No deal Brexit impact

[joe90]

10 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

The EU have treated us with contempt from day1 and we all know it.

this is my take on it, they don’t want to lose control of the UK and are throwing their toys out of their pram. If they want their public to pay tariffs on UK products that’s their choice. I do understand a “level playing field” and everyone talks about us lowering our employment standards but IMO our employment standards when we joined the EU were better than most other countries.

[joe90]

Dare I suggest that a deal at the last minute could be made generally but the small print sorted during next year.

[Temp]

 

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

With regard fishing, Jeremy Vine had a Cornish fisherman on lunchtime and he said he agrees with a level playing field but the French have access to 80% of fish and can fish up to 6 miles of our coast, but we are entitled to 8% of fish but can only go within 12 miles of the French coast and that’s not a level playing field.

 

 

When the EU Common Fisheries Policy was introduced (1983?) they based it on previous years catches. Basically it fixed things at 1978 levels.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/17/catches-quotas-and-communities-the-key-fisheries-issues-at-stake

 

.. the catch quotas for each country were fixed on the basis of the recorded catches of the various national fleets between 1973 and 1978. It led to some very unpalatable outcomes, including those in the Channel, where the UK’s share of the cod quota stands at 9%, whereas France’s share is 84%.

[Temp]

22 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

The EU have treated us with contempt from day1 and we all know it.

 

Have we been any different to them? The media has been making up stories about imaginary EU "bans" like the one on bendy bananas for decades. 

 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html

 

 

 

[joe90]

Did I remember correctly that some British fishermen were paid to de commission their boats? One of my beafs with the EU,s fishing policy is that it leads to fish already caught (dead) being thrown back. Seems mad to me. Don’t get me wrong we need to look after fish stocks but surely there is a better way?

[Bitpipe]

1 hour ago, Dave Jones said:

The EU have treated us with contempt from day1 and we all know it.

 

They said from the outset that until the UK decided what kind of future relationship they wanted, they could not start negotiating - so it took until Teresa may landed on her Canada + (no CU or SM membership) to start that ball rolling.

 

They have since more or less stuck to their negotiating mandate as signed off by the 27 member states from the outset. 

 

So how have they treated us with contempt? We have been free to walk away from these negotiations since January 2020 when we officially left, and despite all the sabre rattling, we have decided that its not in our interest to do so. 

 

They are definitely playing hardball with us but that's trade negotiations for you, especially when one party is 6 times the size of the other. Will be just as tough with USA or any other large block.

 

Equally, when we were members of the EU, we were very, very happy with them playing the same hardball on our behalf with Canada, Japan and the other 40+ nations they have concluded trade deals with.

 

Keep in mind that the current govt were prepared (but seemed to be backing down today) in passing a bill that would break international law relating to the treaty we willingly entered into in Jan in 'a limited and specific way'. Before that we seemed willing to breach our obligations on the Good Friday Agreement (another international treaty). That could carry the same accusation.

 

 

[Dave Jones]

5 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

 

They said from the outset that until the UK decided what kind of future relationship they wanted, they could not start negotiating - so it took until Teresa may landed on her Canada + (no CU or SM membership) to start that ball rolling.

 

They have since more or less stuck to their negotiating mandate as signed off by the 27 member states from the outset. 

 

So how have they treated us with contempt? We have been free to walk away from these negotiations since January 2020 when we officially left, and despite all the sabre rattling, we have decided that its not in our interest to do so. 

 

They are definitely playing hardball with us but that's trade negotiations for you, especially when one party is 6 times the size of the other. Will be just as tough with USA or any other large block.

 

Equally, when we were members of the EU, we were very, very happy with them playing the same hardball on our behalf with Canada, Japan and the other 40+ nations they have concluded trade deals with.

 

Keep in mind that the current govt were prepared (but seemed to be backing down today) in passing a bill that would break international law relating to the treaty we willingly entered into in Jan in 'a limited and specific way'. Before that we seemed willing to breach our obligations on the Good Friday Agreement (another international treaty). That could carry the same accusation.

 

 

 

The EU knew from the outset we will be a full independentpedant sovereign nation. So any talk of  any laws or courts to enforcing them sitting above ours is a non starter.

 

It's not rocket science but as most of them in charge are either commies or ex commies they dont get it.

 

 

[Bitpipe]

58 minutes ago, joe90 said:

this is my take on it, they don’t want to lose control of the UK and are throwing their toys out of their pram. If they want their public to pay tariffs on UK products that’s their choice. I do understand a “level playing field” and everyone talks about us lowering our employment standards but IMO our employment standards when we joined the EU were better than most other countries.

 

We're a net importer in this relationship and any pain on their side is spread across 27 nations (some will hurt more than others - Ireland, Holland etc) so the political fallout is not that hard to manage.

 

I think they see this as a clear point of principal - if they allow the EU trade & single market protections to be weakened then the other members will wonder why they bother to follow them. Note that the negotiation mandate is regularly signed off by all 27 unilaterally.

 

Also, we've left. The majority of the EU (Ireland, France and Holland aside) are pretty much over it and see this as just another trade negotiation.

 

In fact, the reason given for the Weds night deadline is that the Thursday/Friday EU summit is already focusing on passing the budget and dealing with other issues.

 

 

 

[Bitpipe]

5 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

 

The EU knew from the outset we will be a full independentpedant sovereign nation. So any talk of  any laws or courts to enforcing them sitting above ours is a non starter.

 

It's not rocket science but as most of them in charge are either commies or ex commies they dont get it.

 

 

 

We want extensive access to their large market on favourable terms and they are naming the price. 

 

We left in Jan, free to do what we wanted since then.

 

Oh - the WTO also imposes a court to arbitrate trade disputes. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm

 

And every EU member is, and remains, a fully independent sovereign nation. We admitted this in the Brexit white paper.  

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-and-new-partnership-with-the-european-union-white-paper/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-and-new-partnership-with-the-european-union--2

 

“Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU”

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Bitpipe

[joe90]

19 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU”

but the highest court is/was the European court is/was it not ?

[Bitpipe]

8 minutes ago, joe90 said:

but the highest court is/was the European court is/was it not ?

 

No, that is the UK Supreme Court - which we last saw in high profile action during the parliament prorogation saga.

 

ECJ is (was) only for specific areas of law we agreed to devolve to the EU wrt agriculture, product, environmental standards etc. 

 

Also not to be confused with the EHCR which has a separate jurisdiction.

 

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/whats-the-difference-between-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-the-european-court-of-justice/

 

The ECHR and its court are part of the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, including Russia and the UK. The EU, on the other hand, consists of 27 Member States. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the body responsible for overseeing compliance with EU law within the EU.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Bitpipe

[Dave Jones]

7 minutes ago, joe90 said:

but the highest court is/was the European court is/was it not ?

 

weren't they the ones how prevented a foreign rapist being deported as he had a pet cat.

 

[joe90]

I am all for the common market, free trade amongst members, but it’s turned into the “United States of Europe” which is more political than trading. It’s been said we want the benefits without being a paid up member but lack of tariffs benefit all, I don’t see why we should pay fir membership. I just see it as yet another level of “management “ that needs paying for.

[SteamyTea]

3 hours ago, joe90 said:

Jeremy Vine had a Cornish fisherman

There must be a Limerick there.

 

[Galileo]

34 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

 

weren't they the ones how prevented a foreign rapist being deported as he had a pet cat.

 

That is the spin that the Daily Mail "newspaper" put on the case, they love a good immigrant story, indignation sells.

 

Quote

It has been widely reported that a Bolivian man has avoided deportation under Article 8 because he had a pet cat.63 This case if often listed, misleadingly, alongside cases of convicted criminals who challenge their deportation on Article 8 grounds. In fact, the case concerned a man (B) who came to the UK as a student and was refused leave to remain and did not concern deportation on grounds of criminal conviction. The immigration judge allowed his appeal, finding that it would be disproportionate on Article 8 grounds to remove B – he had a long-term relationship with a person settled in the UK and they had lived together for four years. The reference to the cat was one detail amongst many provided by the couple as evidence of the genuineness of their long-term relationship. The judge ruled that it would not be reasonable for B’s partner to move to Bolivia to live with him as the partner’s father was seriously ill and B was helping to take care of him.64 The judge also relied on a former Home Office policy (DP3/96) which said that if an individual lived in the UK with a settled spouse for two years or more without enforcement action being taken against them, they were entitled to leave to remain. The Home Office appealed but the senior immigration judge upheld the decision on the basis that the former Home Office policy (DP3/96), although it had since been withdrawn, still applied in this case (due to the date of the initial decision).65 All other factors in the original determination, including ownership of the cat, were deemed “immaterial”.

 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Galileo said:

indignation sells.

And it is getting us in a right muddle.

But people believe what they want to believe.  Trouble is, it is very dangerous and costly.

 

Just today, this was on.  Stick with it, shows how easily 'experts' can be fooled, and fools are always fools.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000q3d5

 

 

[Bitpipe]

3 hours ago, Dave Jones said:

 

weren't they the ones how prevented a foreign rapist being deported as he had a pet cat.

 

 

Despite that being false (per reference above) it was also the ECHR which is nothing to do with the EU or the ECJ which can only rule on European Union law - i.e. to do with membership of the EU relating to the single market and four freedoms.

[Bitpipe]

3 hours ago, joe90 said:

I am all for the common market, free trade amongst members, but it’s turned into the “United States of Europe” which is more political than trading. It’s been said we want the benefits without being a paid up member but lack of tariffs benefit all, I don’t see why we should pay fir membership. I just see it as yet another level of “management “ that needs paying for.

 

Tariffs stopped being much of a barrier to trade a long time ago, with GATT and then the WTO doing an effective job at reducing them.

 

For example, tariffs between USA and UK are very low to non existent which is why the proposed free trade deal had minimal economic impact - LSE estimated it at 0.16% boost for us.  https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/05/13/great-expectations-us-uk-trade-deal-will-most-likely-disappoint/

 

Most trade barriers are now regulatory in nature - does your product or service meet our standards and if so, how do we maintain that moving forward as our standards change?

 

The EU has been successful in harmonising product safety standards across all member states, which requires each state to 'give up' national legislation and replace with adherence with the equivalent EU standards. Ditto environmental standards, data security, finance, aviation, nuclear safety etc, etc, etc.

 

That efficiency requires a layer of 'management' as you put it. 

 

Friction is what restricts free trade and needing customs, quality and vet checks at points of entry and exit will cost money, time and for zero benefit. Many EU businesses will decide that it's not worth importing or exporting to UK given the extra hassle. Those car engines that travel back and forth during production and arrive at each destination 'just in time' will stay in the EU vs getting stuck in a queue at Dover.

 

That UK manufacturer will find it harder to export to EU markets and will need to comply with EU standards anyway but now the UK has no voice in their creation. Remember that despite all the straight banana stories (often written by one Boris Johnson in his days as a journalist) the UK voted with the EU over 95% of the time.

 

 

[joe90]

common market.  !      Don’t tell me, let me guess,     You voted remain ?

Edited December 7, 2020 by joe90

[Dave Jones]

9 hours ago, Bitpipe said:

 

Tariffs stopped being much of a barrier to trade a long time ago, with GATT and then the WTO doing an effective job at reducing them.

 

For example, tariffs between USA and UK are very low to non existent which is why the proposed free trade deal had minimal economic impact - LSE estimated it at 0.16% boost for us.  https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/05/13/great-expectations-us-uk-trade-deal-will-most-likely-disappoint/

 

Most trade barriers are now regulatory in nature - does your product or service meet our standards and if so, how do we maintain that moving forward as our standards change?

 

The EU has been successful in harmonising product safety standards across all member states, which requires each state to 'give up' national legislation and replace with adherence with the equivalent EU standards. Ditto environmental standards, data security, finance, aviation, nuclear safety etc, etc, etc.

 

That efficiency requires a layer of 'management' as you put it. 

 

Friction is what restricts free trade and needing customs, quality and vet checks at points of entry and exit will cost money, time and for zero benefit. Many EU businesses will decide that it's not worth importing or exporting to UK given the extra hassle. Those car engines that travel back and forth during production and arrive at each destination 'just in time' will stay in the EU vs getting stuck in a queue at Dover.

 

That UK manufacturer will find it harder to export to EU markets and will need to comply with EU standards anyway but now the UK has no voice in their creation. Remember that despite all the straight banana stories (often written by one Boris Johnson in his days as a journalist) the UK voted with the EU over 95% of the time.

 

 

 

yep all them there EU rules we must take as gospel and preach them to save ourselves!!

 

A few of your sanctified EU rulez

 

Bendy bananas - banned.

Bottled water being marked as 'prevents dehydration' - banned

Tampon tax - Enforced

Accidently catch the wrong fish, must throw it away - Enforced

selling food by the pound - banned

Tax fiddling by unelected Eurocrats - Compulsory

 

and you remainiacs wonder why the country applied its collective common sense and booted the whole lot into touch.

 

[Dave Jones]

9 hours ago, Bitpipe said:

 

Despite that being false (per reference above) it was also the ECHR which is nothing to do with the EU or the ECJ which can only rule on European Union law - i.e. to do with membership of the EU relating to the single market and four freedoms.

fake news.

 

it was tiddles and we all know it.

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

selling food by the pound

Does it make it taste better when sold in an imperial unit?

 

It is my sovereign right to use 3.412142 Btu/h (aprox) instead of 1W.  Can't see any confusion.

So that means I can have a short ton of of ice made in a mere 24 hours.

[Dave Jones]

Just now, SteamyTea said:

Does it make it taste better when sold in an imperial unit?

 

It is my sovereign right to use 3.412142 Btu/h (aprox) instead of 1W.  Can't see any confusion.

So that means I can have a short ton of of ice made in a mere 24 hours.

 

the fact it annoys you so much will make me use it more.

[Dave Jones]

now thats a bite!

 

Have a pound.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Dave Jones

[Bitpipe]

17 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

fake news.

 

it was tiddles and we all know it.

 

You got me there. It was worth a shot