Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 7:31:28 GMT
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. The WA was not accepted by us, the UK, primarily because of the Irish border problem and an open ended backstop. The Irish border problem comes into sharp relief under WTO as there will have to be border controls. Which, people who know say, will bring stress to the Good Friday Agreement. So, in one decision we, A) Increase the cost of our exports B) Increase the cost of our imports C) Potentially reopen the can of worms that is Northern Ireland politics. Add all the other crap as you feel free to do. Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 8:05:03 GMT
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. The WA was not accepted by us, the UK, primarily because of the Irish border problem and an open ended backstop. The Irish border problem comes into sharp relief under WTO as there will have to be border controls. Which, people who know say, will bring stress to the Good Friday Agreement. So, in one decision we, A) Increase the cost of our exports B) Increase the cost of our imports C) Potentially reopen the can of worms that is Northern Ireland politics. Add all the other crap as you feel free to do. Why? There are many problems with the WA, not just the Irish Protocol. Explain why a trade border in Ireland will bring 'stress' to the GFA? Can you point out where in the GFA this is mentioned? Trade between Eire and the UK is actually pretty small in UK terms. It's large for Eire though. If the cost of imports to the UK increase, then the UK can look elsewhere for a cheaper version of the same thing ie. Beef from Argentina/Australia/Numibia etc, which is already available in the UK/EU so must already have passed all the standards necessary. Obviously an FTA with the EU will solve all these issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 8:11:26 GMT
Here you go Oldie, this is what the GFA says about the border in Ireland... "What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border? A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security. During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries. Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation". The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices." The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat". That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes." BBC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 8:45:21 GMT
Here you go Oldie, this is what the GFA says about the border in Ireland... "What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border? A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security. During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries. Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation". The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices." The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat". That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes." BBCYep But political reality, not text where leaving the EU was ever thought probable. "Northern Ireland's Chief Constable, George Hamilton, has repeatedly said that a hard border would be damaging for the wider peace process. He has said that any new border infrastructure would be seen as "fair game" for attack by dissident republicans. In an interview last year, he also put the border in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. "If you put up significant physical infrastructure at a border, which is the subject of contention politically, you are re-emphasising the context and the causes of the conflict," he said. "So, that creates tensions and challenges and questions around people's identity, which in some ways the Good Friday Agreement helped to deal with."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 8:47:42 GMT
The WA was not accepted by us, the UK, primarily because of the Irish border problem and an open ended backstop. The Irish border problem comes into sharp relief under WTO as there will have to be border controls. Which, people who know say, will bring stress to the Good Friday Agreement. So, in one decision we, A) Increase the cost of our exports B) Increase the cost of our imports C) Potentially reopen the can of worms that is Northern Ireland politics. Add all the other crap as you feel free to do. Why? There are many problems with the WA, not just the Irish Protocol. Explain why a trade border in Ireland will bring 'stress' to the GFA? Can you point out where in the GFA this is mentioned? Trade between Eire and the UK is actually pretty small in UK terms. It's large for Eire though. If the cost of imports to the UK increase, then the UK can look elsewhere for a cheaper version of the same thing ie. Beef from Argentina/Australia/Numibia etc, which is already available in the UK/EU so must already have passed all the standards necessary. Obviously an FTA with the EU will solve all these issues. I wasnt talking about trade between Eire and the UK specifically. I am talking about the impact of WTO tariffs on our trade generally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 8:50:47 GMT
Meanwhile, whilst the EU secures an FTA with Vietnam and implements the Singapore FTA, we are told by our trading allies... Japan's blunt warning: Don't lead Britain out of EU without a deal flip.it/aXGRWoGreat Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 9:14:42 GMT
Here you go Oldie, this is what the GFA says about the border in Ireland... "What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border? A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security. During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries. Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of removing those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation". The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices." The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat". That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes." BBCYep But political reality, not text where leaving the EU was ever thought probable. "Northern Ireland's Chief Constable, George Hamilton, has repeatedly said that a hard border would be damaging for the wider peace process. He has said that any new border infrastructure would be seen as "fair game" for attack by dissident republicans. In an interview last year, he also put the border in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. "If you put up significant physical infrastructure at a border, which is the subject of contention politically, you are re-emphasising the context and the causes of the conflict," he said. "So, that creates tensions and challenges and questions around people's identity, which in some ways the Good Friday Agreement helped to deal with." OK, right, so it's best not to implement something as it means terrorists may attack it! Is this clown being serious?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 9:17:58 GMT
There are many problems with the WA, not just the Irish Protocol. Explain why a trade border in Ireland will bring 'stress' to the GFA? Can you point out where in the GFA this is mentioned? Trade between Eire and the UK is actually pretty small in UK terms. It's large for Eire though. If the cost of imports to the UK increase, then the UK can look elsewhere for a cheaper version of the same thing ie. Beef from Argentina/Australia/Numibia etc, which is already available in the UK/EU so must already have passed all the standards necessary. Obviously an FTA with the EU will solve all these issues. I wasnt talking about trade between Eire and the UK specifically. I am talking about the impact of WTO tariffs on our trade generally. This is why, with a trade deficit of 90 billion, you would expect the EU to want/need an FTA eh? However, they still refuse to discuss it until the UK leaves the EU, so there is not a lot the UK can do about it at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 9:50:31 GMT
I wasnt talking about trade between Eire and the UK specifically. I am talking about the impact of WTO tariffs on our trade generally. This is why, with a trade deficit of 90 billion, you would expect the EU to want/need an FTA eh? However, they still refuse to discuss it until the UK leaves the EU, so there is not a lot the UK can do about it at the moment. Regardless. We revert to WTO, 27 countries in the current EU then have trade tariffs attached, and the 60 other countries, we lose the beneficial arrangements from full FTA to to agreed trade arrangements. Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 10:00:57 GMT
This is why, with a trade deficit of 90 billion, you would expect the EU to want/need an FTA eh? However, they still refuse to discuss it until the UK leaves the EU, so there is not a lot the UK can do about it at the moment. Regardless. We revert to WTO, 27 countries in the current EU then have trade tariffs attached, and the 60 other countries, we lose the beneficial arrangements from full FTA to to agreed trade arrangements. Why? Things are happening Oldie.....Obviously everything cannot be the same on Day One. As Wael would say, "these things take time!". "So far the UK has agreed "continuity" deals with 11 countries and regions. These are: Andean countries (signed 15 May) Norway and Iceland (2 April) Caribbean countries (22 March) Pacific Islands (14 March) Liechtenstein (28 February) Israel (18 February) Palestinian Authority (18 February) Switzerland (11 February) The Faroe Islands (1 February) Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January) Chile (30 January) In addition, the UK has also announced a deal in principle with South Korea, which is "expected to be signed shortly". BBC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 10:04:21 GMT
Yep But political reality, not text where leaving the EU was ever thought probable. "Northern Ireland's Chief Constable, George Hamilton, has repeatedly said that a hard border would be damaging for the wider peace process. He has said that any new border infrastructure would be seen as "fair game" for attack by dissident republicans. In an interview last year, he also put the border in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. "If you put up significant physical infrastructure at a border, which is the subject of contention politically, you are re-emphasising the context and the causes of the conflict," he said. "So, that creates tensions and challenges and questions around people's identity, which in some ways the Good Friday Agreement helped to deal with." OK, right, so it's best not to implement something as it means terrorists may attack it! Is this clown being serious? Remain getting desperate if this is the type of argument being put forward!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 10:29:38 GMT
OK, right, so it's best not to implement something as it means terrorists may attack it! Is this clown being serious? Remain getting desperate if this is the type of argument being put forward!!! Not me. The police authorities. Still, what do they know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 10:33:28 GMT
Regardless. We revert to WTO, 27 countries in the current EU then have trade tariffs attached, and the 60 other countries, we lose the beneficial arrangements from full FTA to to agreed trade arrangements. Why? Things are happening Oldie.....Obviously everything cannot be the same on Day One. As Wael would say, "these things take time!". "So far the UK has agreed "continuity" deals with 11 countries and regions. These are: Andean countries (signed 15 May) Norway and Iceland (2 April) Caribbean countries (22 March) Pacific Islands (14 March) Liechtenstein (28 February) Israel (18 February) Palestinian Authority (18 February) Switzerland (11 February) The Faroe Islands (1 February) Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January) Chile (30 January) In addition, the UK has also announced a deal in principle with South Korea, which is "expected to be signed shortly". BBCLove to see the combined GDP of those countries and regions you quote. Nothing wrong with them, most welcome. But a great big gaping hole in our tarriff free export market. Things happen as you say. Pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger does seem silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 10:47:42 GMT
Things are happening Oldie.....Obviously everything cannot be the same on Day One. As Wael would say, "these things take time!". "So far the UK has agreed "continuity" deals with 11 countries and regions. These are: Andean countries (signed 15 May) Norway and Iceland (2 April) Caribbean countries (22 March) Pacific Islands (14 March) Liechtenstein (28 February) Israel (18 February) Palestinian Authority (18 February) Switzerland (11 February) The Faroe Islands (1 February) Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January) Chile (30 January) In addition, the UK has also announced a deal in principle with South Korea, which is "expected to be signed shortly". BBCLove to see the combined GDP of those countries and regions you quote. Nothing wrong with them, most welcome. But a great big gaping hole in our tarriff free export market. Things happen as you say. Pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger does seem silly. You were harping on about Vietnam earlier !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 12:35:44 GMT
Love to see the combined GDP of those countries and regions you quote. Nothing wrong with them, most welcome. But a great big gaping hole in our tarriff free export market. Things happen as you say. Pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger does seem silly. You were harping on about Vietnam earlier ! As an addition to the 60.... It's a bit like playing in the top 10 of the Premier League, only to find ourselves playing in the National League, hoping for a good cup draw. Leavers are like the numb nuts who then take over such clubs, making ridiculous forecasts like Premier League in 5 years. Except real people and families will be impacted by this grossly incompetent, fact free and plan free nationalist bravado.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 27, 2019 12:35:49 GMT
Francois really has to be the biggest tool of the lot doesn't he?
The Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford was in a debate with David Henig on Sky News as they both discussed the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the UK economy.
Henig started the interview by explaining what exactly crashing out of the EU would mean. He told presenter Adam Boulton: "No deal equals trade barriers, tariffs on UK goods into the EU, technical barriers, inspections, loss of privileges to provide services across the EU. That all happens in the event of no deal. No deal is no deal, there is no mystery WTO provision that allows you to get out of the mess."
He warned that it meant high tariffs for the car industry and agriculture including a number of foods, and warned if we did set all of our tariffs at zero it would mean "other countries will say they won't we don't need a trade deal with you".
And he added the impact on the car industry under these trading conditions could be devastating.
Henig said: "For our car producers - 122,000 work manufacturing cars and automotive equipment - they are going to be hit. A huge percentage of those will go overseas."
But rather than attempt to dispute what the expert had to say, Francois claimed that "the fundamental point is if they're going to be hit, at least it would be our choice."
Somewhat surprised by his claim, Adam Boulton drily responded: "Yes I know but if it's your choice to blow your head off, you don't take it, at least very often."
"As a matter of fact Adam, I am not blowing my head off today, nor am I planning to," responded Francois, as the presenter said "yes but we're talking about November 1st."
As the pair discussed the technicalities, the conversation moved on to how Boris Johnson would differ to Theresa May in dealing with Brexit.
Francois insisted "what would be fundamentally different would be we would have a prime minister who finally stood up for us."
"He wouldn't - for instance - give the EU £39 billion for nothing in return. Any businessmen would tell you that is a ludicrous way to negotiate, but that's how we did."
But the former trade negotiator said it was "more than belief in Britain".
He said: "The point of the negotiation, and I'm not going directly into the money, is more than belief in Britain. We had many war generals with belief in their soldiers, but it didn't go particularly well because they didn't think about what it was that was going to deliver a result here.
"It's more than belief, we need to be thinking if we want a deal with the EU what the EU is looking to get and what we are looking to get. I don't think we know the answers either of those, I'm not sure we've heard the answer to either of them."
As Francois continued to refer to "a comprehensive free trade deal", Henig was quick to point out "that is not an end state."
He said: "That is a tool of trade. It does not even necessarily mean tariff-free trade, it might mean a reduction in tariffs. We have not said what the UK wants. And that is what we need to hear from your candidate and the other candidate what it is we want."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 12:50:06 GMT
"We have not said what the UK wants. And that is what we need to hear from your candidate and the other candidate what it is we want."
I would say that that is not the way to go if you intend to negotiate further with the other side. You don't let them know what you want upfront. You aim higher, and then negotiate down to what you want, if necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 13:05:57 GMT
"We have not said what the UK wants. And that is what we need to hear from your candidate and the other candidate what it is we want." I would say that that is not the way to go if you intend to negotiate further with the other side. You don't let them know what you want upfront. You aim higher, and then negotiate down to what you want, if necessary. Ok, so we aim for 30% tariffs with an ambition of getting 5% tariffs, or is it the other way, we aim for 0% tariffs and accept 5% tariffs. Enquiring minds need to know!! As for Francois, what an utter embarrassment. Still, typical of the ERG.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 13:11:10 GMT
"We have not said what the UK wants. And that is what we need to hear from your candidate and the other candidate what it is we want." I would say that that is not the way to go if you intend to negotiate further with the other side. You don't let them know what you want upfront. You aim higher, and then negotiate down to what you want, if necessary. Ok, so we aim for 30% tariffs with an ambition of getting 5% tariffs, or is it the other way, we aim for 0% tariffs and accept 5% tariffs. Enquiring minds need to know!! As for Francois, what an utter embarrassment. Still, typical of the ERG. I think your particular enquiring mind is sadly lacking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 13:13:34 GMT
Ok, so we aim for 30% tariffs with an ambition of getting 5% tariffs, or is it the other way, we aim for 0% tariffs and accept 5% tariffs. Enquiring minds need to know!! As for Francois, what an utter embarrassment. Still, typical of the ERG. I think your particular enquiring mind is sadly lacking. 🤣🤣🤣
|
|