Europe --- In or Out

[Christmas Tree 3997]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

 

I can give reasons why I disagree though. The US has different regulatory standards. Any FTA we have with them will involve partial adoption of those standards.

 

The SM is a single regulatory and legal framework first and foremost. Either we are in it, or out of it. If we are out, the ECJ will not have jurisdiction over us. This means there will be no recognised dispute resolution. This means goods will have to be checked at the border. They ate not going to let chlorinated chicken in unchecked ffs. This means serious border friction. This will be an end to all UK companies with European JIT supply chains. Airbus and Honda really couldn't be clearer last week on this, the latter even published a flow diagram and the former a full impact assessment report.

 

Now tubs, which bits are you struggling to understand? If you disagree, can you say WHY and evidence it?

 

How can I possibly evidence my opinion on a negotiation that is yet to take place

 

We may not be able to do a full FTA with the US. Honestly I really don’t care.

 

You basically paint a picture of all or nothing. The negotiation will be closer to all imo. My only “evidence” is based on that being the best possible outcome for the majority of U.K. and EU businesses and at the end of the day, as always, business will win.

[Renton 17828]

34 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

How can I possibly evidence my opinion on a negotiation that is yet to take place

 

We may not be able to do a full FTA with the US. Honestly I really don’t care.

 

You basically paint a picture of all or nothing. The negotiation will be closer to all imo. My only “evidence” is based on that being the best possible outcome for the majority of U.K. and EU businesses and at the end of the day, as always, business will win.

 

Here's a picture the EU painted to help you. It's not all or nothing, we have options. But these are very limited due to the red lines May has painted herself in with. The issue is we can only get the option Canada and South Korea have. And the problem is that will do nothing for Nissan or any other footloose JIT manufacturer. Interestingly, the government's own forecast said this would be almost as disastrous for the NE as no deal would be. 

 

And, btw, if business always won we'd have no Brexit as putting up barriers really doesn't benefit any international business. Politics often trumps business, it certainly has in the UK for the last 2 years. 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Renton

[Christmas Tree 3997]

11 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Here's a picture the EU painted to help you. It's not all or nothing, we have options. But these are very limited due to the red lines May has painted herself in with. The issue is we can only get the option Canada and South Korea have. And the problem is that will do nothing for Nissan or any other footloose JIT manufacturer. Interestingly, the government's own forecast said this would be almost as disastrous for the NE as no deal would be. 

 

And, btw, if business always won we'd have no Brexit as putting up barriers really doesn't benefit any international business. Politics often trumps business, it certainly has in the UK for the last 2 years. 

 

 

But that’s their negotiating position as all of Mays red lines are hers. Both will budge and a deal will be agreed.

[Renton 17828]

9 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

But that’s their negotiating position as all of Mays red lines are hers. Both will budge and a deal will be agreed.

 

No, it's not their negotiating position. The EU comprises 27 sovereign countries, some associate members, and has trade deals with dozens of countries. They're not going to change any of this just to suit us. In fact they CAN'T. Read up about WTO trade MFN rules.

 

We need to choose an option, then negotiate details from there. But the only option available is an FTA deal because of may's red lines. That is catastrophic for the NE according to the government's own analysis.

 

You're a taxi driver from Sunderland who has fallen for the utter guff the hard right of the Tory party has fed you. You can't be arsed or haven't got the intellect to do your own very basic research.

 

Well, you're going to be disappointed one way or another. Either we get the Norway option which will now be a humiliating climb down with no real net benefits, or we'll get a deal which will destroy the region. It'll be like the 80s again, then again. ... 

[ewerk 26471]

As I said earlier, the EU is a rules based organisation and has little room for flexibility which is the reason why what Renton says is true.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

 

No, it's not their negotiating position. The EU comprises 27 sovereign countries, some associate members, and has trade deals with dozens of countries. They're not going to change any of this just to suit us. In fact they CAN'T. Read up about WTO trade MFN rules.

 

We need to choose an option, then negotiate details from there. But the only option available is an FTA deal because of may's red lines. 

 

 Which bit of May will budge on her red lines, that I’ve repeated many times, do you fail to grasp?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

7 minutes ago, ewerk said:

As I said earlier, the EU is a rules based organisation and has little room for flexibility which is the reason why what Renton says is true.

 

Hes wrong.

 

Airbus, BMW etc are all worried about NO DEAL, they are not worried about a deal.

[Isegrim 8876]

They are worried because they do see the worst case as a real scenario.

 

For the majority of European businesses the integrity of the single market is more important than a trade deal with the uk. That’s why they are aware that the EU won’t compromise on things clashing with fundamental principles.

[ewerk 26471]

16 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Hes wrong.

 

Airbus, BMW etc are all worried about NO DEAL, they are not worried about a deal.

No. They are worried about any deal that causes disruption at the border that will delay supplies.

They can possibly live with tariffs but delays in their supply chains cost them money and they won’t accept that.

[Renton 17828]

19 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Hes wrong.

 

Airbus, BMW etc are all worried about NO DEAL, they are not worried about a deal.

 

Airbus have said they must stay in both the SM and CU. May has repeatedly said we must leave both. Fuck me, you're hard work.

 

Quote

Airbus said if the UK left the EU next year without a deal - meaning it left both the single market and customs union immediately and without any agreed transition - it would "lead to severe disruption and interruption of UK production

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44570931

 

 

[Christmas Tree 3997]

31 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Airbus have said they must stay in both the SM and CU. May has repeatedly said we must leave both. Fuck me, you're hard work.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44570931

 

 

 

I’m hard work

 

The article you quote says exactly what I said that you’ve also quoted “they are worried about no deal”.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

We won’t stay in the SM because that means free movement. We can have an FTA that allows tarrif free access to it.

 

We won’t stop in the customers union because that means no free trade deals. We can agree a customs arrangement that allows frictionless borders.

 

Add regulatory alignment and we have a deal that Airbus, BMW etc will be very happy with.

 

As I’ve said from day one, this will be wrapped up in an associate deal.

 

If this doesn’t happen you can come round here and piss on my prize roses.

[Renton 17828]

17 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

We won’t stay in the SM because that means free movement. We can have an FTA that allows tarrif free access to it.

 

We won’t stop in the customers union because that means no free trade deals. We can agree a customs arrangement that allows frictionless borders.

 

Add regulatory alignment and we have a deal that Airbus, BMW etc will be very happy with.

 

As I’ve said from day one, this will be wrapped up in an associate deal.

 

If this doesn’t happen you can come round here and piss on my prize roses.

 

Fucking hell man, more cakeism. You literally cannot grasp what the single market is. Without it, there is inevitably friction at borders which the automobile and aerospace cannot cope with. Nissan is a high volume manufacturer with very small margins. Just 7 minutes delay in production stops them being profitable. Oh, and then there's rules of origin. 75% of every Sunderland built Nissan is actually from components from the EU27.

 

This isn't a pissing contest. I'm genuinely trying to enlighten you to the issues involved. I wish we had a Brexiter with half a brain to discuss issues on This board (if one exists). This is my last word from now, an extract from the Wall Street Journal (that's American btw CT) about the fucking idiocy of our politicians (both parties) and the ridiculous fantasy cakeism you espouse. I know it will be tl;dr for you but never mind.

 

Quote

The main reason why the Brexit debate has gone round in circles for the last two years—and why the U.K.’s negotiations with the European Union have been almost completely stalled for months—is that much of the British political class have never fully understood what the EU is or how it works. The few who have evidently consider the implications so unpalatable that they dare not spell them out publicly.

How else to explain why with just eight months until exit day, the two main political parties remain officially committed to policies that the EU could never agree to.

Prime Minister Theresa May still formally espouses a deal that will allow frictionless trade between the U.K. and EU while allowing the U.K. to pursue trade deals with other countries, diverge from EU regulatory standards, end free movement of people and cease paying “vast sums” into the EU budget.

The Labour Party position isn’t much different: It wants “a customs union arrangement” that will similarly allow Britain to continue to trade frictionlessly with the EU while negotiating free-trade deals with third countries and maintaining its say over EU rules. It is also committed to a “jobs first” Brexit that would enable the U.K. to preserve the benefits of the EU’s single market while denying EU citizens any automatic right to take any jobs that are created.

What unites both parties is an insistence on reclaiming British sovereignty. What is missing for each is any recognition that the EU should care about its sovereignty too.

When Brussels points out the obvious—that the British government’s recent customs proposal would allow the U.K. to enjoy a frictionless customs border while only selectively applying EU customs-union rules and being left free to seek competitive advantage via separate deals with third countries—pro-Brexit Britons accuse it of being too “theological.”

When Brussels says frictionless access to the single market must include EU citizens’ right of free movement, or mentions how impossible it is in a modern economy to distinguish effectively between goods and services, it is accused of overplaying its hand, or of failing to think and act strategically.

Yet no one should be surprised that the EU can’t think strategically. Nation states and super-states can think and act strategically but the EU is neither of those things.

The EU is a legal order established by treaty and overseen by a common court whose judgments take precedence over national law. When the U.K. opted to leave the EU, it rejected not only that treaty but also the legal order that underpins most of the U.K.’s key commercial and security relationships—with no inkling of what to put in its place.

It makes no sense to complain now when the EU rules out allowing the U.K. to pick and choose which bits of its legal order it will retain, let alone to judge for itself whether it has applied the law correctly and punish itself if it falls short.

Applying Isaiah Berlin’s famous distinction, the EU is a hedgehog rather than a fox. The fox knows many things but the EU knows only one: how to protect and extend this legal order. Confronted by a strategic challenge, the EU’s response is always to reach for its rulebook. Brexit is no different except perhaps in one respect: British demands to replicate all the benefits of EU membership while remaining outside the EU’s legal order and to replace a system based on the oversight of a common court to one based on mutual trust appears to have reinforced the view across the EU that to the extent it has any capacity for strategic thinking, its overriding priority lies in defending its own sovereignty.

After all, at a time when the global order is disintegrating and the EU lacks the military capability to protect its interests, why wouldn’t it protect the one strategic asset—its single market—that gives it global relevance?

The challenge for the U.K. if it wants to preserve its commercial and strategic relationships is to come up with a new legal order that respects the EU’s sovereignty. It is an open secret in London and Brussels that Mrs. May now recognizes that her original demands were nonnegotiable and is now hoping to try to convince her cabinet to back a plan that would align the U.K. with EU customs-union and single-market rules for goods in what would be a significant sacrifice of the UK’s newly-won sovereignty.

Yet her chief negotiator Olly Robbins has already been warned that even this proposal stands no chance of being accepted by the European Council, according to someone familiar with the situation. The British political system still doesn’t seem to have internalized that for the EU, protecting its legal order also means enforcing free movement of citizens, the indivisibility of goods and services and the writ of the ECJ.

Instead, the British political class increasingly resembles a British tourist asking a foreigner for directions: Unable to make itself understood, it simply shouts louder. Complaints about EU “theologians” only reveal a worrying lack of understanding of the realities of an organization of which the U.K. has been a member for 43 years. If Britain is to avoid getting hopelessly lost, it had better start learning the language.

 

[NJS 3986]

Funny how the government's understanding of the EU is just as much fucked up by 40 years of propaganda as the general moron in the street.

 

 

[Alex 30458]

FOYFLC

[Christmas Tree 3997]

57 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Fucking hell man, more cakeism. You literally cannot grasp what the single market is. Without it, there is inevitably friction at borders which the automobile and aerospace cannot cope with. Nissan is a high volume manufacturer with very small margins. Just 7 minutes delay in production stops them being profitable. Oh, and then there's rules of origin. 75% of every Sunderland built Nissan is actually from components from the EU27.

 

This isn't a pissing contest. I'm genuinely trying to enlighten you to the issues involved. I wish we had a Brexiter with half a brain to discuss issues on This board (if one exists). This is my last word from now, an extract from the Wall Street Journal (that's American btw CT) about the fucking idiocy of our politicians (both parties) and the ridiculous fantasy cakeism you espouse. I know it will be tl;dr for you but never mind.

 

 

So to be clear, your article pretty much confirms that my opinion is near as damn it, the same as the Government and the Labour Party.

 

So either we are all wrong and no such deal can be achieved or you are wrong and it will.

 

As I said earlier, it’s pretty futile trying to settle this once and for all now, no matter how enlightened you feel you are.

[Renton 17828]

3 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

So to be clear, your article pretty much confirms that my opinion is near as damn it, the same as the Government and the Labour Party.

 

So either we are all wrong and no such deal can be achieved or you are wrong and it will.

 

As I said earlier, it’s pretty futile trying to settle this once and for all now, no matter how enlightened you feel you are.

 

Aye, fair play, good place to leave this discussion for now.

 

You actually believe the absolute shite coming from the government and Labour. I'm genuinely laughing at your naivety. 

 

    

[Alex 30458]

The best case scenario in terms of how clued up the government and the opposition are about this is that both know they’re both talking utter shite. In other words, wilfully lying to the electorate on something this important is better than them actually being incompetent enough and / or self serving enough to have faith in where they currently stand 

[Dr Gloom 19839]

I have new-found respect for Danny Dyer

[ewerk 26471]

He probably knows as much about Brexit as CT but at least he's on the right side of the argument.

 

[strawb 3660]

The second “twat” is absolutely joyous 

[ewerk 26471]

Quote

It looks like an impossible circle to square and yet for Mr Rees-Mogg the Irish border issue is simple: the prime minister should unilaterally declare that she will not impose a hard border on the island of Ireland and challenge Dublin to put it up instead.

"I think it's an obvious negotiating point which is that if you want a border you put it up," the chair of the Eurosceptic European Reform Group told Sky News.

"You negotiate with your best cards and you've got to call the bluff of the other side when they are suggesting things they simply will not do."

It's a game of chicken the Brexiteer is certain London would win, with the prize being no return to a hard border and no need for the UK to remain in some form of customs union with the EU.

"The idea that the Irish government, which used to claim that the whole of Ireland was its territory, would pit a wall up along 300 miles or so of border is, I think, for the birds, and we must therefore challenge that and say, 'Go on if that's what you want to go and do,'" he added.

I think he's missing the point here entirely in that failure to reach a deal on Ireland means failure to reach any deal whatsoever. Though then again that's an acceptable outcome for him.

[ewerk 26471]

18 hours ago, Christmas Tree said:

As I’ve said all along we’ll end up with pretty much full access to the SM and in some form of customs union. May will have to give on some red lines as will Brussels. Our version of the CU will allow us to still do our free trade deals and access to the SM will probably involve a fudge on Freedom of movement.

 

Well this is just bad timing.

 

[Dr Gloom 19839]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

I think he's missing the point here entirely in that failure to reach a deal on Ireland means failure to reach any deal whatsoever. Though then again that's an acceptable outcome for him.

Acceptable? It’s what he desires. But then he’s wealthy enough for a cliff edge Brexit not to trouble him too much.

[Renton 17828]

28 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

Acceptable? It’s what he desires. But then he’s wealthy enough for a cliff edge Brexit not to trouble him too much.

You can be sure him and his disaster capitalists mates will make a killing. Just like Farage shorting the pound on election night. BTW, have you seen that cunt's hair recently? His sycophancy to Trump is vomit inducing.