the EU & the UK

[Scotts]

When will folks realise that any deal with the EU that locks us into its restrictive terms is not Brexit in any shape or form? If we could negotiate a two-way deal, beneficial to all concerned (a genuine free trade agreement with concomitant sensible regulation) then we could move forward. But - and I’ve said this so many times down through the years that it now sounds like a passage from a history book – the EU doesn’t work like that because its core ethos just doesn’t allow for it. The EU is a fundamentally protectionist construct, protecting itself first, foremost and to the nth degree. Most folks think the EU commission’s intransigence to Brexit goes no further than petulance and bad grace at ordinary British people daring to vote democratically to leave something they (the EU commission) believe in with almost religious fanaticism. Look behind the pompous façade of Brussel’s Berlaymont and you’ll find the whole EU is built on foundations of layer upon layer of protectionist, non-negotiable bureaucracy.

There ain’t no deal because the EU doesn’t want one, won't allow it and certainly won't want to see Great Britain as an independent equal player on the world stage.

I say, reservedly, good luck to Boris, because he (and his supporting MPs) seems to be our only hope of getting out of this mess. Everyone else is talking capitulation… surrender!

I agree and that's nicely put. Anyone who thinks the EU want something that works for both the UK and the EU Bloc are kidding themselves. Many of my remain friends now want no deal now just to have this over. I'd much rather we leave with a deal that works for both but that's unlikely so with that no deal. Just my opinion on this.

[mezzaninedoor]

When will folks realise that any deal with the EU that locks us into its restrictive terms is not Brexit in any shape or form? If we could negotiate a two-way deal, beneficial to all concerned (a genuine free trade agreement with concomitant sensible regulation) then we could move forward. But - and I’ve said this so many times down through the years that it now sounds like a passage from a history book – the EU doesn’t work like that because its core ethos just doesn’t allow for it. The EU is a fundamentally protectionist construct, protecting itself first, foremost and to the nth degree. Most folks think the EU commission’s intransigence to Brexit goes no further than petulance and bad grace at ordinary British people daring to vote democratically to leave something they (the EU commission) believe in with almost religious fanaticism. Look behind the pompous façade of Brussel’s Berlaymont and you’ll find the whole EU is built on foundations of layer upon layer of protectionist, non-negotiable bureaucracy.

There ain’t no deal because the EU doesn’t want one, won't allow it and certainly won't want to see Great Britain as an independent equal player on the world stage.

I say, reservedly, good luck to Boris, because he (and his supporting MPs) seems to be our only hope of getting out of this mess. Everyone else is talking capitulation… surrender!

Absolutely can hear what you are saying Pain.
And the EU Bloc does have a degree of protectionism.
However there is an argument that there is a Deal that works for the UK & the EU, the EU needs to trade with the UK, the UK needs to trade with the EU as we are closest neighbours, we need to reduce food and product miles whereever possible
I dont think the EU is petulant towards the UK working population voting Leave I think its absolutely fed up with an incompetent Government failing to agree a Deal

I know folks wont agree with me but its imho

[mezzaninedoor]

Is anyone reading about the Disaster Capitalists who will make tons of money out of a Brexit No Deal. Crispin Odey is one of Boris backers. Think he has already made £300 million.

The LSE has forecast that after Brexit ordinary households will lose £1000's of income over the next 15 years.

[Carnation]

Oh, what fools we must look to the rest of the world.
Carnage followed by disarray ending in ridicule.

[mezzaninedoor]

Is Brexit all about money? For me, it is not!

Here's a suggestion for you, Mez: Now you're retired with loads of time on your hands, you could gen up on how to make money out of disasters (read Rees Mogg et al) and play the stock market. I forecast a problem with this, though. When we leave the EU, Brexit won't be a disaster but a triumph. It's the doom-mongers, nay-sayers and pessimistic axe-grinders who are in thrall to the idea of failure.

I guess we will agree to disagree Pain
I guess though I should say maybe it won't be a Disaster but will be a significant downturn economically
Though I'm probably beings pessimistic not mystic

[MyNameIsTerry]

Is anyone reading about the Disaster Capitalists who will make tons of money out of a Brexit No Deal. Crispin Odey is one of Boris backers. Think he has already made £300 million.

The LSE has forecast that after Brexit ordinary households will lose £1000's of income over the next 15 years.

I haven't but I have seen people complaining about them and their influence behind Leave. Of course there will be shady financial forces at work just as they were in the banking crisis as it's easy money for them. It's what traders have been doing since the invention of the stock market. The question is whether they are steering our politics to profit but then so are all the companies who lobby or the whole US system of money for a campaign to repaid in favours later.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Regarding "the deal" consider who has given ground and who hasn't:

Citizens' rights - both sides agree to honour rights up untiln the end of the transition period.

Both parties mutually agreed although the UK wanted it to end with A50.

Divorce Bill - EU drafted the cost and demanded payment before any future trade talks. The UK accepted since we had committed to projects and there are pensions to pay. But I don't see our assets being refunded out of our investment to the ECB in this? Has this been factored in? It may have but it feels unclear. A50 clearly says we leave all EU frameworks yet now we have to pay beyond that simply because we agreed it years ago. Why aren't the EU covering that loss or changing the project as any corporate would do?

EU wins, we lose.

Irish Border - if a solution to the ROI/NI border can't be found the whole UK (possibly NI now) would remain in a 3rd party special add on zone to the EUCU & SM. This doesn't appear to be a CU in WTO definition yet again showing how things can be devised if there is the political will as Pain has said before. We have no say in this zone and are bound by any legislative change with no way of leaving it without coming up with a solution to the border issue which we have seen can mean the EU can simply disagree even if it could work. We would have to go to the ECJ for a ruling on whether the Commission were being unreasonable or try to drop out again reneging on a treaty which opens up the international headaches again. Certain EU tax rules to be observed.

EU wins, we lose. This agreement might be good in that we keep the EUCU & SM but we lose sovereignty as there is not even the power of the vote involved in this one. Any industry change is sent to our government to merely pass on to business as a post room. Our win comes from the ECJ not having supremacy other than over EU law, which is really all that matters in a backstop anyway so what's the point?

Fisheries - No agreement. The EU want access to British waters or they won't allow our products into their market.

EU won't budge without us giving up our waters but what has this got to do with a WA? This is a trade agreement and has rightly been bumped. No access when we leave, that simple. We appear to win back here as it is removed from the WA.

Other - EU directives to cover geographical naming (such as foods) will remain which prevents EU companies making our products and we won't make theirs. Some stuff about Gibraltar that seems up in the air as Spain wanted dual access at the airport but I'm not sure what happened to this in the end.


What I always found with the WA was that it was trying to be a part WA and part FTA. The fisheries issues is clear example of this. May tried to incorporate certain things to appease industry (such as the alignment of standards) but this is what a FTA or CU is normally about. This was a mistake as it allowed the EU to take advantage of weakness and tie us into something we will have as much difficulty escaping from as we do now. Years of argument.

Whilst I agree with standard alignments I do not agree you cede them to other nations. You merely agree to follow them to trade with them. This is a FTA principle.

So, what's missing from the WA that could be a trade agreement? Very little. Tariffs and the services stuff by the looks of it. Probably some favourable quotas for immigration too as the EU are keen on such things. The CETA agreement also shows us how the EU want financial services access into external markets.

Learn the lesson of Turkey. They are unhappy because 3rd parties can access their CU, since it's attached to the EUCU, through trade agreements with the EU but they don't have reciprocal rights into a 3rd party market. Something to beware of there as the US could sign a deal with the EU and access us anyway if we are stuck in a backstop.

It seems to me the WA is more EU beneficial. What have they given away? We seem to be giving plenty. Other than citizens rights they seem to be dangling SM access for a price as they do with other nations yet we don't do the same back and merely grant it under the radar as we concentrate on other issues.

[mezzaninedoor]

Mez… Are you saying your remain perspective on Brexit is only about money? I couldn’t define a clear answer from your reply.

No, not at all, I was just pointing out that there are lots of folks making money by shorting on the pound
I guess Remain would provide stability to the economy
Remain was also about keeping the agreements we already had with the EU

[MyNameIsTerry]

Oh, what fools we must look to the rest of the world.
Carnage followed by disarray ending in ridicule.

Yep, everyone else in the EU pulls together and we spend the time infighting at multiple levels! One big issue lies in the fact so many MP's will not accept the referendum so want to stop it at any opportunity.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Terry… You didn’t need to go to the trouble of any further in-depth analysis. We leavers already knew this one and only salient fact concerning the Withdrawal Agreement and any deal built thereon. The time is long expired (by at least three long years) for pretending what’s going on between the EU and its UK sycophants over Brexit is anything other than collusion.

(my bold emphasis)

True.

Something to consider with the backstop is that it only kicks in if we can't find a suitable alternative. Now, we know that means both sides agreeing therefore there may never be an alternative but we could opt for a CU in the FTA agreement stage. But something I think needs considering in the fine print, and I'm not sure if it is covered, is whether the backstop always kicks back in if you ever recreate the same scenario e.g. you decide to leave the new CU.

Like I said above I think when I see hardcore Remainers bashing Trump they don't see the dangers of the backstop here. The EU wanted TTIP and that had major ramifications for the NHS. Now just imagine we are in that backstop, therefore no say in SM rules anymore, and the EU sign that TTIP agreement and it allows the US access into the backstop region. Will the EU be concerned about protecting a 3rd party? Will they be concerned enough to sacrifice a good deal with the US for the Brits? We all know Macron would be wringing his hangs with glee as would Guy V, Barnier, Juncker, etc.