Politics, politics, politics

[Gutter Boy]

The Chequers 'medium Brexit' is essentially the Ukraine model Barnier offered us in his PowerPoint (where there is no FoM). Raab made that point in his press conference this week

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

This is their opinion :
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...same-terms-says-french-minister-politics-live

"Indivisibility of the four freedoms, the integrity of the single market, these are key points. This is our main asset. We are not going to negotiate on that. The United Kingdom has know that from the outset."

This is their opinion on the Exit fee

"It is quite right that there is agreement on nothing until we have agreement on everything. But what is perfectly clear to the 27 EU member states and the European Parliament is that what has been agreed in December and March has been agreed for good."


"

Why do those freedoms not apply to the Canada deal. Is it because, maybe, they arent as set in stone as people think? Because, perhaps, compromise can be made by the EU in the interests of making a deal?

As to the exit payment, I made no mention of it. But, as you bring it up, wasting so much time forcing that in up front was a very clear tactic to bully us out of the only card we had to play in the whole negotiation. We should never have agreed to it being unconditional - though I dont think its clear that their interpretation matches ours.

And that immediate aggression is exactly the sort of thing Im talking about. They have simply bullied us through this process, and I genuinely do not see why.

As an aside, I find it odd that the generally rather liberal pr EU faces here, with nothing but disdain for business type practices, are so ready to support this sort of attitude.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Why do those freedoms not apply to the Canada deal. Is it because, maybe, they arent as set in stone as people think? Because, perhaps, compromise can be made by the EU in the interests of making a deal?

As to the exit payment, I made no mention of it. But, as you bring it up, wasting so much time forcing that in up front was a very clear tactic to bully us out of the only card we had to play in the whole negotiation. We should never have agreed to it being unconditional - though I dont think its clear that their interpretation matches ours.

And that immediate aggression is exactly the sort of thing Im talking about. They have simply bullied us through this process, and I genuinely do not see why.

As an aside, I find it odd that the generally rather liberal pr EU faces here, with nothing but disdain for business type practices, are so ready to support this sort of attitude.

Canada has a free trade agreement that wouldn't suit us. It wouldn't cover half the things we need such as services. That's why they don't have free movement. We are looking for a lot more.

How could the 27 member countries possibly sanction a deal for the UK that lets us have the good things of the EU with none of the binding commitments that they have to observe to make it work? It is naive to bemoan the EU and not understand this reality.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Canada has a free trade agreement that wouldn't suit us. It wouldn't cover half the things we need such as services. That's why they don't have free movement. We are looking for a lot more.

How could the 27 member countries possibly sanction a deal for the UK that lets us have the good things of the EU with none of the binding commitments that they have to observe to make it work? It is naive to bemoan the EU and not understand this reality.

Because they give it to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova

 

[Gutter Boy]

Canada has a free trade agreement that wouldn't suit us. It wouldn't cover half the things we need such as services. That's why they don't have free movement. We are looking for a lot more.

How could the 27 member countries possibly sanction a deal for the UK that lets us have the good things of the EU with none of the binding commitments that they have to observe to make it work? It is naive to bemoan the EU and not understand this reality.

Services aren't that important because only a very small fraction of our exports are services. Most services are health, social care, education, retail and hospitality etc - i.e for the domestic market only. There's also no tariffs on services.

The only thing stopping us getting a Canada deal, which is the real win-win Brexit, is Northern Ireland

 

[SpurMeUp]

Because they give it to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova

Give what!? These countries citizens can't move freely into the EU. There is no free movement as the EU wouldn't want them freely moving into Europe. As mentioned numerous times the agreement for the former Soviet nations is designed to draw them away from Russia's sphere of influence. Its a charitable deal, the least the EU could do following the EU lifting its skirt to these nations and the destabilizing war in Ukraine.

A deal has to work for both parties. Right? Brexiteers seem completely hoodwinked, and unable to understand this.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Services aren't that important because only a very small fraction of our exports are services. Most services are health, social care, education, retail and hospitality etc - i.e for the domestic market only. There's also no tariffs on services.

The only thing stopping us getting a Canada deal, which is the real win-win Brexit, is Northern Ireland

Legal services. Banking, insurance and other financial services. ICT services. These are massive, and in no way a small fraction of exports. High margin, high taxation, and predominantly exported to Europe. That's because non-tariff barriers, eg professional qualifications and the like, are vital to exporting services. Tariffs are irrelevant.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Services aren't that important because only a very small fraction of our exports are services. Most services are health, social care, education, retail and hospitality etc - i.e for the domestic market only. There's also no tariffs on services.

The only thing stopping us getting a Canada deal, which is the real win-win Brexit, is Northern Ireland

What are you on about? We export services worth close to £150b a year! https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindu...e/bulletins/internationaltradeinservices/2016 To put that in context, the NHS costs about £120b a year. Services are not that important Only 80% odd of our economy! An area we could grow and export more...

 

[Gutter Boy]

Give what!? These countries citizens can't move freely into the EU. There is no free movement as the EU wouldn't want them freely moving into Europe. As mentioned numerous times the agreement for the former Soviet nations is designed to draw them away from Russia's sphere of influence. Its a charitable deal, the least the EU could do following the EU lifting its skirt to these nations and the destabilizing war in Ukraine.

A deal has to work for both parties. Right? Brexiteers seem completely hoodwinked, and unable to understand this.

That's the whole point. Free movement of goods, but not people - that's exactly what Britain is asking for. It shows that the EU will divide the indivisible

Barnier offered us Ukraine on his flowchart

 

[Gutter Boy]

Legal services. Banking, insurance and other financial services. ICT services. These are massive, and in no way a small fraction of exports. High margin, high taxation, and predominantly exported to Europe. That's because non-tariff barriers, eg professional qualifications and the like, are vital to exporting services. Tariffs are irrelevant.

9% of the UK economy. And only 15% of the UK economy is EU exports. So an estimated 1.35% of the economy that would be effected. Just because they squeal loudly because they've been running rule over the government for 40 years.

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's the whole point. Free movement of goods, but not people - that's exactly what Britain is asking for. It shows that the EU will divide the indivisible

Barnier offered us Ukraine on his flowchart

A deal has to work for both sides, otherwise no deal, we all agree. Not having free movement from Ukraine is what the EU wanted - it works for them. It doesn't work for them to give us no free movement but allow us free trade. Why would they give us that? Their members who pay in, observe EU rules to maintain continent-wide trade, don't get such a good deal. Why would they possibly countenance such a deal?

 

[Gutter Boy]

A deal has to work for both sides, otherwise no deal, we all agree. Not having free movement from Ukraine is what the EU wanted - it works for them. It doesn't work for them to give us no free movement but allow us free trade. Why would they give us that? Their members who pay in, observe EU rules to maintain continent-wide trade, don't get such a good deal. Why would they possibly countenance such a deal?

Because we're the 5th biggest economy in the world, and they'd prefer we stayed near their orbit, rather than moving back to the Anglosphere

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's the whole point. Free movement of goods, but not people - that's exactly what Britain is asking for. It shows that the EU will divide the indivisible

Barnier offered us Ukraine on his flowchart

Thank you for illustrating the Brexit delusion. People following a naive desire, because they want it to be true, rather than dealing with reality.

For example, no one can explain how the EU could give the UK better terms, as an ex-member, than current members get. This has been patently apparent from the get go. Yet we were told negotiating with the EU would be easy, we could dictate terms, and now we're being told the EU is nasty for not giving us the impossible. Its laughable.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

9% of the UK economy. And only 15% of the UK economy is EU exports. So an estimated 1.35% of the economy that would be effected. Just because they squeal loudly because they've been running rule over the government for 40 years.

Your maths is buggered. Services exports to Europe excluding travel and banking(!) are £70bn (ONS 2016). UK GDP is £2trn and change. That means that we're talking about somewhere between 3% and 4% of the whole economy, which would be not just affected. It would be crippled.

I think you're failing to account for the fact that services exports are predominantly to Europe, and you're calculating the share based on total EU export percentage relative to GDP. Which isn't a sensible way of doing the sum, given that the real figures are public domain and a click away.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Why do those freedoms not apply to the Canada deal. Is it because, maybe, they arent as set in stone as people think? Because, perhaps, compromise can be made by the EU in the interests of making a deal?

As to the exit payment, I made no mention of it. But, as you bring it up, wasting so much time forcing that in up front was a very clear tactic to bully us out of the only card we had to play in the whole negotiation. We should never have agreed to it being unconditional - though I dont think its clear that their interpretation matches ours.

And that immediate aggression is exactly the sort of thing Im talking about. They have simply bullied us through this process, and I genuinely do not see why.

As an aside, I find it odd that the generally rather liberal pr EU faces here, with nothing but disdain for business type practices, are so ready to support this sort of attitude.

I know you didn't bring up the Exit fee I added that for information

I don't agree with your conclusions that they bullied us or are being nasty so happy to support their stance.

They came into the negotiations cards on the table saying we need X / Y / Z or we can not do a deal, these are our principles and we will not move on these - Everything else is on the table. At that point we didn't walk away we went into the negotiations, we didn't provide any insight on what we wanted in a similar manner (other than the best deal / have our cake and eat it) because apparently this would weaken our hand and we started to negotiate.

At the outset we could have walked away until they changed their position or enter the negotiations knowing this is the case, we chose the latter. 2 years later The EU seem to have been consistent and flexible within these principles - this seems a decent way to negotiate in my opinion.

This was predicted at the outset that we didn't hold anything to make them change their stance and has proven to be the case (or the Tories are incompetent which adds up to the same thing)

I am not sure why there is anger towards the EU for sticking to something they said they would not change at the outset, once we entered the negotiation table we implicitly accepted their position. Our options were walk away, provide the EU with our own requirements and give them the option to walk away or negotiate within these restrictions.

All IMO.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Because we're the 5th biggest economy in the world, and they'd prefer we stayed near their orbit, rather than moving back to the Anglosphere

Used to be. SInce the Brexit vote we've droped to 6th https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/22/news/economy/uk-france-biggest-economies-in-the-world/index.html

 

[r-u-s-x]

That's the whole point. Free movement of goods, but not people - that's exactly what Britain is asking for. It shows that the EU will divide the indivisible

Barnier offered us Ukraine on his flowchart

Even if they did offer Ukraine would we sign up for ECJ jurisdiction and regulatory alignment?


“In the future the EU treaties and hence EU law will no longer apply in the United Kingdom. The agreement we reach must therefore respect the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders, that means the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK must end.

 

[milo]

This is an excellent read.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1022798559727550464

 

[SpurMeUp]

No deal is one of those really bad ideas, like shell suits or Celine Dion, which we thought we could leave in the past. But this summer it's somehow all the rage. It's discussed as if it were just another Brexit option.

It is not. No-deal is probably the most demented policy put forward by mainstream British politicians in the modern era. To see how it would work in practice, this piece looks at what would happen on day one. Doing this for the whole economy would take countless pages of Stephen-King-style horror, so it's stripped down to one topic: food. This is the story of how our system for importing and exporting food implodes almost instantly.

 

[Baleforce]

This is an excellent read.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1022798559727550464

Genuinely terrifying