DanFST
Head Pro
I don't think they are, why would you give any concessions when there is so much time left to negotiate? Not worth stressing about till Christmas.
Brexit - The negotiations.
- Thread starter spongebob59
- Start date
- Status
I don't think they are, why would you give any concessions when there is so much time left to negotiate? Not worth stressing about till Christmas.
PNWokingham
Journeyman Pro
no neeed to drag on until the end but it likely will. But then again, a pretty mutually agreeable win-win is also easy to do and then put tp bed and stop wasting time on it and concentrate on the plenty of other things that could help our respective economies.
DanFST
Head Pro
I do agree with you! But that's never how these things work.
Ethan
Money List Winner
The EU is not going to concede on the level playing field, and nobody in their right mind would expect them to. David Frost and Boris Johnson certainly don't.
The UK will have to agree, in one way or another, or it is no deal and only the utterly delusional think that would not be devastating to the economy, piled on top of Covid.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Totally unjustified and, I believe, totally wrong! Just because SILH believes that being 'part of Europe' is better for UK than 'being independent' (note my 'impartiality'!) doesn't mean he's a UK Hater - just as, I presume, you are not a Europe hater - though you are quite entitled to be an EU hater!
As was so predictable - and predicted! So while 'should be the easiest deal...' was predicted, not 'the easiest deal....' after all! And that was entirely predictable/predicted too!
This I agree with (especially the bold bit) - though some 'transitional arrangements' might be required/acceptable.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Why should anyone in their right mind expect their independant country to have its trade rules set by an external organisation, Boris Johnson and David Frost certainly wouldn't, it would be devastating to the economy despite Covid.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Just as well that the WTO doesn’t have any rules that UK will have to abide by...erm...
Ethan
Money List Winner
No, you don't get it. The UK can set any trade rules it likes. If it wants the EU to agree to them, they have to be in line with EU principles. They are also in the WTO rules too. If it doesn't want to agree to them, it can walk away. It would not be devastating to the economy to agree a level playing field, but no deal will be catastrophic. No economist worth a damn will argue that any form of Brexit, least of all a no deal, is better for the UK economy than being in the EU. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me.
Oh, and exactly the same 'trade rules set by an external organisation' will apply to trade deals with the US, China and anywhere else with any leverage. I therefore take it from your approach that the UK should tell them all to take a hike.
The UK has always been an independent (or independant, which presumably has a different nationalistic meaning) country. It has also been a member of the WTO, UN, NATO, G7, OECD, World Bank etc etc where participation according to organisational rules has always been a part. I assume you believe the UK should leave all of those forthwith.
Last edited:
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Making mileage from someones typo is a rather poor and childish attempt to belittle. You seem to do it often.
You seem to be using half truths to convince yourself that your preferences are indisputable.
If the UK agreed to a level playing field on trade standards and competition then it would be subject to penalties from the ECJ if it did anything different, that cant be acceptable for an independent country. WTO rules dont work that way, they only encourage free trade and apply to tariffs which you set yourself.
Free trade agreements set with other countries dont encroach on how you trade with the rest of the World. Please explain how that would work?
You really are guilding the lilly to suggest the UKs membership of the UN, NATO etc are in any way connected to how we trade with the World, that's just plain silly. You need to understand that the reason we joined the EU was for free trade, not to become a state in a federal Europe, that arguement is over now, we decided it wasnt for us and we prefer to be free of the EUs control, how on earth can the EU having any influence on our trade, standards, fishing grounds etc meet that objective, it just cant.
OK your preference to remain in the EU didnt succeed, it may be a bitter pill for you but it's time you swallowed it and maned up to reality.
drdel
Tour Rookie
There is a wide and fundamental difference between a 'deal' struck by another agency than an agreement between two or more sovereign states with representation.
1. Erroneously daft claim; plenty of economists (I for one, but according to you my view is not worth a dam) would be at odds with your assumption. The EU is a PONSI system based on debt and is far too slow to respond to modern market developments and currency volatility. It has just aided Germany and France. Even the Greek bailout only saw about 10% go to Greece the rest poured into German and French Banks and the recent Budget agreement benefits the Italian and French Banks. Its trade policy is no longer relevant in the modern world.
2. IMO you have no idea how international trade deals are set. There are a variety of of pre-meetings on a host of areas to seek out where commonality etc exists and the general benefits to BOTH parties. Once it is established that it is a good move then Governments set out their agreed path.
3. This is a quite silly assertion IMO. The UK is a major world economy and has representation on these bodies and is part of the mechanism which MUTUALLY agrees the basis of the organisation.
Ethan
Money List Winner
Typically, your comments are sprinkled with unnecessary dismissive and insulting remarks that say more about your contemptuous attitude than anything else.
If you really are an economist, then you will know that all national budgets are, to use your inaccurately used descriptor much beloved of the right, Ponzi (or as you prefer, PONSI, although it is not an acronym) schemes. Money taken in today is used to pay someone else's cost today. Your NI contributions are not really saved up for you. As to whether your view is worth a dam (sic) or not, I may or may not have heard your view expressed in the media, but aside from the nutcase Minford, hardly any economies of national standing thinks Brexit is a good idea. Are you famous? Do tell if we have seen you speak on TV. I assume you used a different tone to your posts here. though.
As for international trade deals, the UK agreed the terms of EU treaties, used an opt out from tie to time and agreed the terms of the withdrawal agreement before rushing it through Parliament. Then later, they decided they actually didn't like it, but only once they actually read what it said. I am sure that you agree that is not a particular good way to proceed.
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
I find it interesting to speculate if we would have ever joined the EEC, predecessor to the EU, had the question on the 1975 Referendum been "Are you prepared for this to become membership of a Federal State of Europe rather than a Common Market?"
I suspect that the majority of the more vociferous on both sides of this thread were not old enough to have taken part in that vote. I was and certainly can confirm that nothing like that question was ever asked.
Had it been then maybe the answer then would have been different and this debate would not be taking place.
As I say it can only be speculation but interesting nonetheless.
I suspect that the majority of the more vociferous on both sides of this thread were not old enough to have taken part in that vote. I was and certainly can confirm that nothing like that question was ever asked.
Had it been then maybe the answer then would have been different and this debate would not be taking place.
As I say it can only be speculation but interesting nonetheless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ethan
Money List Winner
But it would have been a false question as we never joined, nor will there ever be, a Federal Europe.
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
We certainly never voted to join the EU in its present form.
Many would argue that what the majority voted to leave was fast becoming a Federal Europe in everything but name.
The ECJ, European foreign policy amongst others were not then part of the question.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
You could also speculate that in another 40-50 years the question we were asked in 2016 may be looked at in the same way.
No I wasn’t old enough to vote in 1975, but the World and Europe has changed massively since then, probably as much as it will change again in the next 41 years in ways none of us can envisage.
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
I agree Paul but I do wonder if any other issue of such major importance will have evolved quite so far from its original specification.
FWIW I voted in favour of Europe on both occasions but definitely had more doubts in 2016 than I did in 1975.
chrisd
Major Champion
We voted to join the Common Market nothing more, nothing less. There was no talk of a federal Europe, a European Army , laws made in the EU etc etc
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Europe evolved mate, it evolved to a place nearly half of those that voted in 2016 were happy with, the vote could of easily gone against us and we would be still unhappy.
However, we now look (hopefully) with optimism and believe in the next 41 years we’ll have been proved right in helping to get us out of the EU.
The biggest hurdle is we now have to trust the 652 MP’s to make it happen and make it a success.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Again though mate, I think the debate at the time was realistic and nobody could of known what it would become and as I replied to Chris, we should recognise this time just how close it was to a majority saying they were content on what it had become.
chrisd
Major Champion
Had we, back then, had realised how much we were going to be shafted by the EU then I'm certain we would have never voted to join
- Status