Brexit

This post is so wrong in almost every area, The thought process used to post this is baffling

 

Why would we abandoned the standards the EU have we were a major player in getting those standards on the EU statute, not sure why those standards would be lowered.
Will webe worse off out there is still different arguments from the experts, I believe there is a meeting today to discuss the new EU budget that should be interesting as both Hungary and Poland have said they will veto it,.
We will have a good idea today as Boris is meeting Von der Leyen as quoted it will go down to the wire, thank goodness Theresa May was shown the door, she was quite happy for the status quo which was not what was voted for in June 2016.

 

Robert Peston's tweets today about the level playing field stumbling block look interesting. If what he's saying is correct the playing field doesn't look particularly level...

Seems like the UK have agreed not to regress from their current level but it seems that the EU wants the right to change these in perpetuity which seems almost impossible to manage.

 

The thing about EU standards is basically one of the core strengths of the organisation.

On things like environmental policy, it isn’t a vote winner to stifle productivity in order to achieve a common good, and it’s basic game theory that shows that these policies are worthless unless cooperation is guaranteed.

Having an organisation that can implement these standards means that we can effectively remove the possibility that countries can act in their own personal interests to the detriment of everyone else.

 

The rules the EU wants to impose on us are laughable, The EU has broken its own rules on numerous occasions when it suits the major player like France and Germany, As an example Germany has driven a coach and horses through the state aid rules by giving Lufthansa a 9billion euro bailout in direct opposition to the rules it wants us to obey, In fact I believe the biggest user of state aid to industry is France, Yet despite this they want the UK to sign a document that we will not give state aid without EU permission

 

The list of European airlines that haven’t received state support is shorter than the list that have. Without state aid, the European airline industry would have been obliterated beyond all recognition by this point.

Even then, Lufthansa initially rejected their bailout and shareholders nearly rejected the whole thing. And there are anti-monopoly conditions attached to that money.

It wasn’t against the rules, and I’m not a fan of the way the Lufthansa CEO was effectively bragging of it being more than enough, but it wasn’t a wholly illegitimate exercise. Despite what Michael O’Leary might suggest.

 

From an EU point of view, why would they hand free access to the largest single market in the world to an outside country without a guarantee that said country would not try to undercut them in the future? It would be madness.
We can't have it both ways. We chose to leave but now seem to want to have our cake and eat it. If we want unfettered access to their market, then we have to abide by their rules. And they have to be sure that holds in future, not just short term.
If we want the freedom to make our own standards then we have to live with tariffs like other non-EU countries do. Which, whatever Clown Johnson says, would be economically disastrous for us.

 

This is a useful explainer article to add to the Robert Peston tweets that @Aaron Baker posted above.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/07/what-is-the-ratchet-clause-and-could-it-sink-the-brexit-talks?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

I get that from their point of view. But a no regression clause - which is how it's being framed - is a completely different idea to having to stick to their rules forever, with no veto or say in the process even if they change them in the future. They could hypothetically change their own rules next year to their advantage and our detriment and we would be tied into them,

Now I know you're pro-EU rather than balanced on this but you must see that would be a ludicrous deal to enter into. No deal would be better than that.

We also need to stop saying that last bit. Lots of non-EU countries have tariff free trade and are not tied into the EU rules as a starting point, let alone in perpetuity. So it's definitely not that we HAVE to, it;s just that they want to make us. Two separate things. Now I know the viewpoint is that we're close geographically so it's different and to some extent I get that but lets please stop framing it that we HAVE to do what they say. That sort of language is exactly what's pushing us towards no deal.

 

I agree - read that over lunchtime.

The UK idea to have set review periods - Downing Street has offered an alternative: a review of the baseline of minimum standards after a number years, potentially four. At that point the EU could apply tariffs on certain British goods to correct any imbalance - seems a million times more certain and logical.

 

Rubbish, have Tesco's got a guarantee that Morrisons won't undercut them ?, and you want us to abide by 'their' rules, get outta here...

 

Of course they haven't. But they are operating within the same internal UK market. We are asking for outside access to a closed internal market. Therefore we either accept the rules of that market or accept tariffs.
That has always been the EU position, which they made abundantly clear even before the referendum. Some people chose to ignore that or mistakenly believed that the EU would compromise on it because, 'they need us more than we need them'. They won't, and they don't.

 

From our point of view, yes. But not from the EU's. As the article says, they don't want to get embroiled in time consuming, acrimonious rows, with their difficult neighbour, about standards every four years.

 

And that's the balance. It has to be right for both parties and one side can't dictate what the other does. We haven't lost a war!

Honestly, I think some people who are pro-EU need to take a little bit of a step back and see how ludicrous what they're asking for actually is. Of course they have every right to ask for whatever suits them - much as I have the right to ask £1m for my £250k house - but to expect agreement on those points is ridiculous and will no doubt, and rightly, lead to no deal.

 

It shows us that we were 100% right to leave the EU, It is a closed Empire and a bully and will implode eventually, They are fighting hard to keep any control over the UK as a punishment to show others who may realise it is not the panacea but a private club controlled in the interest of Germany and France, Whatever the price we will be well shot of the political sham that is the EU

 

I can see how what the EU is asking for seems extreme. But you have to remember that they didn't ask for these negotiations. It's not something they've entered into willingly. We chose to leave and, as a consequence, plunged them into years of extremely difficult wrangling that they could well have done without. So they are not disposed to do us any favours.
They said from the outset that if we chose to leave there would be consequences and we couldn't expect the same access to their market that we had before without accepting their rules. We are qualitatively and quantitatively different from all other countries they do trade deals with, because of our proximity, size and knowledge of their internal affairs. So we are a much bigger threat to them than most other countries, which is why they are extremely wary of giving us any potential competitive advantages. From their point of view, No Deal is bad, but not as bad as what they most fear - having Singapore 2 on their doorstep undercutting them from within, if they give us free trade without regulatory lockstep.

 

Yadda Yadda. Don't hold your breath. The EU will be fine. They may have to kick out the Poles and Hungarians, or relegate them to a lower level, but the EU isn't disappearing any time soon. In fact it may outlast the UK union.

 

Because they disagree with some of the EU controls, don't ya love democracy, they have a history for making fellow member vote again when it doesn't suite them.

 

It's not about who asked for the negotiations, a democratic vote asked for the negotiations which should be respected by democratic entities.

It's not about favours either and we knew there would be consequences, but even in that scenario one party in honest negotiations shouldn't take the piss if they want to ensure a productive partnership going forward. They're getting perilously close to doing that with the added stipulations over and above non-regression.

I know they're in a perilous position, that's why we'd be idiots to agree to something that would allow them to change future rules to put us at a disadvantage. Whether people voted leave or remain in 2016 everyone should see that we should not agree to what they are asking for on that front and going further than non-regression is unnecessary and simply designed to be punitive and actually give them a competitive advantage rather than a level playing field.

 

The best deal for the UK would be no deal, A 10% corporation tax and VAT at 15% with a top tax at 40% would have the worlds top organisations queuing to move headquarters and operations to the UK, A low tax high wage economy that powers the UK as a major economic power with low quotas and high tariffs on imported cars and wines and subsidies for UK production and exports,