How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
He’s doing his job - not much point getting annoyed about it. I suspect it will be quite a limited deal - given the red lines TM has set out.
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
EU has substantial surplus in goods UK has substantial surplus in services
EU want deal only on goods (oh and fisheries, security and defence)
Maybe the UK's opening gambit should have been 'deal only on services'.
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
I think we have different objectives.
The EU's primary objective is to 'keep the show on the road' which means leaving has got to be worse than staying in - and if that results in short term pain for all concerned so be it - its a price worth paying - but that's 'pro-EU', not 'anti-British'. They'd do the same if any other member was leaving.
The UK on the other hand is trying to minimise any damage while maximising control.
There will be a deal, of sorts, but no one will like it much.
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
The UK left the club, as was our right, but we now do not choose the rules by which the club plays. The club holds all the cards and may stack it as they wish in their best interest.
This is the reality of the UK's sovereign decision.
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
The EU is a rules based bureaucracy, and those rules are not very flexible. This was never going to be wheeling dealing fly by the seat of your pants negotiation, at least on their side. Barnier has respected our red lines, but that severely constrains what can be done. We could have set different red lines but chose not to do so. Ultimately it was our choice to have a minimal deal.
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
There are two distinct parts to this:
1. A managed UK withdrawal from the EU
2. A subsequent EU/UK FTA
In both cases, the UK has left it to the EU to produce the documents around which the negotiations will take place. That is not the EU's fault. The simple fact is that if you leave it to the other side to frame the negotiation, the negotiation will be based on the terns the other side sets out. And the other side will inevitably frame things in the way that is most advantageous to itself.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
I'm pretty sure the card holding situation was amply clarified by Gove just before the referendum.
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
The EU is a rules based bureaucracy, and those rules are not very flexible. This was never going to be wheeling dealing fly by the seat of your pants negotiation, at least on their side. Barnier has respected our red lines, but that severely constrains what can be done. We could have set different red lines but chose not to do so. Ultimately it was our choice to have a minimal deal.
We could even have chosen to do what the EU has done and produced our own, detailed texts about withdrawal and the future trade agreement. But we decided not to.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
It’s almost as if the EU think they hold all the cards and we’ll happily roll over and sign anything.
Let’s hope the adults involved in the actual negotiations are better than the politicians and journalists spouting off about them in public.
Anyway, work to do, which is infinitely more productive and useful than being on here!
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
The EU is a rules based bureaucracy, and those rules are not very flexible. This was never going to be wheeling dealing fly by the seat of your pants negotiation, at least on their side. Barnier has respected our red lines, but that severely constrains what can be done. We could have set different red lines but chose not to do so. Ultimately it was our choice to have a minimal deal.
We could even have chosen to do what the EU has done and produced our own, detailed texts about withdrawal and the future trade agreement. But we decided not to.
Being a majority of 1 against 27 ain't really going to work! A Nigel Farage telling Cameron or May what to do, when he didn't have any elected UKIP MP's (the 2 he ended up with were defectors from the Tories) isn't really a good game plan to follow when the other 27 countries don't really give a damn about the UK......
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
The UK left the club, as was our right, but we now do not choose the rules by which the club plays. The club holds all the cards and may stack it as they wish in their best interest.
This is the reality of the UK's sovereign decision.
Surely the big issue, as far as we are concerned, is that Leave didn’t set out a coherent plan for how we left. It was just “leave the EU” and set of vague suggestions.
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll .
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
Not only is the UK negotiating in bad faith, in that we really don't have any sort of coherent plan or objective, we can't even keep what little we do have without someone else trying to put changes into the mix. We cannot demand anything, we cannot negotiate rule changes or cherry pick what rules we want when we are not members of the club - If you decided to leave your golf club, what would be the response if while your resignation was in place, you wanted all the other members to play with left handed clubs and used a football instead of a golf ball.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
I thought Richalrdl Nbavi said we hold all the cards.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
I thought Richalrdl Nbavi said we hold all the cards.
We could even have chosen to do what the EU has done and produced our own, detailed texts about withdrawal and the future trade agreement. But we decided not to.
Because the EU would have put any text we produced straight in the bin.
There is no concept of "travelling drafts". The EU will keep very tight control of all the documents that are going to be produced. Ultimately, it's a feature of their deep insecurity. We have to live with their paranoia that someone else might try to do what was supposedly impossible - and leave.
And still some here would say we should pamper that paranoia - by not leaving. If we stayed, they wouldn't have reason to be paranoid, they say. Well, it's a view.
The tweet is a very heavily spun version of what Rees Mogg actually said
His view is we are going to lose jobs to robots regardless of whether or not you have immigration
Yep, that is what he said in the Panorama, specifically that robots would replace the jobs of our children and grandchildren. Presumably his own will be fine.
The British ambivalence to migration was nicely highlighted in the programme.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
I thought Richalrdl Nbavi said we hold all the cards.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
I thought Richalrdl Nbavi said we hold all the cards.
Has the EU stolen them whilst DD wasn't looking.
There are no cards. It's not a game.
Perhaps someone should tell the Government.
No point , half of them think they're Churchill. The other half too busy arguing .
The tweet is a very heavily spun version of what Rees Mogg actually said
His view is we are going to lose jobs to robots regardless of whether or not you have immigration
Yep, that is what he said in the Panorama, specifically that robots would replace the jobs of our children and grandchildren. Presumably his own will be fine.
We could even have chosen to do what the EU has done and produced our own, detailed texts about withdrawal and the future trade agreement. But we decided not to.
Yes, well, unfortunately the Government has spent the last year trying to come up with a plan for 'soft Brexit' to appease Remainers such as yourself (and Hammond and Rudd) - which as any Leaver could have told you was a fools errand. There was never any 'soft Brexit' option because all that would have been possible was EEA and that was never an option due to FOM.
If we had not needed to deal with the Remainer whinging, the Government might have focussed on the realities - that all we ever should have been looking for was an FTA in the first place.
The current problem is that there is no point signing a CETA deal that does not include services. If we are going to have the border friction (because the EU is too childish to negotiate advanced border processes) then we might as well charge tariffs at the same time. Trade deals are about mutual advantage, and with the traded goods deficit we either get services or there is no point for the UK.
Right now, May should insist that if we sign a CETA style deal then it must not involve EU cherry picking - there can be no discussions of fishing rights, ECJ, tying the UK into EU macro regulations, any discussions on free movement - eg the stuff that is not in the CETA deal at all. And if we can't get a reasonable annex on services, we should opt for WTO as this would be an economically superior option.
So it sounds as though it's one of the more obscure V agents (the commoner ines would have been more quickly detected), or a Novichok agent. This really cannot be anything else but a state sanctioned attack, and Putin has plenty of form with chemical weapons - which he has most recently demonstrated backing his new best buddy in Syria.
Surely the big issue, as far as we are concerned, is that Leave didn’t set out a coherent plan for how we left. It was just “leave the EU” and set of vague suggestions.
Dither, division and dunderhead ministers have been the hallmarks since the vote.
As I indicated at the moment of the vote LEAVE win the government had to immediately grasp the nettle. Place the article 50 vote to parliament within the week, formally advise the EU that the UK would leave the EU on 1st January 2019 with no transition period.
No general election was required as the PM promised. EU resident citizens to remain, business allowed to focus on certainty of the exit date and a full plan to be put to parliament and the EU within six months.
Instead we have a government of all the talentless with bumbling ineptitude the normal order of the day.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
Unless you want no trade at all with Europe, then we have a great deal of interest in their rules. Are you a fan of autarky ?
The tweet is a very heavily spun version of what Rees Mogg actually said
His view is we are going to lose jobs to robots regardless of whether or not you have immigration
Yep, that is what he said in the Panorama, specifically that robots would replace the jobs of our children and grandchildren. Presumably his own will be fine.
Are you implying he’s a robot?
It would explain a lot. Aliens watched too much Jeeves and Wooster and modelled their androids accordingly, including the power of replication.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg and I claim nanny to supervise the Cabinet for the next two years ....
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
Not all, but most. And there are areas they need us more than we need them.
There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
Not all, but most. And there are areas they need us more than we need them.
Apart from the technology for the jam butty mines and exporting humour implants to the Germans, I'm not too sure where the EU really "need us" ?
I didn't see a forecast last night, but apparently it didn't predict heavy snowfall anyway. It was constant and thick when I went out, although only an inch or two had settled so I'd guess it hadn't been snowing long. Meant to be relatively warm today, so I wonder if it'll melt rapidly.
It seems to be there is an eternal paradox in discussions about who are the beneficiaries of various aspects of trade agreements. Which is that public pronouncements are entirely focussed on the presumed needs/wants of the producer and rarely, if ever, focus on the consequences for the consumer.
If country A has a product that country B wants to buy then it is in the interests of country B to facilitate this as much as possible. It seems to me that this potential reality is what is missing in this whole debate. Arguments about "no deal" are focussed almost entirely on the consequences for UK Banks or German carmakers. And little on the consequences for EU businesses that currently utilise the services of UK banks or the UK consumers who purchase German cars.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.
Where is this EU brain that is having these thoughts? And how come you know so much about what it is thinking?
I didn't see a forecast last night, but apparently it didn't predict heavy snowfall anyway. It was constant and thick when I went out, although only an inch or two had settled so I'd guess it hadn't been snowing long. Meant to be relatively warm today, so I wonder if it'll melt rapidly.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
Not all, but most. And there are areas they need us more than we need them.
Apart from the technology for the jam butty mines and exporting humour implants to the Germans, I'm not too sure where the EU really "need us" ?
Tell that to the fishermen of Le Havre.....or the Belgian Police.....
Mr. W, whilst the Highlands are, I'm sure, lovely [does Loch Lomond count? Only part of Scotland I've stayed at], I dwell in the snowy realm of Yorkshire.
Surely the big issue, as far as we are concerned, is that Leave didn’t set out a coherent plan for how we left. It was just “leave the EU” and set of vague suggestions.
Dither, division and dunderhead ministers have been the hallmarks since the vote.
As I indicated at the moment of the vote LEAVE win the government had to immediately grasp the nettle. Place the article 50 vote to parliament within the week, formally advise the EU that the UK would leave the EU on 1st January 2019 with no transition period.
No general election was required as the PM promised. EU resident citizens to remain, business allowed to focus on certainty of the exit date and a full plan to be put to parliament and the EU within six months.
Instead we have a government of all the talentless with bumbling ineptitude the normal order of the day.
To be fair, the brighter parts of the Government, and of the Tory party (although that’s not saying much) didn’t want to Leave. Including May and Hammond! However Cameron added to his many mistakes by refusing to allow the Civil Sefvice to prepare a contingency plan, which would have had the added bonus of showing what a dreadful idea Leaving was.
There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.
"and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne)..."
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.
There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.
There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.
"and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne)..."
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.
I agree up to a point, but anyone who's been anywhere near the avoidance industry knows that the moment an anti-avoidance scheme is announced, an army of people get to work on undermining it. What I argued for as 1 of 650 MPs was an exreme form of GAAP - in effect, anyone with unusual tax arrangements would need to explain why they were not tax avoidance. That would mean that things designed to be tax-free - ISAs, for instance - would be afine, but anything complex and impenetrable would be assumed to be avoidance unless otherwise proved.
Mr. W, whilst the Highlands are, I'm sure, lovely [does Loch Lomond count? Only part of Scotland I've stayed at], I dwell in the snowy realm of Yorkshire.
The Highlands are indeed lovely, Mr. Dancer. But not a patch on the west coast. Truly, one of the most sublime spots on the planet. And having seen a fair chunk of said planet, I am reasonably placed to judge.
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.
Not all, but most. And there are areas they need us more than we need them.
Apart from the technology for the jam butty mines and exporting humour implants to the Germans, I'm not too sure where the EU really "need us" ?
Tell that to the fishermen of Le Havre.....or the Belgian Police.....
Not too sure of the huge macro significance of the French fishermen pinching jam butty technology?!?
The Belgian police terrorism aspect is hardly a fundamental aspect of the EU and may easily be dealt with outside the EU as indeed we interact with friendly non EU countries.
There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.
Like!
+2. Except I'd be tempted just to take back control to coin a phrase over places like the British Virgin Islands and less tempted to give them a choice.
There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.
"and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne)..."
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.
I agree up to a point, but anyone who's been anywhere near the avoidance industry knows that the moment an anti-avoidance scheme is announced, an army of people get to work on undermining it. What I argued for as 1 of 650 MPs was an exreme form of GAAP - in effect, anyone with unusual tax arrangements would need to explain why they were not tax avoidance. That would mean that things designed to be tax-free - ISAs, for instance - would be afine, but anything complex and impenetrable would be assumed to be avoidance unless otherwise proved.
Did I get anywhere with that? Nah.
You mean "evasion" not "avoidance", just for clarity.
However the problem I guess is that often the Government introduces schemes which are specifically motivated by appealing to the base instincts of rich people to avoid tax. Tax breaks for the film industry weren't introduced because it was thought that there was a whole army of rich people just chomping at the bit to invest it in if only they had a tax incentive to do so. They were introduced so that the interests of two independent things (the film industry wanting investment, and rich people wanting to avoid tax) would coincide.
Mr. W, whilst the Highlands are, I'm sure, lovely [does Loch Lomond count? Only part of Scotland I've stayed at], I dwell in the snowy realm of Yorkshire.
Loch Lomond falls south of the Highlands, but of course the white rose county is a Jacobite ally ..
There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.
"and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne)..."
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.
I agree up to a point, but anyone who's been anywhere near the avoidance industry knows that the moment an anti-avoidance scheme is announced, an army of people get to work on undermining it. What I argued for as 1 of 650 MPs was an exreme form of GAAP - in effect, anyone with unusual tax arrangements would need to explain why they were not tax avoidance. That would mean that things designed to be tax-free - ISAs, for instance - would be afine, but anything complex and impenetrable would be assumed to be avoidance unless otherwise proved.
Did I get anywhere with that? Nah.
You need to have better poachers turned gamekeeprs advising Parliament. Employ the twenty best acknoweldged experts in the field - on an incentive package. Say 1% of everything over the current tax take.
I am an unusual beast, in that I have always taken the view that paying tax is my price for living. I have never used any form of tax avoidance scheme. I have never even had an ISA. I have never employed an accountant. At least I can feel good about saving their fees!) And it has no doubt cost me very, very large amounts of money - given I have over the years paid very very large amount of tax. But I sleep well at night, knowing no-one can accuse me of not having done my bit.
And yes, I get very annoyed when some others get very tricksy with their tax affairs. But equally, when some of that tax I have paid gets pissed up a wall by government.
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.
Where is this EU brain that is having these thoughts? And how come you know so much about what it is thinking?
I hate to explain it again but the UK will have to follow EU rules in many areas as if it creates its own rules peope may well ignore them. The French set an additional set of rules for medical devices a few years ago which meant that you need the French Govt approval to get paid for a device sold to the state hospitals. A good Brexit style take control of the rules process.
The result is that almost none of my customers are interested in launching their devices in France and if they do it can be as much as 10 years after they are initially launched. Medtech companies avoid investing in French production and the doctors often move abroad to get access to the latest technology.
It is widely seen in our industry as a typical French shoot yourself in the foot approach. Cannot help but thinking our Govt going the same way.
PS Avoid French hospitals if you can they are mostly very poor. German and Dutch are probably the best in Europe.
My interpretation of leaving the EU at the time of the referendum was we leave, adopt WTO rules until an appropriate trade deal with the EU can be forged over eight to ten years of negotiations. That is what Cameron and Osborne said would happen. That is why I voted remain, not because the EU is some virtuous paragon that I love, but that the alternative appeared infinitely worse.
Cameron promised and gave us a binary choice, in or out. There was no option for soft-Brexit or BINO. Cameron and Osborne explained that if we leave because we don't like freedom of movement then we are out of the single market and out of the club.
Leavers who claim the EU are not being fair to the UK because they won't bend the rules to accommodate our every whim are in cloud cuckoo land. If Brexit means Brexit, next March we crash out with no deal and live with the consequences. If it turns into the armageddon that Osborne predicted perhaps we need to revisit with a new referendum sometime sooner rather that later. If after initially following WTO rules we eventually reach Johnson's sunlit uplands of unilateral trade deals with everyone, then happy days!
Comments
I suspect it will be quite a limited deal - given the red lines TM has set out.
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
UK has substantial surplus in services
EU want deal only on goods (oh and fisheries, security and defence)
Maybe the UK's opening gambit should have been 'deal only on services'.
The EU's primary objective is to 'keep the show on the road' which means leaving has got to be worse than staying in - and if that results in short term pain for all concerned so be it - its a price worth paying - but that's 'pro-EU', not 'anti-British'. They'd do the same if any other member was leaving.
The UK on the other hand is trying to minimise any damage while maximising control.
There will be a deal, of sorts, but no one will like it much.
The UK left the club, as was our right, but we now do not choose the rules by which the club plays. The club holds all the cards and may stack it as they wish in their best interest.
This is the reality of the UK's sovereign decision.
1. A managed UK withdrawal from the EU
2. A subsequent EU/UK FTA
In both cases, the UK has left it to the EU to produce the documents around which the negotiations will take place. That is not the EU's fault. The simple fact is that if you leave it to the other side to frame the negotiation, the negotiation will be based on the terns the other side sets out. And the other side will inevitably frame things in the way that is most advantageous to itself.
Let’s hope the adults involved in the actual negotiations are better than the politicians and journalists spouting off about them in public.
Anyway, work to do, which is infinitely more productive and useful than being on here!
His view is we are going to lose jobs to robots regardless of whether or not you have immigration
Has the EU stolen them whilst DD wasn't looking.
There is no concept of "travelling drafts". The EU will keep very tight control of all the documents that are going to be produced. Ultimately, it's a feature of their deep insecurity. We have to live with their paranoia that someone else might try to do what was supposedly impossible - and leave.
And still some here would say we should pamper that paranoia - by not leaving. If we stayed, they wouldn't have reason to be paranoid, they say. Well, it's a view.
The British ambivalence to migration was nicely highlighted in the programme.
If we had not needed to deal with the Remainer whinging, the Government might have focussed on the realities - that all we ever should have been looking for was an FTA in the first place.
The current problem is that there is no point signing a CETA deal that does not include services. If we are going to have the border friction (because the EU is too childish to negotiate advanced border processes) then we might as well charge tariffs at the same time. Trade deals are about mutual advantage, and with the traded goods deficit we either get services or there is no point for the UK.
Right now, May should insist that if we sign a CETA style deal then it must not involve EU cherry picking - there can be no discussions of fishing rights, ECJ, tying the UK into EU macro regulations, any discussions on free movement - eg the stuff that is not in the CETA deal at all. And if we can't get a reasonable annex on services, we should opt for WTO as this would be an economically superior option.
Wonder if John McDonnel will condemn.
This really cannot be anything else but a state sanctioned attack, and Putin has plenty of form with chemical weapons - which he has most recently demonstrated backing his new best buddy in Syria.
As I indicated at the moment of the vote LEAVE win the government had to immediately grasp the nettle. Place the article 50 vote to parliament within the week, formally advise the EU that the UK would leave the EU on 1st January 2019 with no transition period.
No general election was required as the PM promised. EU resident citizens to remain, business allowed to focus on certainty of the exit date and a full plan to be put to parliament and the EU within six months.
Instead we have a government of all the talentless with bumbling ineptitude the normal order of the day.
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/police-‘poo-watch’-ends-after-suspect-refuses-to-use-toilet-for-47-days/ar-BBJYCeC?ocid=spartandhp
Now where did I leave my tinfoil?
Snow!
I didn't see a forecast last night, but apparently it didn't predict heavy snowfall anyway. It was constant and thick when I went out, although only an inch or two had settled so I'd guess it hadn't been snowing long. Meant to be relatively warm today, so I wonder if it'll melt rapidly.
Edited extra bit: the third day of testing is up here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/formula1/43287922
If country A has a product that country B wants to buy then it is in the interests of country B to facilitate this as much as possible. It seems to me that this potential reality is what is missing in this whole debate. Arguments about "no deal" are focussed almost entirely on the consequences for UK Banks or German carmakers. And little on the consequences for EU businesses that currently utilise the services of UK banks or the UK consumers who purchase German cars.
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.
Did I get anywhere with that? Nah.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/08/how-many-murders-can-a-police-informer-get-away-with
I don't think there's an easy answer.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/a-very-eu-coup-martin-selmayrs-astonishing-power-grab/
The Belgian police terrorism aspect is hardly a fundamental aspect of the EU and may easily be dealt with outside the EU as indeed we interact with friendly non EU countries.
Except I'd be tempted just to take back control to coin a phrase over places like the British Virgin Islands and less tempted to give them a choice.
However the problem I guess is that often the Government introduces schemes which are specifically motivated by appealing to the base instincts of rich people to avoid tax. Tax breaks for the film industry weren't introduced because it was thought that there was a whole army of rich people just chomping at the bit to invest it in if only they had a tax incentive to do so. They were introduced so that the interests of two independent things (the film industry wanting investment, and rich people wanting to avoid tax) would coincide.
Mr. Mark, west coast of Scotland, or are you revealing yourself to be a Lancaphile?
I am an unusual beast, in that I have always taken the view that paying tax is my price for living. I have never used any form of tax avoidance scheme. I have never even had an ISA. I have never employed an accountant. At least I can feel good about saving their fees!) And it has no doubt cost me very, very large amounts of money - given I have over the years paid very very large amount of tax. But I sleep well at night, knowing no-one can accuse me of not having done my bit.
And yes, I get very annoyed when some others get very tricksy with their tax affairs. But equally, when some of that tax I have paid gets pissed up a wall by government.
The result is that almost none of my customers are interested in launching their devices in France and if they do it can be as much as 10 years after they are initially launched. Medtech companies avoid investing in French production and the doctors often move abroad to get access to the latest technology.
It is widely seen in our industry as a typical French shoot yourself in the foot approach. Cannot help but thinking our Govt going the same way.
PS Avoid French hospitals if you can they are mostly very poor. German and Dutch are probably the best in Europe.
NEW THREAD
On their way to the Isle of Mull.....
Cameron promised and gave us a binary choice, in or out. There was no option for soft-Brexit or BINO. Cameron and Osborne explained that if we leave because we don't like freedom of movement then we are out of the single market and out of the club.
Leavers who claim the EU are not being fair to the UK because they won't bend the rules to accommodate our every whim are in cloud cuckoo land. If Brexit means Brexit, next March we crash out with no deal and live with the consequences. If it turns into the armageddon that Osborne predicted perhaps we need to revisit with a new referendum sometime sooner rather that later. If after initially following WTO rules we eventually reach Johnson's sunlit uplands of unilateral trade deals with everyone, then happy days!