Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
west didsblue said:
I read it alright and stopped at the point where you said "All you tend to demonstrate is how much you adore the EU and your disdain for any of it's partners, locally or globally".
Maybe you could point to a post that backs that up otherwise I'd give up and stop embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...
As I said, no-one cares.

You have your opinions of me, and I have my opinions of you. Nothing wrong with sharing them, isn't that right? I notice no comment about the Canada link, which kind of ties in to the whole theme of the point I was making. YOU see "rule-taker" as a denigrating term, one in which is meant to imply that anything other than membership of the EU as being negative, whereas I see it as "voluntary acceptance" of terms negotiated with a new partner, who isn't a member of the EU club. That's the difference I pointed out.

If that isn't the case, then answer this, do you see rule-taker as a negative term, in regards to Canada's trade relationship with the EU? Do you see Norway's position as lesser than the one we currently hold? Because I don't.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
As I said, no-one cares.

You have your opinions of me, and I have my opinions of you. Nothing wrong with sharing them, isn't that right? I notice no comment about the Canada link, which kind of ties in to the whole theme of the point I was making. YOU see "rule-taker" as a denigrating term, one in which is meant to imply that anything other than membership of the EU as being negative, whereas I see it as "voluntary acceptance" of terms negotiated with a new partner, who isn't a member of the EU club. That's the difference I pointed out.

If that isn't the case, then answer this, do you see rule-taker as a negative term, in regards to Canada's trade relationship with the EU? Do you see Norway's position as lesser than the one we currently hold? Because I don't.
Click to expand...
The rules that Canada "takes" affects about 7% of their exports so they aren't going to be particularly concerned about following rules that only affect that amount of trade.
I suspect Norway's trade is at a similar level to ours but a significant proportion is in Energy (Oil and Gas) where product regulations have little applicability, so I suspect they don't worry too much about these regulations either.
Meanwhile the vast majority of our trade is in manufactured goods, food products and services, all of which is highly regulated so it's much more important for us to have a say in the rules than Norway or Canada. With our EU trade being about 50% of our total it's bleeding obvious that it's advantageous for us to have a say in the regulations.
 
west didsblue said:
The rules that Canada "takes" affects about 7% of their exports so they aren't going to be particularly concerned about following rules that only affect that amount of trade.
I suspect Norway's trade is at a similar level to ours but a significant proportion is in Energy (Oil and Gas) where product regulations have little applicability, so I suspect they don't worry too much about these regulations either.
Meanwhile the vast majority of our trade is in manufactured goods, food products and services, all of which is highly regulated so it's much more important for us to have a say in the rules than Norway or Canada. With our EU trade being about 50% of our total it's bleeding obvious that it's advantageous for us to have a say in the regulations.
Click to expand...

That’s not surprising. Canada exports more to the state of Michigan than it does to the EU.

https://photos.state.gov/libraries/canada/303578/pdfs/us-canada-economic-relations-factsheet.pdf

Who would have thought that their closest neighbours are also their biggest trading partners?
 
west didsblue said:
The rules that Canada "takes" affects about 7% of their exports so they aren't going to be particularly concerned about following rules that only affect that amount of trade.
I suspect Norway's trade is at a similar level to ours but a significant proportion is in Energy (Oil and Gas) where product regulations have little applicability, so I suspect they don't worry too much about these regulations either.
Meanwhile the vast majority of our trade is in manufactured goods, food products and services, all of which is highly regulated so it's much more important for us to have a say in the rules than Norway or Canada. With our EU trade being about 50% of our total it's bleeding obvious that it's advantageous for us to have a say in the regulations.
Click to expand...
We indeed have a say, and the EU goes "thanks for that, we'll be sure to mention it when we negotiate on your behalf". And then 9 years later the deal is done! Woohoo.
But there's still that little niggle about not being "allowed" to do trade deals outside of the EU and with non-EU trade partners, that irks me; Like asking for permission. Something Norway is not prohibited from doing, for example, yet still trades with Europe.

And lets not overshadow the fact that global markets are growing faster and larger. But again, do you consider Canada and Norway to be lesser partners because they don't have a say in the EUParl on changes to rules?
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
We indeed have a say, and the EU goes "thanks for that, we'll be sure to mention it when we negotiate on your behalf". And then 9 years later the deal is done! Woohoo.
But there's still that little niggle about not being "allowed" to do trade deals outside of the EU and with non-EU trade partners, that irks me; Like asking for permission. Something Norway is not prohibited from doing, for example, yet still trades with Europe.

And lets not overshadow the fact that global markets are growing faster and larger. But again, do you consider Canada and Norway to be lesser partners because they don't have a say in the EUParl on changes to rules?
Click to expand...

That’s nonsense. On some issues, like provision of financial services, to a very large extent, what we say goes (eg MIFID 2). On others, eg olive oil standards, we have very little input because we are not a producer of olive oil to any great extent. In aerospace technology we again have a great say, not so much when it comes to wine production. So where our core national economic interests are concerned we are very much an influential player. Moreover, we have as a nation a larger than average say in how the rules are amended because whilst we are one voice amongst 28, we have more than 10% of MEPs and we have a British judge sitting at the ECJ. To suggest as a general proposition that we have little or no influence is arrant nonsense.
 
Last edited:
blueparrot said:
Not how the UK parliament works.
Click to expand...
It is exactly how it should work. They voted for a referendum, framed the question and promised to abide by the result. No ifs, buts, bindings, lies, democracy not stoppings, changing circumstances, no deals, etc etc etc.
In the words of the good Doctor - "In or Out?"

We voted Out.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
That’s nonsense. On some issues, like provision of financial services, to a very large extent, what we say goes (eg MIFID 2). On others, eg olive oil standards, we have very little input because we are not a producer of olive oil to any great extent. In aerospace technology we again have a great say, not so much when it comes to wine production. So where our core national economic interests are concerned we are very much an influential player. Moreover, we have as a nation a larger than average say in how the rules are amended because whilst we are one voice amongst 28, we have more than 10% of MEPs and we have a British judge sitting at the ECJ. To suggest as a general proposition that we have little or no influence is arrant nonsense.
Click to expand...
DId I say that? No i'm pretty sure I mentioned that we do have a say. And along with everyone elses "says" it can sometimes slow down negotiations. Is that a boon or a hindrance? That's my contribution. My main issue is being "allowed" to do deals outside the bloc.

So can you tone down the "arrant nonsense" rhetoric? It doesn't exactly help to keep things civil. Ta.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
DId I say that? No i'm pretty sure I mentioned that we do have a say. And along with everyone elses "says" it can sometimes slow down negotiations. Is that a boon or a hindrance? That's my contribution. My main issue is being "allowed" to do deals outside the bloc.

So can you tone down the "arrant nonsense" rhetoric? It doesn't exactly help to keep things civil. Ta.
Click to expand...
You have said that on numerous occasions that our say is ignored. You even implied it again on this page with your sarcastic comment about deals taking 9 years after listening to our comments.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
But the people of Scotland don't even know about the full ramifications of leaving the UK. It's too complicated, 300+ years of union, tied up legalities, for ordinary voters of Scotland to understand, and the majority probably don't care about them anyway,. For those reasons alone, they should not be consulted on their membership of the UK union.
:)
Click to expand...
Why doesn't England just have a referendum on leaving the union. Problem sorted.You can then leave the EU without the bother of the UK butting in.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
We indeed have a say, and the EU goes "thanks for that, we'll be sure to mention it when we negotiate on your behalf". And then 9 years later the deal is done! Woohoo.
But there's still that little niggle about not being "allowed" to do trade deals outside of the EU and with non-EU trade partners, that irks me; Like asking for permission. Something Norway is not prohibited from doing, for example, yet still trades with Europe.

And lets not overshadow the fact that global markets are growing faster and larger. But again, do you consider Canada and Norway to be lesser partners because they don't have a say in the EUParl on changes to rules?
Click to expand...
Is our "independent" deal with Canada (however long it takes) going to be better than our current EU deal with Canada? Does it irk you that it will not be as good?
 
BobKowalski said:
Economic alignment requires a level of political integration. You can be out of the EU and be in the Single Market like Norway but Norway still has to abide by the rules and laws that govern the Single Market. And the rules and laws are set by 27 other countries not Norway. Absenting the political side of the coin just means you can’t influence, propose or set those rules and laws.

Don’t get me wrong I can live with that as it means Freedom of Movement etc and maybe even a majority of the country can live with it but the Brexit Party et al would not live with it.

Even a bog standard FTA means we have to accept EU rules and standards as a pre-requisite ie the ‘level playing field’ plus we would still have Dublin demanding the border status quo be maintained otherwise no FTA.

This is an argument and fight over power and who wields it. Trade is incidental. Even the U.K. Govt accepts we will not get what our economy requires. There will be barriers and there will be increased friction on trade. The only question is how much, who gets to set the terms and how do we prevent the peace accord in NI unravelling. And we have about 10 days to do this is in.
Click to expand...


And a clown in charge of it
 
George Hannah said:
As I recall they were given one and turned independence down, the absurdity is we still have a group of nationalists infesting parliament. I suppose it's marginally preferable to them wandering about sticking chewing gum in the doorlocks of folk they think should move south.
Click to expand...
They should do the honourable thing like Sinn Fein, and not take their seats?
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
Well any company who chooses to sell goods in any country be it Spain Portugal Mongolia or Russia needs to comply with the laws of the territory in which they are selling products
If we leave those companies in the uk who currently comply with the laws of the eu to which they sell their products are still the day after we leave going to still comply with the rules of the eu.
Click to expand...
But the point is that the day after we leave those companies are then not subject to EU law and are therefore under no legal obligation to carry on complying and may even decide to diverge from such laws.
Hence the need for a ( wait for it)................TRADE DEAL!
 
Len Rum said:
But the point is that the day after we leave those companies are then not subject to EU law and are therefore under no legal obligation to carry on complying and may even decide to diverge from such laws.
Hence the need for a ( wait for it)................TRADE DEAL!
Click to expand...

So what? if they want to diverge they can’t trade with the eu , if they want to trade with the eu companies they should not diverge and continue to comply with the eu laws in which their goods are supplied . It should be easy for them because they should already comply .

Same as if I was in a company and traded within Russia , if I want to continue to trade in Russia I need to comply with the laws of Russia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top