tzijlstra Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 I haven't had time to contribute to the thread except for posting the two proposals from the government on friction-less or low friction borders. If you look back at that post you will notice that there are two options on offer. The first one, judging by the text, is preferred as the second is described as 'unprecedented and challenging'. Let's focus on the first option: "An arrangement between the UK and the EU, with streamlined and simplified requirements, leaving as few additional requirements on EU trade as possible." It also says the UK wants new and potentially unilateral facilitations to reduce and remove barriers to trade. This is where things get bizarre (as is the norm with this government) - the UK already has bilateral facilitations that have removed all barriers to trade. In other words, the UK is apparently prepared to forego that (ie. the single market), yet put up unilateral legislation that will enable EU goods to be imported into the UK in the same way as happens now. What does that actually mean? It means that the EU does not have to reciprocate - Minis built in Oxford and sold in Amsterdam will potentially incur customs checks, yet BMWs built in Bayern can be sold here without those checks. Excellent proposal? Add to this the following infallible logic - A British exporter that exports to the EU *By far the biggest export destination for the UK* will have to comply with all EU regulations, it will be subject to EU law, the European Court of Justice etc. etc. So essentially, for businesses nothing changes... The other thing that is coming through now is that the UK wants to introduce measures whereby EU nationals can travel to the UK visa free (fair enough) - and that they can only settle if they can demonstrate that they can support themselves. Again, the absurdity is hilarious if it wouldn't be such a serious topic - why is it absurd? Because this is what all major economies in the EU have done years ago. IN THE EU. No need for Brexit to set that one up then, is there? So basically, the more time is moving on, the more it is beginning to look that Britain is going for the EEA model, but not quite, so they can call it the Brexit model. All the disadvantages of the EEA model (no influence, outsider looking in) and no tangible difference to how things were before Brexit. But it is OK, because people will be stupid enough to believe things have improved once our wonderful politicians stop blaming the EU for everything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 I haven't had time to contribute to the thread except for posting the two proposals from the government on friction-less or low friction borders. If you look back at that post you will notice that there are two options on offer. The first one, judging by the text, is preferred as the second is described as 'unprecedented and challenging'. Let's focus on the first option: "An arrangement between the UK and the EU, with streamlined and simplified requirements, leaving as few additional requirements on EU trade as possible." It also says the UK wants new and potentially unilateral facilitations to reduce and remove barriers to trade. This is where things get bizarre (as is the norm with this government) - the UK already has bilateral facilitations that have removed all barriers to trade. In other words, the UK is apparently prepared to forego that (ie. the single market), yet put up unilateral legislation that will enable EU goods to be imported into the UK in the same way as happens now. What does that actually mean? It means that the EU does not have to reciprocate - Minis built in Oxford and sold in Amsterdam will potentially incur customs checks, yet BMWs built in Bayern can be sold here without those checks. Excellent proposal? Add to this the following infallible logic - A British exporter that exports to the EU *By far the biggest export destination for the UK* will have to comply with all EU regulations, it will be subject to EU law, the European Court of Justice etc. etc. So essentially, for businesses nothing changes... The other thing that is coming through now is that the UK wants to introduce measures whereby EU nationals can travel to the UK visa free (fair enough) - and that they can only settle if they can demonstrate that they can support themselves. Again, the absurdity is hilarious if it wouldn't be such a serious topic - why is it absurd? Because this is what all major economies in the EU have done years ago. IN THE EU. No need for Brexit to set that one up then, is there? So basically, the more time is moving on, the more it is beginning to look that Britain is going for the EEA model, but not quite, so they can call it the Brexit model. All the disadvantages of the EEA model (no influence, outsider looking in) and no tangible difference to how things were before Brexit. But it is OK, because people will be stupid enough to believe things have improved once our wonderful politicians stop blaming the EU for everything... The UK is offering an olive branch which the EU would be stupid to reject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlinate Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 The UK is offering an olive branch which the EU would be stupid to reject? Care to explain that a little further? What olive branch, and why would the EU be stupid to reject it? The UK is leaving the European Union, as a member it had certain advantages plus a say in the future direction of the Union and a veto when necessary. Once out it will naturally and logically lose those advantages and its say, and its veto. In order to access EU markets - which take 44% of all UK exports - it will need to conform to EU rules and regulations as it does presently and will also need to pay a fee for access as other non EU countries do at present. The majority of EU member states believe in the Union and can see the obvious advantages that it confers. They will not damage the Union in order to please one recalcitrant ex member that wants its cake and eat it. Why would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Care to explain that a little further? What olive branch, and why would the EU be stupid to reject it? The UK is leaving the European Union, as a member it had certain advantages plus a say in the future direction of the Union and a veto when necessary. Once out it will naturally and logically lose those advantages and its say, and its veto. In order to access EU markets - which take 44% of all UK exports - it will need to conform to EU rules and regulations as it does presently and will also need to pay a fee for access as other non EU countries do at present. The majority of EU member states believe in the Union and can see the obvious advantages that it confers. They will not damage the Union in order to please one recalcitrant ex member that wants its cake and eat it. Why would they? Simple answer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 I take some issue with your debate-suppressing tactics, Jeffrey. Surely, whenever anyone happen to be negotiating anything with anyone else, each side does so with at least a desired outcome in mind, and preferably a negotiating game plan as well. Now, sure, that desired outcome is not a prediction of what will be (and that particular mini-debate was had ad nauseam with unbeliever BITD), only a prediction for what should be if the negotiations go according to plan. All along during the negotiations, and until they conclude, if details of that desired outcome are publicised, and likewise details of the negotiations, then all of that is ripe for the debating, including inter alia the chances for one party and/or the other of attaining their respective desired outcomes in view of ongoing negotiations. So, why shouldn't people discuss all that? You need to distinguish between: a. debate; and b. fortune-telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlinate Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Simple answer money. Always a consideration, no doubt about it. Problem being, as far as the UK is concerned in this situation the EU stands to lose far more by giving in to one country's demands than by standing firm and ensuring that the remaining 27 members interests are protected, and that the advantage of membership is made explicitly clear to all concerned. The UK exports 44% of its total exports to EU countries. The EU acts as one entity in trade negotiations and the UK represents 8% of its total exports. Not one single EU nation has the UK as its main trading partner and only 3 of the 27 have us as their second trading partner. We are not in the driving seat here. If our demands begin to look as though they will damage the wealthiest Trade Bloc in the world then they will be prepared to take a little shared pain to show us who's in charge. The pain that they will suffer will be nothing compared to the damage that it will do to our economy. So you're right the answer is money, but unfortunately that works against our interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 You need to distinguish between: a. debate; and b. fortune-telling. So you are now making a virtue out of having no plan. And discounting any prediction anybody makes. And you are happy just to see how it goes. That is bonkers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 So you are now making a virtue out of having no plan. And discounting any prediction anybody makes. And you are happy just to see how it goes. That is bonkers The error of buying a crystal ball with no instructions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 The UK is offering an olive branch which the EU would be stupid to reject? No, the UK has finally arrived at the solution proposed by the EU years ago but required significantly damaging its own economy and losing almost all influence in the EU to arrive at the conclusion that the EU was right. It is like that kid in the class who never pays attention but always knows better and blurts out the answers... after the teacher has provided the right answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Cameron negotiated a very good deal for us. We should have taken it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts