|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 19:11:36 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 26, 2016 19:11:36 GMT
Pre negotiate with China and India? What does pre negotiate mean when a deal is not in place until ratified. And ratification comes after negotiators have agreed on thousands of individual issues We either do a soft brexit (we keep all our trade agreements and regulations, continue in the bloc and cut an exit deal) or we do a hard brexit (we renegotiate a trade deal with EU as an individual country and negotiate new deals with China etc) Once we trigger art 50 we have 2 years, unless our new deals with China and India are complete and ratified then we spend a period in the wilderness - this period in the wilderness is akin to someone suddenly having to compete with established countries without protection that a negotiated deal brings. Financial services for example, selling these into countries and blocs who are looking to protect their home grown business and exploit ours is not even worth thinking about. Imagine accepting Chinese and Indian firms to directly do business here without haven spent the time to protect everything from IP to standards - it would be inviting their firms to flood our market with cheaper and inferior products - like baby toys that catch fire because they do no conform to EU legislation number x Thats why its taken Canada 8 years to cut a deal with the EU, even if it takes us 4 years thats 4 years of real danger I posted this earlier to give an idea of the task “Meaningful trade deals take a long time to negotiate unless one side rolls over and agrees something which is not really in their interests”, he says. “Certainly, opening up service industries to free trade, which must be a priority for Britain, won’t happen in any quickly negotiated deal”. The Australian/US free trade agreement of 2004, negotiated in double quick time, was so bad for Australia that officials refused to recommend it to parliament. John Howard, then Australia’s Prime Minister, had to be forceably reminded by George W Bush of their close ties, security arrangements and friendship to persuade him to sign it into law. “Where’s the beef?” he was repeatedly chided afterwards by political opponents, in reference to the FTA’s failure to generate extra beef exports. Ann Capling, an Australian academic who specialises on trade finds the idea that an FTA with Australia would be a significant boost to UK exports simply laughable. As it is, there are few impediments to UK trade with Australia, the country is a small market in a far away place, and these days Australia looks to East Asia and North America, not the former imperial power, for its main trading partners. Other “quickie” trade deals, such as Switzerland’s FTA with China, negotiated in double quick time in an effort to be the first European economy to sign up with the People's Republic, may not have been as obviously damaging to the smaller country, but by common agreement, have frequently been not particularly helpful either. When Swiss officials complained about the continued imposition of tariffs on exports of luxury watches, the Chinese negotiator answered pointedly, “You have the watches, we have the time”, by which he meant take it or leave it. As for India - protectionist by nature, not just of its own borders, but on a state by state basis as well - forget any kind of meaningful deal. And America? Without European labour, environmental and human rights concerns to bog things down, an FTA with the US may prove a little easier than the EU has found it, but if concerned about the encroachments of EU law on British sovereignty, just try the unaccountable and secretive supranational organisations that preside over US FTAs on governance, drug pricing, intellectual property, dispute arbitration and much else besides. You might find the EU has something to commend it afterall.
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 19:21:36 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 26, 2016 19:21:36 GMT
This might be a good time to look again at the bigger picture of the meaning of the EU, so we can all understand how petty and cowardly it would seem to WC to quit over Brussels expense account inflation
This is the context leading up to the referendum. Note how Farage claims WC would have preferred to stick with our commonwealth instead of Europe. The only problem there is that our commonwealth all became independent and all trade with blocs closer geographically. And the world has changed since.
Also not how Farage talks about the determination to stop German domination of Europe - so if they tried twice and we resisted by bringing in our former colonies and America to help stop the Germans, and since then the Americans have become isolationist and the colonies are now independent. - Is the best thing to do to step outside the EU and hand it all over to German who would now have what they wanted - a bloc of 500 million they run, and then stand on the outside 60mill strong and wait to have another war to reverse their domination? Oh yeah that makes a lot of sense what?
Lets try and remember the big picture and show leadership and remember what 2 world wars were about
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 19:52:17 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 26, 2016 19:52:17 GMT
We have two years to quit after triggering article 50 , yes, but that is also negotiable and can be extended. But you see the urgency for getting on with these trade deals?
I know about the Churchill misquote. But I'm pretty certain Chruchill wouldn't have been in favour of the way the EU has gone over the past couple of decades. But we won't know that will we. We are where we are. It isn't just about the expense accounts of the gravy train riders in Brussels. That's just one symotom of the problem.
Two world wars were not about giving up sovereignty, Integrating and co -operating , working as a partnership, yes, but they got too greedy, went too far and they wouldn't change when they had the opportunity. An integrated Europe is a great idea, but the EU is failing.
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 20:07:57 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 26, 2016 20:07:57 GMT
The Eu is failing yet we are meant to be a dominant member along with Germany and France. So we abandon it because its failing - this means we leave control of Europe and its resources to Germany and its lap dog France
Its like abandoning your kids because they are failing at school, and saying 'well its their fault for failing, Im better off without them' Britain inherited Western Europe after the war, got Germany on its feet, created the EU, later called for the expansion of the Eu to Eastern Europe then got cold feet when it found that open door European immigrants are harder to control or discriminate than the previous tightly controlled non European ones from the commonwealth, and then panicked and gave up - Wc said there would be problems but to remember the big picture - he obviously didnt realise Brussels expense account inflation would be such a huge problem lol
And so we retreat to little England as the union breaks up, Ireland unites and joins Eu, Scotland join Eu, and we are left as a smaller country with less economic and political influence.
And as this new small country we have to cut deals with giants like China and India and Europe. We need to import energy, food, clothes, cars and we offer services. its much easier for these blocs to look to protect their own services in any trade deal, and some of them will even be out to exploit ours. China and India for example would want their own services to freely compete with ours in any deal and they dont much believe in workers rights or minimum wage - hows that gonna work out?
The clever thing to do would be to continue to have our own protected ready made doorstep trading bloc - the Eu, and continue to try and dominate and exert influence and change from the inside.
But the cowards like Farage couldnt step up and instead chose to run with tails between their legs
How can we replace a trading bloc of 500 mill on our doorstep, and replace standards and deals and legislation built over 40 years, and end up better off say in 20 years from now? At a time when all the blocs round the world are playing the game of protecting their own and creating barriers to others AND looking to exploit individual countries with less influence and economic power
Anyone putting aside romance and pride and 'make Britain great again nonsense' can look behind the lies and understand what WC said in the aftermath of a ruinous war in Europe
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 21:25:53 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 26, 2016 21:25:53 GMT
The EU is falling apart because it hasn't heeded persistent calls from member states to reform. Still the people at the top, the unelected unanswerable fedralists are pushing for closer political links . This link is a good background read about the state the EU finds itself in after the Brexit vote, and whether Brexit will be a wake up call that finally brings about some change or its death knell. time.com/4383368/european-union-brexit-reform/An interesting quote from the article which contradicts the ' little insular England' arguement...... 'Coming up with a unified foreign policy is perhaps the E.U’s greatest challenge of all, but Carnegie Europe’s Stefan Lehne, says it is even more important than ever now that the bloc has lost one of its most forceful foreign players. “The U.K. has been the member state with the most global outlook,” he tells TIME. “Without it there is the risk of narrowing the E.U’s focus to regional challenges, which needs to be resisted.” The EU is shrouded in treaties, and to change anything is impossible. For example. Once a month the whole Brussels circus packs up and movers to Strassberg for a few days. Trucks full of documents are transported by road and all the MEP''s and commissioners and civil servants have to go by train or plane . IT COSTS MILIONS OF POUNDS OF OUR TAXES!! Why do they do it? Because France wants to. Member states have asked repeatedly for this waste if money to stop, but it can't because it's in a treaty. " Despite MEPs repeatedly voting to stop the folly nothing has changed, because ending the madness would require a treaty change agreed by all 28 member states." www.express.co.uk/news/politics/655417/Brexit-EU-referendum-parliament-Strasbourg-Brussels-cost-British-taxpayers( apologies for quoting the express, I've reached my limit of free reading on some other publications. But the facts of this moving nonsense remain the same wherever you read then) So this is what we were dealing with to change anything. This example, is a complete nonsense. Other things, are very important to the UK and we could do NOTHING to change anything. Even when we voted on new laws we were the most 'loosing ' member state. It's a a joke. And despite warning after warning that the people were nit happy with the EU and how it was run they were too arrogant and too unaccountable to listen or care. Well they're listening now!!
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 22:02:09 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 26, 2016 22:02:09 GMT
They are not listening now, that attitude is just bluster, May has stated that she is after a deal on access with some limits on immigration. A Norway type deal
Which will mean still accepting EU law except having no more say on their formation they will have their cake and eat it
Therefore the EU will still have British trade, yet we will surrender a place at the decision making table along with a lot of influence to change things or promote the interests of America, which will mean they become closer to Germany who will now have the most influence
So we will have been manouvered onto the sidelines of the European bloc, that we created to help us consolidate our inheritance after WW2
The whole idea of the Eu was to make it easier to manage, we had as much opportunity as anyone else to influence the laws and shape its direction. But we increasingly got sidelined as we dithered, on one hand sneering at the project and reluctant to fight for our wishes.
States like France who didnt do much during the war will end up with more influence on a global scale as leading members of the EU - unless ofcourse the French are stupid enough to allow their fascists to do the same and cause a frexit. But thats not likely, the French already ignore such referendums if against the Eu, and all the European fascists have lost ground in trying to force exits as they now have the example of the mess we have made of it
WC would be turning in his grave
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 22:17:58 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 26, 2016 22:17:58 GMT
Does this sound like 'well they are listening now!?
Dont forget that whatever France or Germany say the whole 27 member states have to agree on any deal - therefore Juncker is more indicative than any placatory niceness from Merkel.
If we are after a soft brexit theen they will be having their cake and eating it and we will have lost out on a leadership role. If we go for a hard brexit we screw ourselves and the Eu but we will be worse off it it gets rough
Everyone apart from a few Tory MPs are accepting that a soft brexit deal will be the only way to exit, and once/if we invoke art 50, then they can piss us around on the soft brexit they promised and string it out for 2 years till we get a real shit deal
Yes the Eu could fall apart and everyone goes there own way, then we wont have lost out, but thats a sign of the mess we are in when thats our best case scenario - hoping it falls apart - but it wont, they will eventually adapt and modify it, we just wont be involved, and those that got us in this mess will be feeling smug, completely destroying 40 year investment in return for smugness
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 22:45:10 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 26, 2016 22:45:10 GMT
They are listening. It's only been four weeks and the tune has changed already. JUnker began by saying we should leave immediately if it's Brexit prime minister ad in two weeks if it's a remain prime minister. Now he's saying the UK need time. THATS JUNKER!!! Hollande has backtracked on Le Touquet and Merkel has said the UK should not be rushed and should not be made an example of. They are shit scared this will spread to other unhappy countries who haven't been listened to. Germany have always had the most influence. Merkel though is fighting her political career, her coalition partners aren't happy. Hollande is deadly unpopular. And then there's Italy, or rather Quitaly. Remember me posting about the state Italy bank? Nothing Italy did wrong like our bankers in the crash. They have no growth, in fact since the crash growth has decreased by 10%, if they could devalue they might be ok, but they can't because they're in the Euro. If they go back to the lira it would likely finish the Euro. And the election in October will bring this right into focus. If Renzi looses in October Italy will have a referendum. www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2016/jul/26/italy-economy-banks-loans-crisis-europeIt's a mess. It's a mess waiting to get worse and one we're better off out if. It hasn't worked. They've expanded too quickly, they haven't listened and they've tried to combine too many different countries and cultures too quickly. They also change the rules as they go along IF ITS IN THEIR INTEREST. Writings been on the wall for a long time, but they were too self important to read it. It's really pointless keep going on about WC. The world has changed, its 70 odd years ago. I think he'd be pretty pissed with what the EU has become personally.
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 23:09:43 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 26, 2016 23:09:43 GMT
So in that case why are we not invoking art 50 immediately and just exiting completely? Why is May looking for a soft brexit? Why does she still want to be bound by the laws of that horrid institution thats failing? Heres a thought - could it be that theres more to this EU stuff than simply whether we like it or not, or whether its failing or not?
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 23:22:49 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 26, 2016 23:22:49 GMT
Because she needs to get everything in place to get the best deal and that takes time , she needs to talk to Scotland, Ireland, there are all sorts of implications. She needs to think through everything first. It would be great to be able to just press a button and we're out. but it doesn't work like that, that would be irresponsible.
Hard? Soft? These are just new terminology someone's made up. I don't know hard or soft. No ones left before so you don't rush in, you do the thing that gets you the best deal you can. You want the cake and eat it. And you negotiate from that point.
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 23:27:57 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 26, 2016 23:27:57 GMT
No we dont need to listen to anyone, the people voted to leave right?
Say we dont want access to the open market and we dont want a trade deal, say we just want to leave, give up membership stop paying and have a clean break...
then theres nothing for her to be considering - we can just invoke art 50 and spend 2 years sorting out the divorce and in exactly 2 years from now we just trade with Europe or the rest of the world under WTO rules.
So why does she want to negotiate to remain legally involved with this institution thats failing and is about to collapse?
Why negotiate with a failing corrupt edifice?
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 23:39:09 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 26, 2016 23:39:09 GMT
She doesn't want to stay legally involved.
But we do want some sort of trade agreement, and so will Germany. That's what has to negotiated.
And we have to work with Northern Ireland / Ireland and Scotland
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 26, 2016 23:45:09 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 26, 2016 23:45:09 GMT
If we have a trade agreement it implies access to open market. Because we can just trade under WTO rules with anyone
Thats why TRADE AGREEMENTS take time to negotiate - they are LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENTS
If we do have an OPEN ACCESS trade agreement they will require us to be bound by Eu laws (freedom of movement, trading standards, financial regulations etc)
So if she needs to negotiate it means all 27 have to agree not just Germany
Otherwise she wouldnt have to negotiate anything - we would just invoke art 50 and spend 2 years leaving
Therefore we are still gonna have to deal with Brussels like Norway do
Do you understand this
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 27, 2016 0:03:59 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 27, 2016 0:03:59 GMT
I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with it.
I know they take a long time to negotiate, it's why she needs this time to sort out her negotiating teams etc etc
If we have acces to the market ,it is the terms of that access which need to be negotiated, We do not have to have freedom of movement if we don't want it. That could be our non negotiable. But we could negotiate access in some circumstances, but under our control. There are limitless possibilities on how access to the market could be achieved and we will be trying to get the best deal for us.
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 27, 2016 0:27:19 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 27, 2016 0:27:19 GMT
Any access will be subject to EU law, which means Brussels, which means still being part of the project, we dont want to replace our EU laws thats why we are negotiating. We dont want to lose access to the common market, thats why we are negotiating
WE WILL STILL BE FRUSTRATED BY BRUSSELS EXCEPT WE WILL HAVE NO FURTHER SAY IN THE LAW MAKING
Even Boris says we will have open access and still have their laws - therefore the argument that we want out of EU because they are corrupt etc is now totally irrelevant because we will continue with them and we will therefore be hoping it doesnt fail
Anyway this is the end of the line for me for a while as we have come full circle but you dont acknowledged the concept of soft/hard brexit
|
|
natny
Full Member
Posts: 376
Likes: 68
|
Post by natny on Jul 27, 2016 3:33:54 GMT
racechick and cookinflat 6.
I came across this on youtube. I think it is a professor of politics or something. she seems to know her stuff. Maybe she can offer some insight into your discussion.
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 27, 2016 9:14:47 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 27, 2016 9:14:47 GMT
Any access will be subject to EU law, which means Brussels, which means still being part of the project, we dont want to replace our EU laws thats why we are negotiating. We dont want to lose access to the common market, thats why we are negotiating WE WILL STILL BE FRUSTRATED BY BRUSSELS EXCEPT WE WILL HAVE NO FURTHER SAY IN THE LAW MAKING Even Boris says we will have open access and still have their laws - therefore the argument that we want out of EU because they are corrupt etc is now totally irrelevant because we will continue with them and we will therefore be hoping it doesnt fail Anyway this is the end of the line for me for a while as we have come full circle but you dont acknowledged the concept of soft/hard brexit I don't think you understand the complexities. It isn't just " do we have hard or soft Brexit?" Have you considered these points? - the closer tied in the UK is with EU, the less flexibility it will have in trade deals with others. - Setting a baseline of tariffs, quotas and subsidies agreed with the WTO will be a crucial early step. Hard to negotiate any FTAs unless countries know on what terms the UK will trade with the rest of the world. -Technically, while it is still in the EU, the UK’s trade policy is still conducted at the EU level. However, in practice, the UK is going to be having informal talks with a number of partners regarding future trade deals. - an agreement needs reacing whereby UK has flexibility to have informal talks on other trade deals combined with a UK promise to honour its commitments while still inside the EU -we need to move to secure existingEU FTA's ( Swizerland and Norway) could be done quickly by joinng EFTA - the need to set a baseline with the WTO. Individual countries won't negotiate preferential deals until they know this baseline - we need to look at a deal with the South American Mercosur trading bloc - we need to prioritise whicjph countries we will first target for trade deals ( probably China, India , Japan, Brazil , USA) It just isn't as simple as saying let's be hard or soft.
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 27, 2016 10:35:22 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 27, 2016 10:35:22 GMT
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 27, 2016 10:50:22 GMT
Post by CookinFlat6 on Jul 27, 2016 10:50:22 GMT
Yeah, we really told them didnt we, they are really listening
We have them over a barrel, they are deperate to accept whatever we propose because they need us so much
They are so scared that they are caving in to every request
Yup, we are gonna retain access and refuse any of their rules and we are even gonna get them to pay us
We have discovered the best cure for a headache, simply decapitate oneself - simple, and the nasty corrupt, mean headache will be gone
I think everyone finally agrees on Brexit now, we can close this thread, the Eu have declared war and we have won before its even started
|
|
|
BREXIT
Jul 27, 2016 10:53:00 GMT
Post by racechick on Jul 27, 2016 10:53:00 GMT
We don't know what we're doing because it hasn't been decided. No Ones desperate to accept anything No ones caving in No ones over a barrel Gonna retain access? Are we? Has that been decided? Is that in our best interests? But talking of headaches. GLaxo have just committed (post Brexit ) to further investment in the UK to the tune of £275 million uk.reuters.com/article/uk-gsk-britain-idUKKCN1070HY?rpc=401&
|
|