politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The ORB Brexit tracker continues to oscillate between free tra
Options
Comments
-
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
0 -
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument0 -
He’s doing his job - not much point getting annoyed about it.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
I suspect it will be quite a limited deal - given the red lines TM has set out.0 -
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
0 -
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.0 -
EU has substantial surplus in goodsSandpit said:
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
UK has substantial surplus in services
EU want deal only on goods (oh and fisheries, security and defence)
Maybe the UK's opening gambit should have been 'deal only on services'.0 -
I think we have different objectives.Sandpit said:
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
The EU's primary objective is to 'keep the show on the road' which means leaving has got to be worse than staying in - and if that results in short term pain for all concerned so be it - its a price worth paying - but that's 'pro-EU', not 'anti-British'. They'd do the same if any other member was leaving.
The UK on the other hand is trying to minimise any damage while maximising control.
There will be a deal, of sorts, but no one will like it much.0 -
@OchEye is correct.Sandpit said:
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
The UK left the club, as was our right, but we now do not choose the rules by which the club plays. The club holds all the cards and may stack it as they wish in their best interest.
This is the reality of the UK's sovereign decision.0 -
The EU is a rules based bureaucracy, and those rules are not very flexible. This was never going to be wheeling dealing fly by the seat of your pants negotiation, at least on their side. Barnier has respected our red lines, but that severely constrains what can be done. We could have set different red lines but chose not to do so. Ultimately it was our choice to have a minimal deal.Sandpit said:
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
0 -
There are two distinct parts to this:Sandpit said:
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
1. A managed UK withdrawal from the EU
2. A subsequent EU/UK FTA
In both cases, the UK has left it to the EU to produce the documents around which the negotiations will take place. That is not the EU's fault. The simple fact is that if you leave it to the other side to frame the negotiation, the negotiation will be based on the terns the other side sets out. And the other side will inevitably frame things in the way that is most advantageous to itself.0 -
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
0 -
It would only be interesting if her account of Trump's peccadillos matches the earlier Russian allegations (or if Trump were a Democrat but he isn't).CarlottaVance said:Nothing to see - no sireeee!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/us/politics/stormy-daniels-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur0 -
I'm pretty sure the card holding situation was amply clarified by Gove just before the referendum.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
0 -
We could even have chosen to do what the EU has done and produced our own, detailed texts about withdrawal and the future trade agreement. But we decided not to.Foxy said:
The EU is a rules based bureaucracy, and those rules are not very flexible. This was never going to be wheeling dealing fly by the seat of your pants negotiation, at least on their side. Barnier has respected our red lines, but that severely constrains what can be done. We could have set different red lines but chose not to do so. Ultimately it was our choice to have a minimal deal.Sandpit said:
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
0 -
It’s almost as if the EU think they hold all the cards and we’ll happily roll over and sign anything.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
Let’s hope the adults involved in the actual negotiations are better than the politicians and journalists spouting off about them in public.
Anyway, work to do, which is infinitely more productive and useful than being on here!0 -
Being a majority of 1 against 27 ain't really going to work! A Nigel Farage telling Cameron or May what to do, when he didn't have any elected UKIP MP's (the 2 he ended up with were defectors from the Tories) isn't really a good game plan to follow when the other 27 countries don't really give a damn about the UK......SouthamObserver said:
We could even have chosen to do what the EU has done and produced our own, detailed texts about withdrawal and the future trade agreement. But we decided not to.Foxy said:
The EU is a rules based bureaucracy, and those rules are not very flexible. This was never going to be wheeling dealing fly by the seat of your pants negotiation, at least on their side. Barnier has respected our red lines, but that severely constrains what can be done. We could have set different red lines but chose not to do so. Ultimately it was our choice to have a minimal deal.Sandpit said:
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.0 -
Surely the big issue, as far as we are concerned, is that Leave didn’t set out a coherent plan for how we left. It was just “leave the EU” and set of vague suggestions.JackW said:
@OchEye is correct.Sandpit said:
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll do it the correct way by updating tariff schedules for non-MFN countries at the WTO, as rcs suggested on here at the time. His constant Twitterings and talk of punishment are going to cause problems with others - just as the EU doing the same to the UK makes no deal more likely.rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.
The UK left the club, as was our right, but we now do not choose the rules by which the club plays. The club holds all the cards and may stack it as they wish in their best interest.
This is the reality of the UK's sovereign decision.0 -
Sandpit said:OchEye said:
A negotiation is something that happens .Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know)rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
Not only is the UK negotiating in bad faith, in that we really don't have any sort of coherent plan or objective, we can't even keep what little we do have without someone else trying to put changes into the mix. We cannot demand anything, we cannot negotiate rule changes or cherry pick what rules we want when we are not members of the club - If you decided to leave your golf club, what would be the response if while your resignation was in place, you wanted all the other members to play with left handed clubs and used a football instead of a golf ball.Sandpit said:
A negotiation is something that happens to come to an agreement between two parties. If one party tells the other that’s it’s his way or the highway - and his way is massively one sided - then it shouldn’t be a surprise if the other party thinks that no deal is preferable to a bad deal.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...Sandpit said:
If he has any sense (yes, I know) then he’ll .rkrkrk said:
I still think he will only do symbolic tariffs at most... he just wants to look tough.Sandpit said:
How many more of his trade and commerce advisors have to resign, before he realises that a trade war is a bad idea?rkrkrk said:Trump softening on tariffs - adding exemptions for Mexico and Canada... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325060
IMO the EU are not negotiating in good faith, and appear to be more interested in the politics of seeing the UK “punished” than in the economics of continuing trade.0 -
The tweet is a very heavily spun version of what Rees Mogg actually saidFoxy said:
It is rather good, and even handed:bigjohnowls said:We've got enough ducky!
Highlight of Panorama programme to me.
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/971489024216100865?s=19
His view is we are going to lose jobs to robots regardless of whether or not you have immigration0 -
Lionesses lose via own goal. Well, at least it wasn't penalties....0
-
I thought Richalrdl Nbavi said we hold all the cards.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
Has the EU stolen them whilst DD wasn't looking.0 -
There are no cards. It's not a game.bigjohnowls said:
I thought Richalrdl Nbavi said we hold all the cards.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
Has the EU stolen them whilst DD wasn't looking.0 -
Because the EU would have put any text we produced straight in the bin.SouthamObserver said:
We could even have chosen to do what the EU has done and produced our own, detailed texts about withdrawal and the future trade agreement. But we decided not to.
There is no concept of "travelling drafts". The EU will keep very tight control of all the documents that are going to be produced. Ultimately, it's a feature of their deep insecurity. We have to live with their paranoia that someone else might try to do what was supposedly impossible - and leave.
And still some here would say we should pamper that paranoia - by not leaving. If we stayed, they wouldn't have reason to be paranoid, they say. Well, it's a view.0 -
Yep, that is what he said in the Panorama, specifically that robots would replace the jobs of our children and grandchildren. Presumably his own will be fine.Charles said:
The tweet is a very heavily spun version of what Rees Mogg actually saidFoxy said:
It is rather good, and even handed:bigjohnowls said:We've got enough ducky!
Highlight of Panorama programme to me.
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/971489024216100865?s=19
His view is we are going to lose jobs to robots regardless of whether or not you have immigration
The British ambivalence to migration was nicely highlighted in the programme.0 -
Perhaps someone should tell the Government.Jonathan said:
There are no cards. It's not a game.bigjohnowls said:
I thought Richalrdl Nbavi said we hold all the cards.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
Has the EU stolen them whilst DD wasn't looking.0 -
No point , half of them think they're Churchill. The other half too busy arguing .bigjohnowls said:
Perhaps someone should tell the Government.Jonathan said:
There are no cards. It's not a game.bigjohnowls said:
I thought Richalrdl Nbavi said we hold all the cards.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
Has the EU stolen them whilst DD wasn't looking.0 -
Are you implying he’s a robot?Foxy said:
Yep, that is what he said in the Panorama, specifically that robots would replace the jobs of our children and grandchildren. Presumably his own will be fine.Charles said:
The tweet is a very heavily spun version of what Rees Mogg actually saidFoxy said:
It is rather good, and even handed:bigjohnowls said:We've got enough ducky!
Highlight of Panorama programme to me.
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/971489024216100865?s=19
His view is we are going to lose jobs to robots regardless of whether or not you have immigration0 -
Yes, well, unfortunately the Government has spent the last year trying to come up with a plan for 'soft Brexit' to appease Remainers such as yourself (and Hammond and Rudd) - which as any Leaver could have told you was a fools errand. There was never any 'soft Brexit' option because all that would have been possible was EEA and that was never an option due to FOM.SouthamObserver said:
We could even have chosen to do what the EU has done and produced our own, detailed texts about withdrawal and the future trade agreement. But we decided not to.
If we had not needed to deal with the Remainer whinging, the Government might have focussed on the realities - that all we ever should have been looking for was an FTA in the first place.
The current problem is that there is no point signing a CETA deal that does not include services. If we are going to have the border friction (because the EU is too childish to negotiate advanced border processes) then we might as well charge tariffs at the same time. Trade deals are about mutual advantage, and with the traded goods deficit we either get services or there is no point for the UK.
Right now, May should insist that if we sign a CETA style deal then it must not involve EU cherry picking - there can be no discussions of fishing rights, ECJ, tying the UK into EU macro regulations, any discussions on free movement - eg the stuff that is not in the CETA deal at all. And if we can't get a reasonable annex on services, we should opt for WTO as this would be an economically superior option.0 -
Sheffield Council Leader Julie Sawed says she has received death threats over the Councils tree removal programme.
Wonder if John McDonnel will condemn.0 -
So it sounds as though it's one of the more obscure V agents (the commoner ines would have been more quickly detected), or a Novichok agent.CarlottaVance said:Salisbury gets even more worrying - policeman now in coma:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5750698/russian-spy-poisoning-sergei-skripal-salisbury-latest-ill-nerve-agent-first-police-coma/
This really cannot be anything else but a state sanctioned attack, and Putin has plenty of form with chemical weapons - which he has most recently demonstrated backing his new best buddy in Syria.
0 -
Dither, division and dunderhead ministers have been the hallmarks since the vote.OldKingCole said:Surely the big issue, as far as we are concerned, is that Leave didn’t set out a coherent plan for how we left. It was just “leave the EU” and set of vague suggestions.
As I indicated at the moment of the vote LEAVE win the government had to immediately grasp the nettle. Place the article 50 vote to parliament within the week, formally advise the EU that the UK would leave the EU on 1st January 2019 with no transition period.
No general election was required as the PM promised. EU resident citizens to remain, business allowed to focus on certainty of the exit date and a full plan to be put to parliament and the EU within six months.
Instead we have a government of all the talentless with bumbling ineptitude the normal order of the day.0 -
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.0 -
Wow!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/police-‘poo-watch’-ends-after-suspect-refuses-to-use-toilet-for-47-days/ar-BBJYCeC?ocid=spartandhp0 -
Unless you want no trade at all with Europe, then we have a great deal of interest in their rules. Are you a fan of autarky ?archer101au said:
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
0 -
It would explain a lot. Aliens watched too much Jeeves and Wooster and modelled their androids accordingly, including the power of replication.AlastairMeeks said:
Are you implying he’s a robot?Foxy said:
Yep, that is what he said in the Panorama, specifically that robots would replace the jobs of our children and grandchildren. Presumably his own will be fine.Charles said:
The tweet is a very heavily spun version of what Rees Mogg actually saidFoxy said:
It is rather good, and even handed:bigjohnowls said:We've got enough ducky!
Highlight of Panorama programme to me.
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/971489024216100865?s=19
His view is we are going to lose jobs to robots regardless of whether or not you have immigration
Now where did I leave my tinfoil?
0 -
You are Jacob Rees-Mogg and I claim nanny to supervise the Cabinet for the next two years ....archer101au said:
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.0 -
Not all, but most. And there are areas they need us more than we need them.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument0 -
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.dixiedean said:
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.franklyn said:There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
0 -
Apart from the technology for the jam butty mines and exporting humour implants to the Germans, I'm not too sure where the EU really "need us" ?CarlottaVance said:
Not all, but most. And there are areas they need us more than we need them.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Snow!
I didn't see a forecast last night, but apparently it didn't predict heavy snowfall anyway. It was constant and thick when I went out, although only an inch or two had settled so I'd guess it hadn't been snowing long. Meant to be relatively warm today, so I wonder if it'll melt rapidly.
Edited extra bit: the third day of testing is up here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/formula1/432879220 -
It seems to be there is an eternal paradox in discussions about who are the beneficiaries of various aspects of trade agreements. Which is that public pronouncements are entirely focussed on the presumed needs/wants of the producer and rarely, if ever, focus on the consequences for the consumer.
If country A has a product that country B wants to buy then it is in the interests of country B to facilitate this as much as possible. It seems to me that this potential reality is what is missing in this whole debate. Arguments about "no deal" are focussed almost entirely on the consequences for UK Banks or German carmakers. And little on the consequences for EU businesses that currently utilise the services of UK banks or the UK consumers who purchase German cars.0 -
Where is this EU brain that is having these thoughts? And how come you know so much about what it is thinking?archer101au said:
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.0 -
What part of the Highlands are you visiting?Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Snow!
I didn't see a forecast last night, but apparently it didn't predict heavy snowfall anyway. It was constant and thick when I went out, although only an inch or two had settled so I'd guess it hadn't been snowing long. Meant to be relatively warm today, so I wonder if it'll melt rapidly.0 -
Tell that to the fishermen of Le Havre.....or the Belgian Police.....JackW said:
Apart from the technology for the jam butty mines and exporting humour implants to the Germans, I'm not too sure where the EU really "need us" ?CarlottaVance said:
Not all, but most. And there are areas they need us more than we need them.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument0 -
Mr. W, whilst the Highlands are, I'm sure, lovely [does Loch Lomond count? Only part of Scotland I've stayed at], I dwell in the snowy realm of Yorkshire.0
-
To be fair, the brighter parts of the Government, and of the Tory party (although that’s not saying much) didn’t want to Leave. Including May and Hammond! However Cameron added to his many mistakes by refusing to allow the Civil Sefvice to prepare a contingency plan, which would have had the added bonus of showing what a dreadful idea Leaving was.JackW said:
Dither, division and dunderhead ministers have been the hallmarks since the vote.OldKingCole said:Surely the big issue, as far as we are concerned, is that Leave didn’t set out a coherent plan for how we left. It was just “leave the EU” and set of vague suggestions.
As I indicated at the moment of the vote LEAVE win the government had to immediately grasp the nettle. Place the article 50 vote to parliament within the week, formally advise the EU that the UK would leave the EU on 1st January 2019 with no transition period.
No general election was required as the PM promised. EU resident citizens to remain, business allowed to focus on certainty of the exit date and a full plan to be put to parliament and the EU within six months.
Instead we have a government of all the talentless with bumbling ineptitude the normal order of the day.0 -
"and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne)..."NickPalmer said:
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.dixiedean said:
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.franklyn said:There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.0 -
Sky News - Police officer in the nerve agent attack "awake and engaging with doctors."0
-
Like!NickPalmer said:
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.dixiedean said:
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.franklyn said:There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
0 -
I agree up to a point, but anyone who's been anywhere near the avoidance industry knows that the moment an anti-avoidance scheme is announced, an army of people get to work on undermining it. What I argued for as 1 of 650 MPs was an exreme form of GAAP - in effect, anyone with unusual tax arrangements would need to explain why they were not tax avoidance. That would mean that things designed to be tax-free - ISAs, for instance - would be afine, but anything complex and impenetrable would be assumed to be avoidance unless otherwise proved.MarqueeMark said:
"and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne)..."NickPalmer said:
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.dixiedean said:
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.franklyn said:There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.
Did I get anywhere with that? Nah.0 -
Interesting and to my mind pretty shocking discussion of the dilemmas involved in running terrorist informants:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/08/how-many-murders-can-a-police-informer-get-away-with
I don't think there's an easy answer.0 -
The Highlands are indeed lovely, Mr. Dancer. But not a patch on the west coast. Truly, one of the most sublime spots on the planet. And having seen a fair chunk of said planet, I am reasonably placed to judge.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, whilst the Highlands are, I'm sure, lovely [does Loch Lomond count? Only part of Scotland I've stayed at], I dwell in the snowy realm of Yorkshire.
0 -
-
Jean Qautremer of Liberation writes for the Spectator:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/a-very-eu-coup-martin-selmayrs-astonishing-power-grab/0 -
Not too sure of the huge macro significance of the French fishermen pinching jam butty technology?!?CarlottaVance said:
Tell that to the fishermen of Le Havre.....or the Belgian Police.....JackW said:
Apart from the technology for the jam butty mines and exporting humour implants to the Germans, I'm not too sure where the EU really "need us" ?CarlottaVance said:
Not all, but most. And there are areas they need us more than we need them.SouthamObserver said:
It's almost as if the EU holds all the cards and we need them more than they need us.CarlottaVance said:
I hope so - but it is funny how 'no cherry picking' does not extend to fisheries, security or defence......and how 'no one ever had Financial Services in a Trade Deal' was not what M. Barnier was arguing with the Americans when he tried to negotiate a deal with them.....rkrkrk said:
I still think it’s highly likely a deal will be done.CarlottaVance said:Hammond puts 'no deal' back on the table:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/philip-hammond-reignites-the-no-deal-brexit-argument
The Belgian police terrorism aspect is hardly a fundamental aspect of the EU and may easily be dealt with outside the EU as indeed we interact with friendly non EU countries.0 -
+2.OldKingCole said:
Like!NickPalmer said:
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.dixiedean said:
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.franklyn said:There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
Except I'd be tempted just to take back control to coin a phrase over places like the British Virgin Islands and less tempted to give them a choice.0 -
You mean "evasion" not "avoidance", just for clarity.NickPalmer said:
I agree up to a point, but anyone who's been anywhere near the avoidance industry knows that the moment an anti-avoidance scheme is announced, an army of people get to work on undermining it. What I argued for as 1 of 650 MPs was an exreme form of GAAP - in effect, anyone with unusual tax arrangements would need to explain why they were not tax avoidance. That would mean that things designed to be tax-free - ISAs, for instance - would be afine, but anything complex and impenetrable would be assumed to be avoidance unless otherwise proved.MarqueeMark said:
"and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne)..."NickPalmer said:
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.dixiedean said:
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.franklyn said:There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.
Did I get anywhere with that? Nah.
However the problem I guess is that often the Government introduces schemes which are specifically motivated by appealing to the base instincts of rich people to avoid tax. Tax breaks for the film industry weren't introduced because it was thought that there was a whole army of rich people just chomping at the bit to invest it in if only they had a tax incentive to do so. They were introduced so that the interests of two independent things (the film industry wanting investment, and rich people wanting to avoid tax) would coincide.
0 -
Mr. W, good news about the policeman.
Mr. Mark, west coast of Scotland, or are you revealing yourself to be a Lancaphile?
0 -
Loch Lomond falls south of the Highlands, but of course the white rose county is a Jacobite ally ..Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, whilst the Highlands are, I'm sure, lovely [does Loch Lomond count? Only part of Scotland I've stayed at], I dwell in the snowy realm of Yorkshire.
0 -
You need to have better poachers turned gamekeeprs advising Parliament. Employ the twenty best acknoweldged experts in the field - on an incentive package. Say 1% of everything over the current tax take.NickPalmer said:
I agree up to a point, but anyone who's been anywhere near the avoidance industry knows that the moment an anti-avoidance scheme is announced, an army of people get to work on undermining it. What I argued for as 1 of 650 MPs was an exreme form of GAAP - in effect, anyone with unusual tax arrangements would need to explain why they were not tax avoidance. That would mean that things designed to be tax-free - ISAs, for instance - would be afine, but anything complex and impenetrable would be assumed to be avoidance unless otherwise proved.MarqueeMark said:
"and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne)..."NickPalmer said:
Win, win, then. The way Britain pretends to deplore tax evasion (sic) and even legal tax avoidance (to quote George Osborne) while maintaining a fleet of islands and Ciy experts to promote it to Chinese, Russian and Saudi billionaires is deeply embarassing. The tax havens should be given a choice of phasing out their seedy practices or becoming independent pariah states, ideally as part of a wider OECD effort.dixiedean said:
Yes, but. The entire economic model of some of these places would then be shot.franklyn said:There is a simple way to destroy Putin, and that is to freeze the assets of his kleptocrat chums. Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; freezing their squillions held in banks in British Overseas Territories will paralyse them quicker than any nervegas
It's not quoting George Osborne. Tax avoidance is legal. End of. If you wanted to move legal avoidance into the illegal evasion column, then perhaps the answer is for a hell of a better job in oversight of legislation, to ensure those avoidance loopholes aren't there in the first place. How many of these loopholes are down to being exploited when you were an MP? Shoulder some of the blame, Nick.
Did I get anywhere with that? Nah.
I am an unusual beast, in that I have always taken the view that paying tax is my price for living. I have never used any form of tax avoidance scheme. I have never even had an ISA. I have never employed an accountant. At least I can feel good about saving their fees!) And it has no doubt cost me very, very large amounts of money - given I have over the years paid very very large amount of tax. But I sleep well at night, knowing no-one can accuse me of not having done my bit.
And yes, I get very annoyed when some others get very tricksy with their tax affairs. But equally, when some of that tax I have paid gets pissed up a wall by government.0 -
I hate to explain it again but the UK will have to follow EU rules in many areas as if it creates its own rules peope may well ignore them. The French set an additional set of rules for medical devices a few years ago which meant that you need the French Govt approval to get paid for a device sold to the state hospitals. A good Brexit style take control of the rules process.Recidivist said:
Where is this EU brain that is having these thoughts? And how come you know so much about what it is thinking?archer101au said:
You have completely missed the point. Once we leave the EU we have no further interest in their rules. What we are now talking about is a negotiation between two independent entities.OchEye said:
The EU is not threatening the UK, quite simply they are telling the UK that the rules that the UK and the other 27 have signed up for, are the ones that are are going to be used in the future. It is like a drunken driver trying to explain to the police why the law doesn't apply to them, that the police have a duty to drive them home, get them fed, bathed, pyjama'd and then get into bed with them - or else they will drive off themselves. Somehow, can't see it turning out well for driver...
Canada doesn't follow EU rules. Neither does South Korea. Why should we?
The issue is that the EU think they should have economic hegemony over the whole of Europe and can't quite believe that anyone could question their manifest destiny.
The result is that almost none of my customers are interested in launching their devices in France and if they do it can be as much as 10 years after they are initially launched. Medtech companies avoid investing in French production and the doctors often move abroad to get access to the latest technology.
It is widely seen in our industry as a typical French shoot yourself in the foot approach. Cannot help but thinking our Govt going the same way.
PS Avoid French hospitals if you can they are mostly very poor. German and Dutch are probably the best in Europe.
0 -
Fear not, I merely travel through both Lancashire and Yorkshire, on my way to somewhee nicer.....Morris_Dancer said:Mr. W, good news about the policeman.
Mr. Mark, west coast of Scotland, or are you revealing yourself to be a Lancaphile?0 -
Mr. Mark, there's nowhere nicer than Yorkshire. It's where the angelic host go for their holidays.0
-
Presumably a skiing break today.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Mark, there's nowhere nicer than Yorkshire. It's where the angelic host go for their holidays.
0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
Nice people, angels. They tell you what you want to hear.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Mark, there's nowhere nicer than Yorkshire. It's where the angelic host go for their holidays.
On their way to the Isle of Mull.....0 -
My interpretation of leaving the EU at the time of the referendum was we leave, adopt WTO rules until an appropriate trade deal with the EU can be forged over eight to ten years of negotiations. That is what Cameron and Osborne said would happen. That is why I voted remain, not because the EU is some virtuous paragon that I love, but that the alternative appeared infinitely worse.
Cameron promised and gave us a binary choice, in or out. There was no option for soft-Brexit or BINO. Cameron and Osborne explained that if we leave because we don't like freedom of movement then we are out of the single market and out of the club.
Leavers who claim the EU are not being fair to the UK because they won't bend the rules to accommodate our every whim are in cloud cuckoo land. If Brexit means Brexit, next March we crash out with no deal and live with the consequences. If it turns into the armageddon that Osborne predicted perhaps we need to revisit with a new referendum sometime sooner rather that later. If after initially following WTO rules we eventually reach Johnson's sunlit uplands of unilateral trade deals with everyone, then happy days!0
This discussion has been closed.