1. We want sausages for tea tonight. 2. It's 9:45pm and all the shops close at 10pm. 3. I go to Aldi and they offer me sausages for £1.99. 4. I refuse. 5. I go without sausages for tea because all other shops are now closed.
Is it Aldi's fault I am without sausages for tea?
The answer is no.
Tea is a drink.
Dinner and supper are the only realistic names for that 9.45pm meal.
Supper? Are you from the 19th century?
I'm just the grandson of immigrants to this country, I'm just going by what I was taught by my teachers.
A better analogy than the Aldi sausages would be the pink coloured welder that you can only buy in the middle aisle at Aldi. You have to pay Aldi's price of £17.99 or do without? After brexit, it will cost £25.99. Do you still buy it?
1. We want sausages for tea tonight. 2. It's 9:45pm and all the shops close at 10pm. 3. I go to Aldi and they offer me sausages for £1.99. 4. I refuse. 5. I go without sausages for tea because all other shops are now closed.
Is it Aldi's fault I am without sausages for tea?
The answer is no.
Tea is a drink.
Dinner and supper are the only realistic names for that 9.45pm meal.
1. We want sausages for tea tonight. 2. It's 9:45pm and all the shops close at 10pm. 3. I go to Aldi and they offer me sausages for £1.99. 4. I refuse. 5. I go without sausages for tea because all other shops are now closed.
Is it Aldi's fault I am without sausages for tea?
The answer is no.
Tea is a drink.
Dinner and supper are the only realistic names for that 9.45pm meal.
Supper? Are you from the 19th century?
I'm just the grandson of immigrants to this country, I'm just going by what I was taught by my teachers.
Ah, the days when Britain was still a supper-power.
Mr. 64, I hope Hamilton is absolutely feeling fine but can't race.
Last weekend was great, and part of that was due to his absence. Not his fault, combination of car and driver is practically unbeatable, but far better for things to be competitive at the sharp end.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
That's not quite right though, because in this scenario we aren't talking about Nonsuchia violating the original terms, but the UK changing them unilaterally, and potentially in a manner that deliberately harms Nonsuchia.
Yes but that's life. The fact is that at the moment all is well between the two nations. When things change then decisions would have to be made. If they, the EU, change the terms of trade in 5 yrs we can say sod off.
What's the point in saying sod off now?
Because there's a lack of trust.
Better to face the issues head on now than to kick the can and be left over a barrel.
1. We want sausages for tea tonight. 2. It's 9:45pm and all the shops close at 10pm. 3. I go to Aldi and they offer me sausages for £1.99. 4. I refuse. 5. I go without sausages for tea because all other shops are now closed.
Is it Aldi's fault I am without sausages for tea?
The answer is no.
Tea is a drink.
Dinner and supper are the only realistic names for that 9.45pm meal.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
That's not quite right though, because in this scenario we aren't talking about Nonsuchia violating the original terms, but the UK changing them unilaterally, and potentially in a manner that deliberately harms Nonsuchia.
Yes but that's life. The fact is that at the moment all is well between the two nations. When things change then decisions would have to be made. If they, the EU, change the terms of trade in 5 yrs we can say sod off.
What's the point in saying sod off now?
This is the essence of the deal I am (still) expecting. FOM ends. Fish repatriated. LPF accepted with option for future divergence at a price. Yep.
Good news. We can all stop pretending to respect Dawkins' self-regarding, tortuous pontifications on matters he has little clue about now.
I respect your view to have such a opinion on Richard Dawkins....that's how it works right?
No! You say I'm a complete tosser who isn't fit to lick the great logician's boots.
C'mon, get with the program.
Programme.
Program. ZERO respect for spelling pedants.
Tosser.
Usage of program and programme:
US: program is the only spelling normally used. UK: programme is used in all cases except for computer code, in which case program is generally used. Older sources may use programme for computer code. Canada: both program and programme are used, but program is more common. Australia: program is endorsed by the Macquarie Dictionary and is frequently used in both formal and informal settings. New Zealand: programme is favoured by New Zealand dictionaries, and is endorsed by government usage; program is rarely seen outside the computing meaning.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
That's not quite right though, because in this scenario we aren't talking about Nonsuchia violating the original terms, but the UK changing them unilaterally, and potentially in a manner that deliberately harms Nonsuchia.
Yes but that's life. The fact is that at the moment all is well between the two nations. When things change then decisions would have to be made. If they, the EU, change the terms of trade in 5 yrs we can say sod off.
What's the point in saying sod off now?
Because there's a lack of trust.
Better to face the issues head on now than to kick the can and be left over a barrel.
Mr. Eagles, a meal that late is probably supper. Or tea.
You'd know that if you'd ever visited Yorkshire.
I see your knowledge of geography is nearly as bad your grasp of history.
1) I spent the first nineteen years of my life in South Yorkshire
2) I've spent the last seven years living in South Yorkshire
3) I also spent four years living in North Yorkshire
3) I spent six years working in Leeds, West Yorkshire
4) I've been a member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club since 2005
I couldn't be any more any more Yorkshire if my name was Yorky Yorkface
Liverpool FC isn't located in Yorkshire, historic or otherwise!
That's just a result of the time I grew up in.
There used to be about 12 matches a season shown live on TV and 11 of them featured Liverpool.
Because English football was plagued by hooliganism and it wasn't exactly welcoming for non white supporters I was barred from going to any matches, so I gravitated towards Liverpool.
I am not sure that tweet is correct....did they mean England?
The infection rate across Wales now stands at 326.8 per 100,000 people based on the seven days up to December 5. This is an increase from 308.3 on Monday. However, PHW said that due to a lag in receiving data, the most recent incidence is likely to be an underestimate.
Neath Port Talbot is the local authority with the highest infection rate in Wales with a seven day rate of 632.2 per 100,000 population, up from 621.7 the day before.
Blaenau Gwent has the second highest rate with 555.4 cases per 100,000 population, up from 529.6 on Monday.
Merthyr Tydfil is in third with 527.1 cases per 100,000 population, up from 499 on one day earlier.
Caviar Launches $6,000+ Custom iPhone 12 Pro With Fragment of Steve Jobs' Original Turtleneck Embedded in Apple Logo.
Caviar, a site known for creating extravagant, expensive replacement casings for Apple's iPhone models, today announced the launch of its latest custom creation, an iPhone 12 Pro customized in the style of an iPhone 4.
The "iPhone 12 Pro Jobs 4" collection is dedicated to Steve Jobs and the 10th anniversary of the iPhone 4 – the last model to be personally presented by Jobs – and features iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max models in blackened titanium, white, and a luxury gold version....
...According to Caviar, the white model is made of composite G10 covered with jewelry enamel and its apple logo is made of 925 sterling silver, while the gold model is made of genuine 18 karat gold and its apple logo is crafted from 750 gold.
Good news. We can all stop pretending to respect Dawkins' self-regarding, tortuous pontifications on matters he has little clue about now.
I respect your view to have such a opinion on Richard Dawkins....that's how it works right?
No! You say I'm a complete tosser who isn't fit to lick the great logician's boots.
C'mon, get with the program.
Programme.
Program. ZERO respect for spelling pedants.
Tosser.
Usage of program and programme:
US: program is the only spelling normally used. UK: programme is used in all cases except for computer code, in which case program is generally used. Older sources may use programme for computer code. Canada: both program and programme are used, but program is more common. Australia: program is endorsed by the Macquarie Dictionary and is frequently used in both formal and informal settings. New Zealand: programme is favoured by New Zealand dictionaries, and is endorsed by government usage; program is rarely seen outside the computing meaning.
Good news. We can all stop pretending to respect Dawkins' self-regarding, tortuous pontifications on matters he has little clue about now.
I respect your view to have such a opinion on Richard Dawkins....that's how it works right?
No! You say I'm a complete tosser who isn't fit to lick the great logician's boots.
C'mon, get with the program.
Programme.
Program. ZERO respect for spelling pedants.
Tosser.
Usage of program and programme:
US: program is the only spelling normally used. UK: programme is used in all cases except for computer code, in which case program is generally used. Older sources may use programme for computer code. Canada: both program and programme are used, but program is more common. Australia: program is endorsed by the Macquarie Dictionary and is frequently used in both formal and informal settings. New Zealand: programme is favoured by New Zealand dictionaries, and is endorsed by government usage; program is rarely seen outside the computing meaning.
Exactly! Respect due to both spellings - although of course you don't have to.
UK: programme is used in all cases except for computer code, in which case program is generally used. Older sources may use programme for computer code.
Mr. Eagles, a meal that late is probably supper. Or tea.
You'd know that if you'd ever visited Yorkshire.
I see your knowledge of geography is nearly as bad your grasp of history.
1) I spent the first nineteen years of my life in South Yorkshire
2) I've spent the last seven years living in South Yorkshire
3) I also spent four years living in North Yorkshire
3) I spent six years working in Leeds, West Yorkshire
4) I've been a member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club since 2005
I couldn't be any more any more Yorkshire if my name was Yorky Yorkface
Liverpool FC isn't located in Yorkshire, historic or otherwise!
That's just a result of the time I grew up in.
There used to be about 12 matches a season shown live on TV and 11 of them featured Liverpool.
Because English football was plagued by hooliganism and it wasn't exactly welcoming for non white supporters I was barred from going to any matches, so I gravitated towards Liverpool.
That's a very long-winded way of writing "I'm a glory supporter".
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
The question isn’t whether he is stupid, in an intellectual sense, but whether he has been stupid in a strategic sense, boxing himself in so thoroughly that the political price he would pay for reaching a compromise is greater than the political price he risks paying for subjecting chaos upon the rest of us.
Politicians seem to like these self inflicted straightjackets, making them as cast iron promises (such as the no tax or NI rises) or even writing them needlessly into legislation (such as the no further extension). Such antics rarely age well. When I was young, politicians did their best to keep their options open.
Caviar Launches $6,000+ Custom iPhone 12 Pro With Fragment of Steve Jobs' Original Turtleneck Embedded in Apple Logo.
Caviar, a site known for creating extravagant, expensive replacement casings for Apple's iPhone models, today announced the launch of its latest custom creation, an iPhone 12 Pro customized in the style of an iPhone 4.
The "iPhone 12 Pro Jobs 4" collection is dedicated to Steve Jobs and the 10th anniversary of the iPhone 4 – the last model to be personally presented by Jobs – and features iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max models in blackened titanium, white, and a luxury gold version....
...According to Caviar, the white model is made of composite G10 covered with jewelry enamel and its apple logo is made of 925 sterling silver, while the gold model is made of genuine 18 karat gold and its apple logo is crafted from 750 gold.
Some people on here fail to understand that it's not a strong hand if the other side can and does walk away.
That's called overplaying your hand.
That is a calculation for the side with the strong hand to make. The calculation for the other side is whether the harm done by walking away is worth it.
The problem this is an issue of principle
Jurisdictional control would be bad but happens (eg with the US). It would be odd for the 5th largest economy to accept but not implausible
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
That's not quite right though, because in this scenario we aren't talking about Nonsuchia violating the original terms, but the UK changing them unilaterally, and potentially in a manner that deliberately harms Nonsuchia.
Yes but that's life. The fact is that at the moment all is well between the two nations. When things change then decisions would have to be made. If they, the EU, change the terms of trade in 5 yrs we can say sod off.
What's the point in saying sod off now?
I do agree with that. Clearly we meet the EU's standards today and we've already said we aren't going to regress.
The questions I would have are: Who gets to assess changes and determine whether they materially affect a market? Are material changes in the market for one good able to be used to trigger a retaliation in the market for another one? Would a single breach invalidate the whole agreement? What actually constitutes a LPF if we can have different tax rates and wage laws already?
Mr. Eagles, a meal that late is probably supper. Or tea.
You'd know that if you'd ever visited Yorkshire.
I see your knowledge of geography is nearly as bad your grasp of history.
1) I spent the first nineteen years of my life in South Yorkshire
2) I've spent the last seven years living in South Yorkshire
3) I also spent four years living in North Yorkshire
3) I spent six years working in Leeds, West Yorkshire
4) I've been a member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club since 2005
I couldn't be any more any more Yorkshire if my name was Yorky Yorkface
Liverpool FC isn't located in Yorkshire, historic or otherwise!
That's just a result of the time I grew up in.
There used to be about 12 matches a season shown live on TV and 11 of them featured Liverpool.
Because English football was plagued by hooliganism and it wasn't exactly welcoming for non white supporters I was barred from going to any matches, so I gravitated towards Liverpool.
That's a very long-winded way of writing "I'm a glory supporter".
Good news. We can all stop pretending to respect Dawkins' self-regarding, tortuous pontifications on matters he has little clue about now.
I respect your view to have such a opinion on Richard Dawkins....that's how it works right?
No! You say I'm a complete tosser who isn't fit to lick the great logician's boots.
C'mon, get with the program.
Programme.
Program. ZERO respect for spelling pedants.
Tosser.
You're welcome - it's my pleasure. Anything I can do to help.
Why do you object to US spelling you complete infant who I now find it almost impossible to respect?
UK: programme is used in all cases except for computer code, in which case program is generally used. Older sources may use programme for computer code.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
I will accept that analogy. My (the) point is why worry about it now? We have 10 years of happy trading and then need to make a decision. Even if the EU says actually we only accept goods made by people who are left-handed that's fine also. Because today they aren't saying that and when or if they do say it we can tell them to eff off.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
That's not quite right though, because in this scenario we aren't talking about Nonsuchia violating the original terms, but the UK changing them unilaterally, and potentially in a manner that deliberately harms Nonsuchia.
Yes but that's life. The fact is that at the moment all is well between the two nations. When things change then decisions would have to be made. If they, the EU, change the terms of trade in 5 yrs we can say sod off.
What's the point in saying sod off now?
I do agree with that. Clearly we meet the EU's standards today and we've already said we aren't going to regress.
The questions I would have are: Who gets to assess changes and determine whether they materially affect a market? Are material changes in the market for one good able to be used to trigger a retaliation in the market for another one? Would a single breach invalidate the whole agreement? What actually constitutes a LPF if we can have different tax rates and wage laws already?
Possibly these have already been answered...
All good questions, there are probably 10 people on the planet who can answer them!
My point is that we live in an uncertain and changing age. Anyone can make demands on anyone else and that party has the right to accept or reject them.
It's like saying you dislike someone you've never met because if you had met they would have insulted you.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
We have the same rights. The whole proposal is symmetric.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
That's not quite right though, because in this scenario we aren't talking about Nonsuchia violating the original terms, but the UK changing them unilaterally, and potentially in a manner that deliberately harms Nonsuchia.
Yes but that's life. The fact is that at the moment all is well between the two nations. When things change then decisions would have to be made. If they, the EU, change the terms of trade in 5 yrs we can say sod off.
What's the point in saying sod off now?
Because there's a lack of trust.
Better to face the issues head on now than to kick the can and be left over a barrel.
Bizarre to say there's a lack of trust?
Or bizarre to say agreeing principles should be done now during the negotiations?
It's not unusual to have the option of retaliatory tariffs, but that normally happens under WTO rules. Under FTA rules normally there is arbitration first.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
I will accept that analogy. My (the) point is why worry about it now? We have 10 years of happy trading and then need to make a decision. Even if the EU says actually we only accept goods made by people who are left-handed that's fine also. Because today they aren't saying that and when or if they do say it we can tell them to eff off.
Sure we can, but the moment we do that our exports to the EU are suddenly much less competitive than internal goods or goods from Canada, Japan and other countries where the EU isn't able to apply tariffs for not signing up to whatever random rules which they decide to come up with. In fact there is a perverse incentive for the the Commission to specifically target the UK with these kinds of regulations as they know it won't apply to their other trade deals and they also know that internally the adherence will be fairly low.
I want the UK and EU to have a trade deal, I think it would be beneficial for both sides. I don't think any terms of trade which gives either side the right to apply tariffs unilaterally makes sense. I'd be saying the same if we had put forwards such an idiotic proposal.
Edit: our whole relationship with the EU has been "why worry about it now" until the moment we had to worry about it and it fucked us over. The Lisbon treaty and giving up veto power in areas which were important to us should be a pretty good lesson on why you can't take that attitude with the EU. They will use whatever leverage they have to fuck us over. Don't put them in a position where they can do so.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
That's a different part of the deal, the ratchet isn't the same as the lightning tariffs. The latter are proposed for when the UK doesn't take up whatever new regulations the EU decides changes the LPF. It gives the EU the right to worsen trade terms for the UK in a way it doesn't for other nations they have trade deals with.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
But thats not the proposal which as I understand it we raise it to 21, then if nonesuchia doesn't we can apply tariffs. This then puts nonesuchia in a bind because it will apply nationally and not just to goods they trade with us and will have an impact on all their other trade.
Mr. Eagles, a meal that late is probably supper. Or tea.
You'd know that if you'd ever visited Yorkshire.
I see your knowledge of geography is nearly as bad your grasp of history.
1) I spent the first nineteen years of my life in South Yorkshire
2) I've spent the last seven years living in South Yorkshire
3) I also spent four years living in North Yorkshire
3) I spent six years working in Leeds, West Yorkshire
4) I've been a member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club since 2005
I couldn't be any more any more Yorkshire if my name was Yorky Yorkface
Liverpool FC isn't located in Yorkshire, historic or otherwise!
That's just a result of the time I grew up in.
There used to be about 12 matches a season shown live on TV and 11 of them featured Liverpool.
Because English football was plagued by hooliganism and it wasn't exactly welcoming for non white supporters I was barred from going to any matches, so I gravitated towards Liverpool.
That's a very long-winded way of writing "I'm a glory supporter".
Honestly I was loyal even under the Hodgson era.
It's a real fine line between "loyal" and "sad".....
Mr. Eagles, a meal that late is probably supper. Or tea.
You'd know that if you'd ever visited Yorkshire.
I see your knowledge of geography is nearly as bad your grasp of history.
1) I spent the first nineteen years of my life in South Yorkshire
2) I've spent the last seven years living in South Yorkshire
3) I also spent four years living in North Yorkshire
3) I spent six years working in Leeds, West Yorkshire
4) I've been a member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club since 2005
I couldn't be any more any more Yorkshire if my name was Yorky Yorkface
Liverpool FC isn't located in Yorkshire, historic or otherwise!
That's just a result of the time I grew up in.
There used to be about 12 matches a season shown live on TV and 11 of them featured Liverpool.
Because English football was plagued by hooliganism and it wasn't exactly welcoming for non white supporters I was barred from going to any matches, so I gravitated towards Liverpool.
That's a very long-winded way of writing "I'm a glory supporter".
Honestly I was loyal even under the Hodgson era.
It's a real fine line between "loyal" and "sad".....
Or he doesn't care about Londoners snuffing it (I can see the logic).
Thats still half the Wales infection rate, good old circuit breaker
The circuit break worked, what the useless clowns did AFTER is the problem. But don't let fact get in the way of your narrative.
No it didn't.....it didn't squash down infection rates anywhere near enough. It needed to be a lot longer, which was the whole argument in the first place.
The month in England probably wasn't enough, not if you want this hall pass at Christmas.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
I will accept that analogy. My (the) point is why worry about it now? We have 10 years of happy trading and then need to make a decision. Even if the EU says actually we only accept goods made by people who are left-handed that's fine also. Because today they aren't saying that and when or if they do say it we can tell them to eff off.
Sure we can, but the moment we do that our exports to the EU are suddenly much less competitive than internal goods or goods from Canada, Japan and other countries where the EU isn't able to apply tariffs for not signing up to whatever random rules which they decide to come up with. In fact there is a perverse incentive for the the Commission to specifically target the UK with these kinds of regulations as they know it won't apply to their other trade deals and they also know that internally the adherence will be fairly low.
I want the UK and EU to have a trade deal, I think it would be beneficial for both sides. I don't think any terms of trade which gives either side the right to apply tariffs unilaterally makes sense. I'd be saying the same if we had put forwards such an idiotic proposal.
Edit: our whole relationship with the EU has been "why worry about it now" until the moment we had to worry about it and it fucked us over. The Lisbon treaty and giving up veto power in areas which were important to us should be a pretty good lesson on why you can't take that attitude with the EU. They will use whatever leverage they have to fuck us over. Don't put them in a position where they can do so.
Even though it was bizarre pantomine, the Lisbon Treaty was signed by the head of our democratically elected government.
And as for our goods being less competitive if they arbitrarily apply tariffs, that is their right. We can no more forbid them from applying tariffs than they can forbid us from doing the same. If they decided they wanted to apply tariffs unilaterally we could either apply tariffs ourselves or walk away.
Today it looks like we want to walk away before any of this has happened.
(I don't think we will walk away but what a sh*tshow.)
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
That's a different part of the deal, the ratchet isn't the same as the lightning tariffs. The latter are proposed for when the UK doesn't take up whatever new regulations the EU decides changes the LPF. It gives the EU the right to worsen trade terms for the UK in a way it doesn't for other nations they have trade deals with.
The unilateral tariff response is an alternative to the ratchet clause after the UK rejected the latter during the summer. If the UK doesn't like the unilateral tariffs it should sign up to the ratchet clause.
Good news. We can all stop pretending to respect Dawkins' self-regarding, tortuous pontifications on matters he has little clue about now.
I respect your view to have such a opinion on Richard Dawkins....that's how it works right?
No! You say I'm a complete tosser who isn't fit to lick the great logician's boots.
C'mon, get with the program.
Programme.
Program. ZERO respect for spelling pedants.
Tosser.
You're welcome - it's my pleasure. Anything I can do to help.
Why do you object to US spelling you complete infant who I now find it almost impossible to respect?
UK: programme is used in all cases except for computer code, in which case program is generally used. Older sources may use programme for computer code.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
That's a different part of the deal, the ratchet isn't the same as the lightning tariffs. The latter are proposed for when the UK doesn't take up whatever new regulations the EU decides changes the LPF. It gives the EU the right to worsen trade terms for the UK in a way it doesn't for other nations they have trade deals with.
The unilateral tariff response is an alternative to the ratchet clause after the UK rejected the latter during the summer. If the UK doesn't like the unilateral tariffs it should sign up to the ratchet clause.
In a flurry of announcements, the European commission said it would legislate to temporarily allow airlines from the UK to operate flights across its territory and keep roads open to British hauliers and buses.
The EU will also offer British fishermen access to its seas and open negotiations over quotas, if the UK government reciprocates. But the commission said the offer was for a limited period and it was only willing to act to avoid the worst disruption, including the risk of “public disorder”.
In a move that will only serve to irritate the British government in the context of the troubled talks on a future trade deal, the commission also insisted its offer depended on the UK having “equivalent” regulations....
It's clear they are going to try and jam it into whatever they can and we should reject it every time. They're proposing an economic blockade if they refuse to let UK flights use the airspace, that will last about 3 seconds in any arbitration process. Haulage is the one area where they do hold the cards, but at the same time they benefit a lot more from reciprocal access rather than using rail/sea shipping and then domestic haulage.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that in many countries in the EU, their minimum wage is considerably lower than ours??
That is a great find. Trump is such an ignorant, jealous, dishonest, and repugnant creep. If Trump was a work of fiction, rather than the current President as he unfortunately is, we'd find his character far-fetched and think that the author was a hack.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
But thats not the proposal which as I understand it we raise it to 21, then if nonesuchia doesn't we can apply tariffs. This then puts nonesuchia in a bind because it will apply nationally and not just to goods they trade with us and will have an impact on all their other trade.
That is the alternative proposal after we rejected the ratchet clause.
It's clear they are going to try and jam it into whatever they can and we should reject it every time. They're proposing an economic blockade if they refuse to let UK flights use the airspace, that will last about 3 seconds in any arbitration process. Haulage is the one area where they do hold the cards, but at the same time they benefit a lot more from reciprocal access rather than using rail/sea shipping and then domestic haulage.
Yes - really interesting that they are literally threatening an economic blockade. That tells me their current offer stinks, and they need to be told to fuck off.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
It's clear they are going to try and jam it into whatever they can and we should reject it every time. They're proposing an economic blockade if they refuse to let UK flights use the airspace, that will last about 3 seconds in any arbitration process. Haulage is the one area where they do hold the cards, but at the same time they benefit a lot more from reciprocal access rather than using rail/sea shipping and then domestic haulage.
Yes - I didn't post it with any sense of approval, but as an indication of how far away the two sides appear to be from agreement.
FTSE very stable today and over last few days - suggests not concerned by prospect of no deal.
Is this because fall in pound from no deal would boost FTSE earnings such as to offset any damage to UK economy?
Or does market think there wouldn't be any substantial (long term) damage?
The UK market has somewhat underperformed others in the last couple of years, mainly because of the continuing uncertainty related to Brexit. I suspect that there is quite a lot of bad news in the prices already. The expectation from our fund manager is that if there is no deal there will be modest turbulence but if there is a deal there is a very significant upside in the UK market, for FTSE 250 companies in particular.
It's clear they are going to try and jam it into whatever they can and we should reject it every time. They're proposing an economic blockade if they refuse to let UK flights use the airspace, that will last about 3 seconds in any arbitration process. Haulage is the one area where they do hold the cards, but at the same time they benefit a lot more from reciprocal access rather than using rail/sea shipping and then domestic haulage.
Yes - I didn't post it with any sense of approval, but as an indication of how far apart the two sides appear to be from agreement.
Indeed, it's been clear since the start of the process that the LPF would end in disagreement and no deal.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that in many countries in the EU, their minimum wage is considerably lower than ours??
That's why countries like France resisted EU enlargement, while the UK was a vocal supporter. Minimum wages aren't an EU competency anyway and so aren't covered by the LPF provisions.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
I'm very much looking forwards to brexit meaning brexit for the EU. No more security and intelligence cooperation, no more fishing waters, EU companies setting up capitalised subsidiary companies in the UK to get access to finance.
The desperation in their no deal contingency is really quite telling. That they feel the need to threaten the UK with what amounts to an economic blockade shows just how fragile their position actually is.
If only Boris had got an extra year or two to get the national infrastructure ready for no deal. In that position it really would be a no brainer. As it stands there is going to be a year or two of very difficult decision making and lots of upheaval in employment and industry. It's going to happen either way because the UK will never agree to the LPF and governance positions held by the EU, but we're going into it completely unprepared and in the shadow of a global pandemic which we're yet to recover from.
I remember being told last year that the UK would simply agree to the LPF and the EU would win whatever it was they were asking for by all of the usual suspects. For the whole year I've been saying that no UK government (Tory or Labour) would ever agree to either the LPF or governance that gave the EU unilateral right to apply tariffs without arbitration. Now it's happening because the EU didn't negotiate on either of those positions. It ending in no deal.
There is no way that once the UK assumes its territorial waters, the ability to set regulations and a post action arbitration via the WTO it will ever give them up as part of any deal with any nation or trading bloc. The EU are making a grave miscalculation and it's going to cost us what could have been a pretty good trade deal.
If it's a No Deal Brexit on 1st Jan 2021 then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy from the UK.
I don't want it but we need to hit them where it hurts. We've already managed to upset them now by approving a vaccine early so they're far more sensitive and fragile than they let on.
No deal is entirely our fault. Stop this nonsense, it isn't a game.
No, it absolutely isn't. I've always wanted a Deal, as you know - and I've been consistent in arguing against Leavers who've said the opposite - but if I what I understand to be true is the case (and none of us really know) then I wouldn't sign what's currently on the table. I'd be comfortable I'd been reasonable and proportionate in going up to and creatively around my red lines, but not clearly over them.
And, if it's No Deal, then that works both ways. The EU need to know that.
1. We want a trade deal. 2. The EU have offered us a trade deal. 3. We've turned it down because we don't like the terms.
1. I want some sausages. 2. Aldi offer me some sausages for £1.99. 3. I don't want to buy Aldi's sausages because they're too expensive.
Is it Aldi's fault I don't have any sausages?
It is Aldi's loss when Sainsbury's, Lidl, Tescos will sell me sausages at £1.75.
Why did we go to Aldi in the first place?
We were paying a large annual fee for an Aldi loyalty card, but have stopped that so can now shop around.
Why were we paying a large annual fee for a loyalty card when we could at any time, as @MarqueeMark explains, have gone to Sainsbury's, Lidl, and Tescos to get the sausages cheaper?
The membership fee made those shops more expensive as part of the terms of membership.
They were cheaper.
OK I'm happy to relinquish this analogy.
As to the LPF here's another one.
Imagine we as the UK said we would trade with Nonsuchia as long as they didn't use child labour. For 10 years they don't use child labour and then they begin to use it. As such, at that time we stop trading with them. They violated our terms of trade.
The EU is demanding the right to alter the terms of trade at some point in the future at which point we can make a decision not to trade with them. Why make that decision now?
No, that's not what's happening though. The UK has already agreed to the principle of no backsliding from an agreed baseline.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
But that's not what happens under a ratchet clause. The analogy would be the UK raising its definition of child labour to 21 (with no retaliation), then nonsuchia raises their definition to 21 too, reflecting a new international consensus and the new norm. Then nonsuchia a few years down the line decides that employing teenagers is cheaper and they can take some business off us, and cut the definition back to 16. At that point, the ratchet clause kicks in and we apply tariffs. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
But thats not the proposal which as I understand it we raise it to 21, then if nonesuchia doesn't we can apply tariffs. This then puts nonesuchia in a bind because it will apply nationally and not just to goods they trade with us and will have an impact on all their other trade.
That is the alternative proposal after we rejected the ratchet clause.
And it should be equally rejected as its one sided just as much as the ratchet clause was.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
Honestly, the analogies are more irritating than a gross of Twitter re-posts.
At least they are being used to grapple some fairly complex issues in this thread. Unlike our daily digest of being told we're hurtling toward a cliff edge whilst shooting ourselves in the foot and trying to have our cake and eat it.
Analogies have been deployed here in order to explain aspects of Brexit since before the referendum itself. Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Yes, they make it hard to see the wood for the trees.
Also, one of the reasons why the LPF matters is that the EU want the deal to cover all areas of the UK/EU relationship. So they can unilaterally make the terms of trade worse for the UK (the bit we're interested in) but leave the wider deal unaffected including security cooperation, fishing rights and shipping from all of which the EU benefits a great deal more than the UK.
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
But if they unilaterally worsen the terms of trade we can tell them to sod off.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Yeah we already did it once, but I think building a relationship where we don't need to use the nuclear option is a better long term foundation for a relationship. Otherwise we're just waiting for the day where we tell to get fucked again.
So we tell them to fuck off now in order to avoid the possibility of maybe having to tell them to fuck off at some unspecified time in the future? Makes sense, great!
Yes because the reality will be that we will accept their stupid proposals for a long time before we decide to fuck them off, all the while it makes the whole economy uncompetitive which is essentially what the LPF is designed to do, to ensure that the UK economy never becomes competitive with the EU for a larger share of global trade.
LPF is designed to prevent the EU being forced into becoming a deregulated low wage shithole in just because the Tories decide that's what we deserve. It's a sensible precaution.
Except that it was the Tories that introduced the national living wage and a whole host of employee protections. It's a Tory government that signed us up to various climate agreements and the net zero pledge. Get off your high horse.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I don't understand the problem with the ratchet clause version of alignment. If it's sensible to not regress from current shared standards now, surely it's also sensible to not regress from future shared standards. Norms change over time, after all.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Doesn't it in fact prove that we were right all along and that these things are important and a bad deal is worse than no deal?
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.
It's very amusing, in a grim way, to see various Leavers' indignation at the fact that the EU is following the approach which the Leavers advocate for the UK - no deal better than a bad deal, sovereignty, sticking to their principles, holding and being prepared to use the cards, being prepared to walk away...
Doesn't it in fact prove that we were right all along and that these things are important and a bad deal is worse than no deal?
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.
Comments
Tosser.
Patriots, one and all.
Last weekend was great, and part of that was due to his absence. Not his fault, combination of car and driver is practically unbeatable, but far better for things to be competitive at the sharp end.
And it'd be great to see Russell notch up a win.
1) I spent the first nineteen years of my life in South Yorkshire
2) I've spent the last seven years living in South Yorkshire
3) I also spent four years living in North Yorkshire
3) I spent six years working in Leeds, West Yorkshire
4) I've been a member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club since 2005
I couldn't be any more any more Yorkshire if my name was Yorky Yorkface
Better to face the issues head on now than to kick the can and be left over a barrel.
https://twitter.com/JoshTANoble/status/1337007017479839745/photo/1
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1337046069952262148
US: program is the only spelling normally used.
UK: programme is used in all cases except for computer code, in which case program is generally used. Older sources may use programme for computer code.
Canada: both program and programme are used, but program is more common.
Australia: program is endorsed by the Macquarie Dictionary and is frequently used in both formal and informal settings.
New Zealand: programme is favoured by New Zealand dictionaries, and is endorsed by government usage; program is rarely seen outside the computing meaning.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/program
There used to be about 12 matches a season shown live on TV and 11 of them featured Liverpool.
Because English football was plagued by hooliganism and it wasn't exactly welcoming for non white supporters I was barred from going to any matches, so I gravitated towards Liverpool.
The infection rate across Wales now stands at 326.8 per 100,000 people based on the seven days up to December 5. This is an increase from 308.3 on Monday. However, PHW said that due to a lag in receiving data, the most recent incidence is likely to be an underestimate.
Neath Port Talbot is the local authority with the highest infection rate in Wales with a seven day rate of 632.2 per 100,000 population, up from 621.7 the day before.
Blaenau Gwent has the second highest rate with 555.4 cases per 100,000 population, up from 529.6 on Monday.
Merthyr Tydfil is in third with 527.1 cases per 100,000 population, up from 499 on one day earlier.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/coronavirus-infection-rates-cases-deaths-19414459
Caviar Launches $6,000+ Custom iPhone 12 Pro With Fragment of Steve Jobs' Original Turtleneck Embedded in Apple Logo.
Caviar, a site known for creating extravagant, expensive replacement casings for Apple's iPhone models, today announced the launch of its latest custom creation, an iPhone 12 Pro customized in the style of an iPhone 4.
The "iPhone 12 Pro Jobs 4" collection is dedicated to Steve Jobs and the 10th anniversary of the iPhone 4 – the last model to be personally presented by Jobs – and features iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max models in blackened titanium, white, and a luxury gold version....
...According to Caviar, the white model is made of composite G10 covered with jewelry enamel and its apple logo is made of 925 sterling silver, while the gold model is made of genuine 18 karat gold and its apple logo is crafted from 750 gold.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/12/10/caviar-launches-custom-iphone-12-pro/
I'm absolutely gutted that I've already bought my 12 Pro Max otherwise I'd have ordered this.
To use your analogy, and I know PB loves a good analogy, the UK and Nonsuchia agree a trade deal which says "no child labour on any products exported between the two, child labour constitutes any labour involving children under the age of 16" then ten years down the road the UK updates it's definition of child labour to be "any person under the age of 21". We apply that to the existing trade deal and because of our new definition are able to apply punitive tariffs unless Nonsuchia agrees to eliminate labour by any person under the age of 21.
It's clearly possible for us to do that and as the lesser party Nonsuchia may just have to agree with it and put all of their 16-20 year olds out of work but that's what the EU are proposing. That they can change their rules and we either sign up or face tariffs. It's not about us changing our rules or lowering the agreed baseline on regulations or standards, it's about them deciding change them and us being subjected to them while other nations with which the EU havr trade deals wouldn't be.
Politicians seem to like these self inflicted straightjackets, making them as cast iron promises (such as the no tax or NI rises) or even writing them needlessly into legislation (such as the no further extension). Such antics rarely age well. When I was young, politicians did their best to keep their options open.
Jurisdictional control would be bad but happens (eg with the US). It would be odd for the 5th largest economy to accept but not implausible
Dynamic LPF is a matter of principle
The questions I would have are:
Who gets to assess changes and determine whether they materially affect a market?
Are material changes in the market for one good able to be used to trigger a retaliation in the market for another one?
Would a single breach invalidate the whole agreement?
What actually constitutes a LPF if we can have different tax rates and wage laws already?
Possibly these have already been answered...
Why do you object to US spelling you complete infant who I now find it almost impossible to respect?
This is why the LPF/Governance combination is unacceptable.
The EU wants something much wider than a trade deal but simultaneously wants the unilateral right to worsen the actual trade terms with us without the right of retaliation by the UK other than deciding we've had enough and abrogating the treaty. Sounds familiar.
My point is that we live in an uncertain and changing age. Anyone can make demands on anyone else and that party has the right to accept or reject them.
It's like saying you dislike someone you've never met because if you had met they would have insulted you.
We are a sovereign nation. (Always were, obvs.)
Or bizarre to say agreeing principles should be done now during the negotiations?
It's not unusual to have the option of retaliatory tariffs, but that normally happens under WTO rules. Under FTA rules normally there is arbitration first.
I want the UK and EU to have a trade deal, I think it would be beneficial for both sides. I don't think any terms of trade which gives either side the right to apply tariffs unilaterally makes sense. I'd be saying the same if we had put forwards such an idiotic proposal.
Edit: our whole relationship with the EU has been "why worry about it now" until the moment we had to worry about it and it fucked us over. The Lisbon treaty and giving up veto power in areas which were important to us should be a pretty good lesson on why you can't take that attitude with the EU. They will use whatever leverage they have to fuck us over. Don't put them in a position where they can do so.
Is this because fall in pound from no deal would boost FTSE earnings such as to offset any damage to UK economy?
Or does market think there wouldn't be any substantial (long term) damage?
The month in England probably wasn't enough, not if you want this hall pass at Christmas.
"Oh, shut up!"
And as for our goods being less competitive if they arbitrarily apply tariffs, that is their right. We can no more forbid them from applying tariffs than they can forbid us from doing the same. If they decided they wanted to apply tariffs unilaterally we could either apply tariffs ourselves or walk away.
Today it looks like we want to walk away before any of this has happened.
(I don't think we will walk away but what a sh*tshow.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/10/raab-eu-must-make-substantial-shift-for-brexit-talks-to-succeed
The EU has offered to keep planes, coaches and freight operating across Europe for six months after a no-deal exit – if the government agrees to maintain a “level playing field” in standards, the issue that has dogged the trade and security talks.
In a flurry of announcements, the European commission said it would legislate to temporarily allow airlines from the UK to operate flights across its territory and keep roads open to British hauliers and buses.
The EU will also offer British fishermen access to its seas and open negotiations over quotas, if the UK government reciprocates. But the commission said the offer was for a limited period and it was only willing to act to avoid the worst disruption, including the risk of “public disorder”.
In a move that will only serve to irritate the British government in the context of the troubled talks on a future trade deal, the commission also insisted its offer depended on the UK having “equivalent” regulations....
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1337055803866574853
I presume that the scam is an attempt to open fake bank accounts or credit cards in the name of the 'deceased'.
Invariably they obfuscate rather than explain.
Explicatory analogies are like unlaundered pants.
Ok Ok.
I was just seeking to implement the new Cambridge rule of "No Respect" on here with all you tossers, kind of a trial, see how it works.
Seems to have got derailed and well & truly backfired.
Honestly.
Not what one expects from a Liberal Democrat.
Anyway, the UK has agreed to baseline standards and non-regression clauses wrt to the baseline and binding arbitration for it. The level of the baseline is up for debate but I'm sure a suitable one could easily be found if the EU dropped the future alignment crap.
I mentioned the other day that one of the biggest increases in frauds these days is related to death.
Is one of the reasons banks seem a bit harsh when you have to deal with them when your partner/family member sadly dies.
I'd suggest to you all that you keep your address, email, and phone numbers up to date.
The EU agrees with leavers in the UK, at any rate.