Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the moment where the barman has given me a knowing look.
I'm going to edge away slowly from the wild-eyed obsessive at the end of the counter.
Cut and run.
Haul ass.
It's a hopeless cause.
I'm done.
ROFL -The latest news is that the EU is going to put sanctions on the UK is we don't do as they ask.
The EU seems to be forogtting it has a $100 Billion trade surplus with the UK, and the UK could walk away from defence and security in such circumstances.
Germany would be particuarly badly hit in such circumstances, as not only is it having to pick up most of the EU budget deficit left by the UK, but also has the largest trade surplus.
Furthermore, US politics is looking grim for the EU, with a Trump win meaning a secind term in which he can do as he pleases, including a trade war with Europe and possible pulling out of NATO, leaving the Germansa to fend for themselves.
Whilst oin the other hand a Bernie Sanders win would mean large US military cuts and US withdrawl from many bases in Europe, which would also place the Germans in a difficult situation, which would be made much more difficult by also losing UK support.
Barnier doesn't seem to understand that the UK is now an independent country, and tbh we are just wasting time even bothering negotiating and should just go to WTO, and then they can negotiate if they so wish, as given the current EU terms there is nothing to negotiate at all.
Barnier is an idiot and he's now been found out, he even said in the past that a Canada plus deal is the only option for the UK, but has now stated that we can't have such a deal.
In reality the UK should be given a very good deal as it's a bigger trading partner than Canada and is far more important to the EU in numerous ways.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-26-2020 at 05:31 AM..
ROFL -The latest news is that the EU is going to put sanctions on the UK is we don't do as they ask.
Seems that many people are forgetting that the EU no longer needs to look out for any UK interests, and is now acting purely in self-interest, as any entity would do.
The EU want to sanction the UK if we renege on the terms laid out in the Withdrawal Agreement (the one that the UK negotiated, and the one that Boris Johnson signed just 1 month ago).
Don't say you would never seek any compensation if you had a contract, and the other party broke it?
If we traded solely under WTO rules, we would be just one of two countries on Earth to do so (the other being Mauritania). You'd see pretty much everything get more expensive, plus we would still need to abide by WTO regulations.
Seems that many people are forgetting that the EU no longer needs to look out for any UK interests, and is now acting purely in self-interest, as any entity would do.
The EU want to sanction the UK if we renege on the terms laid out in the Withdrawal Agreement (the one that the UK negotiated, and the one that Boris Johnson signed just 1 month ago).
Don't say you would never seek any compensation if you had a contract, and the other party broke it?
If we traded solely under WTO rules, we would be just one of two countries on Earth to do so (the other being Mauritania). You'd see pretty much everything get more expensive, plus we would still need to abide by WTO regulations.
The EU never looked after EU interests and I have no problem in terms of trading with the EU on WTO terms if neede be.
As for the proposed Sanctions they are nothing to do with the Withdrawl Agreement and is all about the EU Court of Justice imposing sanctions if Britain doesn't adhere to EU law, which is nonsense and no other country has such an arrangement as part of a trade deal.
Should we impose sanctions on the EU if they don't agree to our laws or rights.
Total nonsense and it's not going to happen, the only thing the UK wants is a Canada style free trade deal and to be like Norway and Iceland in terms of fishing rghts. Otherwise we will be better off going to WTO and negotiating from that position.
Given that we can sign numerous trade deals with other countries that want to trade, the only goods that would become more expensive would be EU goods which would not be abloe to compete with goods from countries with trade deals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
The EU will demand the right to punish Britain if the government fails to shadow the Brussels rulebook in the future, member states have agreed, as Boris Johnson was warned that the bloc would not be hurried into a deal on the future relationship.
A final draft of the EU’s negotiating position agreed by ambassadors on Monday, ready for ministerial sign off on Tuesday, establishes the bloc’s developing environmental, social and workers’ standards as the baseline for a trade deal.
EU laws would not need to be adopted line-by-line by Westminster as they develop. But Brussels would retain the right to apply tariffs or other sanctions if any divergence between the two sides over time led to “disruptions of the equal condition of competition”.
The EU never looked after EU interests and I have no problem in terms of trading with the EU on WTO terms if neede be.
Given that the UK is the EU's biggest export market the difference in tariffs, should they be implemented, would be something in the region of £6billion a year.
WTO terms will produce a number of short-term problems for the UK but it would be suicidal both politically and economically, to allow the EU any more say over our trading terms than they have with Canada or Australia.
Given that the UK is the EU's biggest export market the difference in tariffs, should they be implemented, would be something in the region of £6billion a year.
WTO terms will produce a number of short-term problems for the UK but it would be suicidal both politically and economically, to allow the EU any more say over our trading terms than they have with Canada or Australia.
Spot on Roscoe, to give the EU say over our future trade and our ability to even make trade deals would be stupid and is not going to happen.
The EU need to stop wasting our time, and it looks like we are going to waste the rest of this year buefore going to WTO rules.
Boris Johnson should just abandon the negotiations if that bis the EU stance and go to WTO before the end of the year.
Personally I think it might be easier for both sides to let the negotiations fail, and then make another attempt after defaulting into a WTO-based relationship next year.
That would maximise frictional cost in the short term, but would have the advantage that the trade talks might follow the more traditional pattern of a positive-sum game.
Both sides would at that point gain by liberalising trade flows.
What would be best is if we didn't have a self-imposed 1 year deadline, that only harms the UK when we will be looking to make trade agreements with multiple countries. Let the trade negotiations flow naturally, like with the EU-Canada or EU-Japan FTAs, which took 7-8 years to finalise.
Restricting ourselves to 1 year suggests the government always wanted no deal with the EU. If I was leading the trade negotiations for a 3rd country like Australia, I would stall negotiations until the UK was getting more desperate for a deal, to gain favourable concessions for myself.
Barnier doesn't seem to understand that the UK is now an independent country, and tbh we are just wasting time even bothering negotiating and should just go to WTO, and then they can negotiate if they so wish, as given the current EU terms there is nothing to negotiate at all.
That genuine lack of understanding just baffles me. It should be obvious what being an independent country means.
Quote:
Barnier is an idiot and he's now been found out, he even said in the past that a Canada plus deal is the only option for the UK, but has now stated that we can't have such a deal. In reality the UK should be given a very good deal as it's a bigger trading partner than Canada and is far more important to the EU in numerous ways.
I’m also baffled by the argument that the same regulations are required because of geographic closeness. Consider NAFTA. There are no two countries geographically closer than the U.S. and Canada as we share a 9,000 km land border. Canada is also way more dependent on the U.S. for trade than the U.K. is on the EU. Yet there is no demand that Canada match U.S. regulations internally. For example, administering growth hormones to dairy cows is legal in the U.S. and illegal in Canada. We also don’t have the same regulations with respect to the environment.
Also, in negotiating NAFTA 2.0, Canada successfully beat off an attempt by the U.S. to make any trade disputes between the two countries subject to settlement by a U.S. court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
