|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 25, 2019 21:33:46 GMT
Parliament are ignoring 17M voters who voted to remain too. No one is winning here. 16m.......and if anything by stopping Brexit Parliament are supporting the minority vote ! There cannot be a 'compromise'. This has already been established. You cannot be half-in, half-out the EU. There are no 'winners or losers', there is just the democratic will of the Conservative membership. Fixed that for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 23:41:37 GMT
From the FT: It is three years since the UK voted to leave the EU. It did so without a clear plan about its future relationship with the bloc. Since then, the British public has been treated to a stream of more or less unworkable plans by the government and leading Brexiters about maintaining frictionless trade with the union from outside. In the words of Boris Johnson, currently the strong favourite to win the Conservative party leadership contest and succeed Theresa May as prime minister, the UK wants to have its cake and eat it. The latest fantasy promulgated by some Brexit supporters, including Mr Johnson, is that the UK can invoke Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt), the treaty underpinning the World Trade Organization. This, they say, would maintain an unchanged trading relationship with the EU even if the UK crashes out without a deal when the deadline expires on October 31. There has been a lot of nonsense over the past three years, but this is a strong contender for the most absurd of all. As countless trade lawyers and other experts have patiently explained, a rarely-used provision of Article 24 allows two economies to maintain a preferential trading relationship between themselves while they are finalising and implementing a full trade deal. It is not an open-ended way of maintaining preferential long-term access to each other’s markets even before talks begin. It also requires both partners to agree to invoke it, and other member governments of the WTO can object. Moreover, the provision applies only to tariffs on goods. Services trade would still see a severe disruption, as would the UK leaving the EU’s regulatory regime for products including manufactures and food. Whatever illusions Mr Johnson harbours that the EU will come round, it has repeatedly and rightly said it has no intention of entering into an interim Article 24 arrangement with the UK in case of a no-deal Brexit. Such an agreement would merely give Britain an excuse to flounder around endlessly trying to work out what kind of relationship it wants with the EU. Liam Fox, the international trade secretary and a supporter of Mr Johnson’s opponent Jeremy Hunt, is himself prone to persistent over-optimism about trade negotiations. To his credit, however, he has attempted to quash the Article 24 idea. Yet Mr Johnson and his surrogates continue merrily to propagate the misleading suggestion. Not surprisingly, Mr Johnson is trying to avoid scrutiny during the campaign, ducking debates with other candidates and dodging contact with the press. How much Mr Johnson genuinely believes his arguments and how much he is trying to gull the Conservative membership is unclear. In any case, it seems to be working. Most party members want to leave the EU in October with no deal if necessary, according to surveys. The UK government’s counterparts in Brussels have been watching the policy positions emerging from factional struggles within the Conservative party with rising incredulity. Mrs May crippled the talks from the start by announcing a series of unrealistic red lines. The Article 24 illusion is merely an extreme extension of that mentality. Mr Johnson is likely to win the leadership election and become prime minister. Assuming he manages to form a government, that is when reality will bite. He needs to have a plan ready to deal with the disappointment of his followers when it turns out they were sold policies under false pretences. A unilateral invocation of part of Article 24 is not a way out of the UK’s Brexit predicament. If Mr Johnson and his followers do not know that, they soon will. There you go. Wait for Leavers and other members of the flat earth society to tell us the experts are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 26, 2019 0:17:05 GMT
I'e been saying it for months, Oldie.
If my little comprehensive school brain can grasp the realities, why can't the Eton and Oxbridge educated "polymaths"?
Either they are unsuitable for high office or they are trying to dupe the gullible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 6:05:28 GMT
" a rarely-used provision of Article 24 allows two economies to maintain a preferential trading relationship between themselves while they are finalising and implementing a full trade deal. It is not an open-ended way of maintaining preferential long-term access to each other’s markets even before talks begin. It also requires both partners to agree to invoke it, and other member governments of the WTO can object. "
I agree with that, and it is exactly the point I made a couple of posts back. IF BOTH SIDES agree to use this, as an interim solution until the FTA can be agreed, then we should talk to the EU about it. IF THE EU then decide NOT to use this method, then we go full WTO, until an FTA can be agreed. The point is, why would the EU say NO? There is a 90 billion trade deficit with the EU importing far more into the UK than going the other way. To block this method the EU will be cutting off their own nose to spite their own face ! If two adults (the UK and the EU) were to sit down and discuss this in a sensible manner, it could very easily be sorted out. Unfortunately we are still in the position where the EU want to play hard ball, in some deluded attempt to crash the UK economy . It's the same with the Irish Border. If the Irish had said at the start that it was perfectly feasible to implement a sensible border (as it should be) then the whole Irish issue would have gone away. Instead, the Irish have allowed themselves to be used by Brussels. Friends, allies, sensible adults, could have sat down and worked out all the details quite easily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 7:26:50 GMT
" a rarely-used provision of Article 24 allows two economies to maintain a preferential trading relationship between themselves while they are finalising and implementing a full trade deal. It is not an open-ended way of maintaining preferential long-term access to each other’s markets even before talks begin. It also requires both partners to agree to invoke it, and other member governments of the WTO can object. " I agree with that, and it is exactly the point I made a couple of posts back. IF BOTH SIDES agree to use this, as an interim solution until the FTA can be agreed, then we should talk to the EU about it. IF THE EU then decide NOT to use this method, then we go full WTO, until an FTA can be agreed. The point is, why would the EU say NO? There is a 90 billion trade deficit with the EU importing far more into the UK than going the other way. To block this method the EU will be cutting off their own nose to spite their own face ! If two adults (the UK and the EU) were to sit down and discuss this in a sensible manner, it could very easily be sorted out. Unfortunately we are still in the position where the EU want to play hard ball, in some deluded attempt to crash the UK economy . It's the same with the Irish Border. If the Irish had said at the start that it was perfectly feasible to implement a sensible border (as it should be) then the whole Irish issue would have gone away. Instead, the Irish have allowed themselves to be used by Brussels. Friends, allies, sensible adults, could have sat down and worked out all the details quite easily. The EU would definitely cut off their nose to spite their face. Despite it damaging the remaining member states that would just be 'collateral damage' as the bigger picture is to harm the UK as much as possible to deter anyone else from daring to leave their gang.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 26, 2019 7:29:13 GMT
" a rarely-used provision of Article 24 allows two economies to maintain a preferential trading relationship between themselves while they are finalising and implementing a full trade deal. It is not an open-ended way of maintaining preferential long-term access to each other’s markets even before talks begin. It also requires both partners to agree to invoke it, and other member governments of the WTO can object. " I agree with that, and it is exactly the point I made a couple of posts back. IF BOTH SIDES agree to use this, as an interim solution until the FTA can be agreed, then we should talk to the EU about it. IF THE EU then decide NOT to use this method, then we go full WTO, until an FTA can be agreed. The point is, why would the EU say NO? There is a 90 billion trade deficit with the EU importing far more into the UK than going the other way. To block this method the EU will be cutting off their own nose to spite their own face ! If two adults (the UK and the EU) were to sit down and discuss this in a sensible manner, it could very easily be sorted out. Unfortunately we are still in the position where the EU want to play hard ball, in some deluded attempt to crash the UK economy . It's the same with the Irish Border. If the Irish had said at the start that it was perfectly feasible to implement a sensible border (as it should be) then the whole Irish issue would have gone away. Instead, the Irish have allowed themselves to be used by Brussels. Friends, allies, sensible adults, could have sat down and worked out all the details quite easily. Leaving aside reasons I have mentioned before and the irony of your "cut off their nose to spite their face" viz a viz WTO, reread the last part of the piece you pasted. Can't see any issues there. 🦄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 7:36:57 GMT
" a rarely-used provision of Article 24 allows two economies to maintain a preferential trading relationship between themselves while they are finalising and implementing a full trade deal. It is not an open-ended way of maintaining preferential long-term access to each other’s markets even before talks begin. It also requires both partners to agree to invoke it, and other member governments of the WTO can object. " I agree with that, and it is exactly the point I made a couple of posts back. IF BOTH SIDES agree to use this, as an interim solution until the FTA can be agreed, then we should talk to the EU about it. IF THE EU then decide NOT to use this method, then we go full WTO, until an FTA can be agreed. The point is, why would the EU say NO? There is a 90 billion trade deficit with the EU importing far more into the UK than going the other way. To block this method the EU will be cutting off their own nose to spite their own face ! If two adults (the UK and the EU) were to sit down and discuss this in a sensible manner, it could very easily be sorted out. Unfortunately we are still in the position where the EU want to play hard ball, in some deluded attempt to crash the UK economy . It's the same with the Irish Border. If the Irish had said at the start that it was perfectly feasible to implement a sensible border (as it should be) then the whole Irish issue would have gone away. Instead, the Irish have allowed themselves to be used by Brussels. Friends, allies, sensible adults, could have sat down and worked out all the details quite easily. Leaving aside reasons I have mentioned before and the irony of your "cut off their nose to spite their face" viz a viz WTO, reread the last part of the piece you pasted. Can't see any issues there. 🦄 You meant the 'other members of the WTO can object'? Yes, they can object, and yes, that is what the WTO is all about. Objections are raised on a daily basis with the WTO, and that is why the WTO exists, to sort out any potential disputes. Once again though, if you don't attempt to implement it, how do you know that somebody 'may' object? or is it the defeatist route of not doing something because somebody 'may' object? You don't know until you try, and as far as I'm aware this has not been talked about with the EU. I do know that the current way of solving the trade problems have not worked. Why not try something else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 9:09:31 GMT
" a rarely-used provision of Article 24 allows two economies to maintain a preferential trading relationship between themselves while they are finalising and implementing a full trade deal. It is not an open-ended way of maintaining preferential long-term access to each other’s markets even before talks begin. It also requires both partners to agree to invoke it, and other member governments of the WTO can object. " I agree with that, and it is exactly the point I made a couple of posts back. IF BOTH SIDES agree to use this, as an interim solution until the FTA can be agreed, then we should talk to the EU about it. IF THE EU then decide NOT to use this method, then we go full WTO, until an FTA can be agreed. The point is, why would the EU say NO? There is a 90 billion trade deficit with the EU importing far more into the UK than going the other way. To block this method the EU will be cutting off their own nose to spite their own face ! If two adults (the UK and the EU) were to sit down and discuss this in a sensible manner, it could very easily be sorted out. Unfortunately we are still in the position where the EU want to play hard ball, in some deluded attempt to crash the UK economy . It's the same with the Irish Border. If the Irish had said at the start that it was perfectly feasible to implement a sensible border (as it should be) then the whole Irish issue would have gone away. Instead, the Irish have allowed themselves to be used by Brussels. Friends, allies, sensible adults, could have sat down and worked out all the details quite easily. Leaving aside reasons I have mentioned before and the irony of your "cut off their nose to spite their face" viz a viz WTO, reread the last part of the piece you pasted. Can't see any issues there. 🦄 Looking at it from the perspective of the EU, have they not offered existing terms under the Withdrawal Agreement? It's not the EU that has said no, its us. In particular the the ERG, who are now saying it's down to the EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 9:11:12 GMT
Why would the EU refuse to partake in the Article 24 Agreement?
President Trump has made it clear an FTA with the USA is on the cards post Brexit. The EU has a substantial trade surplus with the UK. If the EU doesn't sign a (GATT) Article 24 deal with the UK, we could see EU goods being replaced by US ones in the UK market, which will cause substantial job losses in the EU. Therefore, if the EU wants to play hardball after Brexit, there may be unintended consequences for the EU. Don't forget, just because there are things we currently import from the EU, it doesn't mean that we cannot import the same thing, at a lower price, from elsewhere. There's a whole world out there just itching to trade with the UK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 9:12:12 GMT
Leaving aside reasons I have mentioned before and the irony of your "cut off their nose to spite their face" viz a viz WTO, reread the last part of the piece you pasted. Can't see any issues there. 🦄 Looking at it from the perspective of the EU, have they not offered existing terms under the Withdrawal Agreement? It's not the EU that has said no, its us. In particular the the ERG, who are now saying it's down to the EU. The Withdrawal Agreement is dead Oldie. Try to keep up.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jun 26, 2019 10:27:41 GMT
Why would the EU refuse to partake in the Article 24 Agreement? President Trump has made it clear an FTA with the USA is on the cards post Brexit. The EU has a substantial trade surplus with the UK. If the EU doesn't sign a (GATT) Article 24 deal with the UK, we could see EU goods being replaced by US ones in the UK market, which will cause substantial job losses in the EU. Therefore, if the EU wants to play hardball after Brexit, there may be unintended consequences for the EU. Don't forget, just because there are things we currently import from the EU, it doesn't mean that we cannot import the same thing, at a lower price, from elsewhere. There's a whole world out there just itching to trade with the UK. Cant wait for those generous terms from America negotiated from the ultimate position of power that is WTO. This whole debacle unravelled from the moment it came under any type of scrutiny or was subjected to reality. It continues to unravel today but we adapt our narrative to suit. What a big old mess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 11:52:22 GMT
Looking at it from the perspective of the EU, have they not offered existing terms under the Withdrawal Agreement? It's not the EU that has said no, its us. In particular the the ERG, who are now saying it's down to the EU. The Withdrawal Agreement is dead Oldie. Try to keep up. Then stop asking for the same transition period
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 11:52:41 GMT
Why would the EU refuse to partake in the Article 24 Agreement? President Trump has made it clear an FTA with the USA is on the cards post Brexit. The EU has a substantial trade surplus with the UK. If the EU doesn't sign a (GATT) Article 24 deal with the UK, we could see EU goods being replaced by US ones in the UK market, which will cause substantial job losses in the EU. Therefore, if the EU wants to play hardball after Brexit, there may be unintended consequences for the EU. Don't forget, just because there are things we currently import from the EU, it doesn't mean that we cannot import the same thing, at a lower price, from elsewhere. There's a whole world out there just itching to trade with the UK. Cant wait for those generous terms from America negotiated from the ultimate position of power that is WTO. This whole debacle unravelled from the moment it came under any type of scrutiny or was subjected to reality. It continues to unravel today but we adapt our narrative to suit. What a big old mess. Absolutely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 11:56:20 GMT
The Withdrawal Agreement is dead Oldie. Try to keep up. Then stop asking for the same transition period I am not asking for any 'transition period'. We already have had three years to 'transition'. No point messing around any longer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 12:13:08 GMT
Then stop asking for the same transition period I am not asking for any 'transition period'. We already have had three years to 'transition'. No point messing around any longer. So straight to no deal and imposition of WTO, just for clarity?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 26, 2019 12:16:42 GMT
People voted for No Deal didn't they. That's what we are told. Now we have wankers like Raab saying it will be the Eu's fault
17.4 million people voted for it & it will be brilliant *but* if it actually happens the EU will be to blame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 12:35:50 GMT
I am not asking for any 'transition period'. We already have had three years to 'transition'. No point messing around any longer. So straight to no deal and imposition of WTO, just for clarity? FFS.....IF a deal can be negotiated with the EU then that would always be the preferred route. However, the EU have been quite clear they will not re-negotiate the WA. The next option would be to explore the possibilities around GATT (Article 24) and talk to the EU regarding that as an interim solution until an FTA is negotiated. If nothing can be worked out that way, then we revert to WTO while we negotiate an FTA with the EU. We are leaving the EU. Do you really think the EU now want the UK to stay in?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 12:39:05 GMT
People voted for No Deal didn't they. That's what we are told. Now we have wankers like Raab saying it will be the Eu's fault 17.4 million people voted for it & it will be brilliant *but* if it actually happens the EU will be to blame. You have to blame the combination of the EU and May and her negotiators for leaving on a No Deal. They all conspired to produce such a God awful Withdrawal Agreement. So, if the WA is dead, what other way does the UK have to Leave the EU?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 26, 2019 12:48:03 GMT
People voted for No Deal didn't they. That's what we are told. Now we have wankers like Raab saying it will be the Eu's fault 17.4 million people voted for it & it will be brilliant *but* if it actually happens the EU will be to blame. You have to blame the combination of the EU and May and her negotiators for leaving on a No Deal. They all conspired to produce such a God awful Withdrawal Agreement. So, if the WA is dead, what other way does the UK have to Leave the EU? That's not the point Nobby. We had Farage going around the country for the EU elections telling us all what people voted for was No Deal. Farage then wants in on a negotiating team and then people like Raab are saying No Deal will be the EU's fault
Damn the EU giving the British people what they want
People knew what they were voting for right
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 12:54:23 GMT
You have to blame the combination of the EU and May and her negotiators for leaving on a No Deal. They all conspired to produce such a God awful Withdrawal Agreement. So, if the WA is dead, what other way does the UK have to Leave the EU? That's not the point Nobby. We had Farage going around the country for the EU elections telling us all what people voted for was No Deal. Farage then wants in on a negotiating team and then people like Raab are saying No Deal will be the EU's fault
Damn the EU giving the British people what they want
People knew what they were voting for right
No, you are misunderstanding Raab. He is saying that a No Deal Brexit is the direct result of the terrible WA Treaty. If both sides were sensible over the WA then everything could have been sorted out nicely.
|
|