turned off the interconnect.
See the IMB for some clues.
The WA will still exist whether the UK chooses to abide by it is a matter for UK and the courts.See the IMB for some clues.
France is not cutting off the interconnect the UK has chosen not to have access to them.
Mrr T said:
jsf said:
If there is no legal means to carry out a transfer, the transfer can't happen, the agreements between commercial entities become obsolete.
UK or the EU doesn't have to do anything with regards to interfering with a commercial contract to destroy the market, it is within their power to end any market if they legislate to do so. See the slave trade and the opium trade for high profile examples.
This is the entire basis of how government power works, the market works within a framework created by governments, investments are placed on those frameworks being applied with logic, sometimes big changes occur which means your business model no longer works.
Obviously the UK government can take over regulation of a market but interference in commercial contracts in an international market will not go down well with the trumpet. UK or the EU doesn't have to do anything with regards to interfering with a commercial contract to destroy the market, it is within their power to end any market if they legislate to do so. See the slave trade and the opium trade for high profile examples.
This is the entire basis of how government power works, the market works within a framework created by governments, investments are placed on those frameworks being applied with logic, sometimes big changes occur which means your business model no longer works.
The government doesnt need to interfere in comercial contracts to kill the market, same goes for the EU.
Borghetto said:
Thank God you've cleared that up. I guess Greece and tiny Cyprus didn't get the memo.
Do you mean:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/1/cyprus-de...
Shows the relative power of the small nations within the EU, does it not? Sanctions held back (on Belarus) due to the actions of state (cyprus)?
M.
jsf said:
UK offers a lot of things the EU wants, hence the negotiations.
Do you really feel that what the EU is offering, is equitable for what the EU wants?
Sure. Hence the many varied FTAs that the EU already has with other countries. Different levels of access for different "deals".Do you really feel that what the EU is offering, is equitable for what the EU wants?
Some the EU would prefer not to do again (Swiss for example).
The UK has gone from wanting a Norway deal, to a Swiss deal, to a Canada deal (when in reality wanted Canada++, with none of the bad bits).
It was Australia deal last week.
The EU can point to many previous "deals" for examples. All agreed on both sides.
M.
Mortarboard said:
jsf said:
UK offers a lot of things the EU wants, hence the negotiations.
Do you really feel that what the EU is offering, is equitable for what the EU wants?
Sure. Hence the many varied FTAs that the EU already has with other countries. Different levels of access for different "deals".Do you really feel that what the EU is offering, is equitable for what the EU wants?
Some the EU would prefer not to do again (Swiss for example).
The UK has gone from wanting a Norway deal, to a Swiss deal, to a Canada deal (when in reality wanted Canada++, with none of the bad bits).
It was Australia deal last week.
The EU can point to many previous "deals" for examples. All agreed on both sides.
M.
It's never requested retention of the single market and customs union.
Any other false premises you want to out forward?
Mortarboard said:
Murph7355 said:
Citation needed there Mortarboard 
I think what you'll find most people have said is that the EU don't give a flying fig about RoI and won't care if it's screwed by actions or not
More than a few occasions in this thread I think what you'll find most people have said is that the EU don't give a flying fig about RoI and won't care if it's screwed by actions or not
)And the view that the EU doesnt give a flying fig may well be true- but they very much do need to be seen to protect the interests of its members. Especiallly with more small members than large members, n'est pas?
M.
Have you read "Of Mice and Men"? The EU is Lennie
Mrr T said:
Yes. The EU electricity market is between EU and EEA members. We have left the EU but continue to have access under the WA. At trans end our access ends without an agreement with the EU.
As does the ROI access from the UK at the same time, it goes both ways. We can fire up the gas and carry on, what is the ROI going to do? Either the french haven't thought through the consequences of their threats or they couldn't give a monkeys about a fellow EU member.Sway said:
UK has never requested EEA membership since the leave vote.
It's never requested retention of the single market and customs union.
Any other false premises you want to out forward?
Sway, I'm not sure what you think you read.It's never requested retention of the single market and customs union.
Any other false premises you want to out forward?
I didn't say thats what the UK wanted, its what is available (among other variations)
What do YOU think the UK wants? Full FTA, no EU acess to UK fishing areas, no EU rules and no cash to the EU for this deal?
Or do you think no strings FTA for 60million customers is equitable for no strings FTA for 250 million customers?
M.
cb31 said:
Mrr T said:
Yes. The EU electricity market is between EU and EEA members. We have left the EU but continue to have access under the WA. At trans end our access ends without an agreement with the EU.
As does the ROI access from the UK at the same time, it goes both ways. We can fire up the gas and carry on, what is the ROI going to do? Either the french haven't thought through the consequences of their threats or they couldn't give a monkeys about a fellow EU member.The French are not making threats. On 1 Jan 2021 the UK no longer has the right to buy electricity from the EU. To do so requires a deal with the EU and BJ has chosen no deal.
Mortarboard said:
Sway, I'm not sure what you think you read.
I didn't say thats what the UK wanted, its what is available (among other variations)
What do YOU think the UK wants? Full FTA, no EU acess to UK fishing areas, no EU rules and no cash to the EU for this deal?
Or do you think no strings FTA for 60million customers is equitable for no strings FTA for 250 million customers?
M.
That's the crux of it, however we've never said no access to fishing, just controlled, the rest of it- absolutely!I didn't say thats what the UK wanted, its what is available (among other variations)
What do YOU think the UK wants? Full FTA, no EU acess to UK fishing areas, no EU rules and no cash to the EU for this deal?
Or do you think no strings FTA for 60million customers is equitable for no strings FTA for 250 million customers?
M.
Funny how our little 60m customers buy 90b of European states product, I'm sure that's not worth worrying about
Mortarboard said:
Sure. Hence the many varied FTAs that the EU already has with other countries. Different levels of access for different "deals".
Some the EU would prefer not to do again (Swiss for example).
The UK has gone from wanting a Norway deal, to a Swiss deal, to a Canada deal (when in reality wanted Canada++, with none of the bad bits).
It was Australia deal last week.
The EU can point to many previous "deals" for examples. All agreed on both sides.
M.
Why are you fabricating nonsense?Some the EU would prefer not to do again (Swiss for example).
The UK has gone from wanting a Norway deal, to a Swiss deal, to a Canada deal (when in reality wanted Canada++, with none of the bad bits).
It was Australia deal last week.
The EU can point to many previous "deals" for examples. All agreed on both sides.
M.
UK has never wanted a Norway, Swiss of Australia deal.
EU offered a Canada type deal when it thought that was too limited for the UK, when UK accepted the offer they removed that offer and brought in their proximity model, each time it looked close new conditions appeared, which led to the IMB content.
If UK cant negotiate a deal with the EU that is acceptable, then we will fall back on the existing world rules of WTO, but it's never been the preference over a deal that is workable with better terms.
To look at the state of play of how the EU is actually implementing the WA compared to the UK, take a look at the resident settlement schemes covered by the WA, the majority of EU countries have an appalling record. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/brexit_...
Applications for a new residence status in constitutive systems
Estimated number of residents
EU 299,200
UK 3,500,000 – 4,100,000
Total received
EU 23,200
UK 3,722,000
Total concluded
EU 14,300
UK 3,462,600
Why are EU resident application numbers so low? Because most schemes were not open at the time of the report, many don't open until next year.
Mrr T said:
cb31 said:
Mrr T said:
Yes. The EU electricity market is between EU and EEA members. We have left the EU but continue to have access under the WA. At trans end our access ends without an agreement with the EU.
As does the ROI access from the UK at the same time, it goes both ways. We can fire up the gas and carry on, what is the ROI going to do? Either the french haven't thought through the consequences of their threats or they couldn't give a monkeys about a fellow EU member.The French are not making threats. On 1 Jan 2021 the UK no longer has the right to buy electricity from the EU. To do so requires a deal with the EU and BJ has chosen no deal.
Mrr T said:
As part of the WA NI remains part of the EU electricity market so ROI is already covered. Who going to do what with the gas. The gas plus pipeline are owned by commercial companies so who is going to do what?
The French are not making threats. On 1 Jan 2021 the UK no longer has the right to buy electricity from the EU. To do so requires a deal with the EU and BJ has chosen no deal.
Macron didn't say we cant buy their electricity and gas, he said we can't sell ours into the EU SM.The French are not making threats. On 1 Jan 2021 the UK no longer has the right to buy electricity from the EU. To do so requires a deal with the EU and BJ has chosen no deal.
That would mean the UK couldn't sell to ROI.
Mortarboard said:
Sway said:
UK has never requested EEA membership since the leave vote.
It's never requested retention of the single market and customs union.
Any other false premises you want to out forward?
Sway, I'm not sure what you think you read.It's never requested retention of the single market and customs union.
Any other false premises you want to out forward?
I didn't say thats what the UK wanted, its what is available (among other variations)
What do YOU think the UK wants? Full FTA, no EU acess to UK fishing areas, no EU rules and no cash to the EU for this deal?
Or do you think no strings FTA for 60million customers is equitable for no strings FTA for 250 million customers?
M.
Mortarboard said:
The UK has gone from wanting a Norway deal, to a Swiss deal, to a Canada deal (when in reality wanted Canada++, with none of the bad bits).
Seems pretty clear that you're stating the UK did indeed want EEA membership (Norway deal), plus other types of relationship that were not explored or requested by any British government.
FTAs rarely have strings, nor do they typically care about size of population - see CETA for an example (or indeed the vast majority of EU FTAs, which are with countries with lower populations (and certainly spending power) than the UK.
No FTA includes "cash to the EU". No FTA includes "EU rules". No one is suggesting "no access to UK fishing areas".
So thanks, that's five more false assertions made. Quite a list you're racking up, very quickly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff