Cable Forum - Brexit

It's the EU we're leaving, not the US, Japan or China. We have to deal with the EU's behaviour and we have to play our cards right, which we haven't done. We have the 39 billion and we are net importers of their stuff; those cards have to be played.

The EU is meddling with our constitutional arrangements by insisting on the Backstop and Macron has threatened to keep the Backstop on if we don't give up our fishing grounds; the US and China wouldn't do that. The EU would have control over us due to the Backstop.

You really shouldn't be an apologist for the EU (you'll deny being an apologist but it's how you come across).

Damien's no apologist. He's just pointing out that in a negotiation, each side will try and maximise its advantages. By definition, it means they will try and minimise the advantages of the other side.

---------- Post added at 21:36 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35999351)

Damien’s post, quoting from The New European, currently advertising in its strapline a free Bollocks to Brexit mug when you subscribe for just £1 a week. Pardon me if I’m suspicious about the impartiality of that analysis.

Sorry, it was Hugh's post.
As well as the source you mention, Hugh also cites The Washington Post which unfortunately doesn't have such a good offer on ceramics.

Hugh	16-06-2019 22:02

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35999351)

Here’s the original source - Annelli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...it-say-experts

Quote:

There are two apparently insurmountable hurdles to the UK trading on current WTO tariffs in the event of Britain crashing out in March, said Howard.

Firstly, the UK must produce its own schedule covering both services and each of the 5,000-plus product lines covered in the WTO agreement and get it agreed by all the 163 WTO states in the 32 remaining parliamentary sitting days until 29 March 2019. A number of states have already raised objections to the UK’s draft schedule: 20 over goods and three over services.

To make it more complicated, there are no “default terms” Britain can crash out on, Howard said, while at the same time, the UK has been blocked by WTO members from simply relying on the EU’s “schedule” – its existing tariffs and tariff-free trade quotas.

The second hurdle is the sheer volume of domestic legislation that would need to be passed before being able to trade under WTO rules: there are nine statutes and 600 statutory instruments that would need to be adopted.

The government cannot simply cut and paste the 120,000 EU statutes into UK law and then make changes to them gradually, Howard said. “The UK will need to set up new enforcement bodies and transfer new powers to regulators to create our own domestic regimes,” she said.

nomadking

16-06-2019 23:54

Re: Brexit

Strange that it HAS successfully been done before.
Split up of Czechoslovakia and Brexit.

Quote:

From the current perspective, it is hard to imagine that the split was agreed and executed in less than a year.

...
Considering the timing of Brexit and to avoid legal loopholes, a “copy & paste approach” should be considered with respect to EU legislation effective in Britain. This is viewed as the standard approach in international law and was also used in the process of dissolving Czechoslovakia.

Weird that all this guff comes AFTER Remain lost the vote.

1andrew1

17-06-2019 01:12

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999359)

Strange that it HAS successfully been done before.
Split up of Czechoslovakia and Brexit.

Weird that all this guff comes AFTER Remain lost the vote.

What has been done before? Small countries splitting up? What is your point? Are you advocating the UK splits up to solve the backstop issue?

nomadking

17-06-2019 01:56

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999362)

What has been done before? Small countries splitting up? What is your point? Are you advocating the UK splits up to solve the backstop issue?

Czechoslovakia splitting up wasn't really that different to UK splitting from the EU. The SAME issues of moving from a common set of trade rules and regulations, to separate ones were there, as have been with other countries splitting up.

The Soviet Union split up, and that wasn't exactly a small country.

The backstop has nothing to do with what WTO rules or otherwise we can or cannot use, or with any regulations needed or not needed.

Angua

17-06-2019 07:26

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999363)

The Backstop is to temporarily manage the GFA until an alternative arrangement can be made for the Irish border for trade. So it does have everything to do with WTO rules.

If NI decides on reunification, the Backstop is no longer required and the border in the Irish Sea is permanent.

Hugh	17-06-2019 10:50

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999359)

Strange that it HAS successfully been done before.
Split up of Czechoslovakia and Brexit.

Weird that all this guff comes AFTER Remain lost the vote.

So you’re comparing a country that wasn’t in the EU to one that is to show it can be done?

Here’s the article without having to register - don’t see much in there to help, except this...

Quote:

the most important lesson to be learnt from the dissolution of Czechoslovakia is undoubtedly the willingness to go through the entire departure process in a peaceful and cooperative way.

http://www.giese.cz/novinky/brexit-l...nt-for-brexit/

nomadking

17-06-2019 11:12

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35999382)

So you’re comparing a country that wasn’t in the EU to one that is to show it can be done?

Here’s the article without having to register - don’t see much in there to help, except this...

http://www.giese.cz/novinky/brexit-l...nt-for-brexit/

So how was this "peaceful and cooperative way" carried out involving the rest of the world? There was no need to. That is essentially the comparison. The EU would just become another "country". No need to agree anything with them, which is what we're talking about with a no-deal scenario. It was only the "divorce" elements(division of assets, debt etc) they(Czechs & Slovaks) needed to agree on. Their trade relationships with the rest of the World carried on without any fuss.

Hugh	17-06-2019 11:20

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35999385)

Point.
Missed.
Completely...

There were no actual examples in the article you linked to which would show how this would be helpful to the UK - which is why the article header was a question, not a statement...

OLD BOY

17-06-2019 13:11

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999350)

Hugh's post #3521 shows why the above is incorrect and his subsequent post #3527 puts the nail in the coffin.

The only real question is whether we can get a bi-lateral agreement with the EU, which you and other remainers on here are convinced is impossible. I don't buy that.

I see no reason why the EU would not co-operate to the extent that it too is concerned about frictionless trade to us.

In the Washington post article that Hugh posted, the revelation is made that a protection period is possible.

'WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo confirmed that there must be a bilateral agreement between the EU and U.K. in order to claim an implementation period under GATT Article 24. “Once they have an agreement I think Article 24 could give them some time for implementation of that agreement,” he told Bloomberg. “But the first question is the agreement itself.”

However, the defeatist attitude that so many posts on here reveal simply doesn't allow them to see the obvious. I guess they won't believe it until they see it. Only then will they shut up about the impossibility of it all and move on to a new lefty topic to promote despite all reason to the contrary.

1andrew1

17-06-2019 14:28

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999398)

Business is largely against Brexit so you can say that Brexit is more left-wing than right-wing. Indeed, we heard one infamous Brexiter say "F-business".

What you repeatedly fail to recognise is that no-deal means what it says. It doesn't mean a different type of deal or a cake-and-eat-it deal.

If you read the serious business analysis around Brexit, you will understand that the EU doesn't want to undermine the integrity of the single market and needs to demonstrate that it will stand by its smaller members.

Quote:

"Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, said last week that the 585-page exit treaty “is not a treaty between Theresa May and Juncker, it is a treaty between the UK and the EU. It has to be respected by whoever is the next British prime minister.”
Yielding on that point of principle risked damaging the EU for years to come, one official told the Financial Times, placing at stake the integrity of the single market and decimating trust that the bloc would stick by its smaller members, in this case Ireland.
Ireland is also quick to dismiss suggestions from Tory leadership contenders that the new prime minister will get superior terms from Brussels and an alternative to the backstop.
As Mr Johnson and his rivals insist they can secure new solutions to the border question once they take office, Dublin sees such demands as further proof of the need for an “all weather” backstop to avoid checks on the frontier no matter who is in power.

https://www.ft.com/content/50a31434-...d-b42f641eca37

jonbxx

17-06-2019 15:09

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999398)

Of course the countries of the EU want a deal with the UK, it's a no brainer to accommodate gravity based trade. However, the EU27 have some other priorities/red lines, namely;

Citizens rights
Integrity of the EU single market and customs union
The Good Friday Agreement
Financial liabilities already agreed to

Putting any one or more of the above at risk brings everything to a grinding halt. The agreement already proposed but knocked back covered these priorities of course, for better or for worse.

OLD BOY

17-06-2019 18:50

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35999414)

Of course the countries of the EU want a deal with the UK, it's a no brainer to accommodate gravity based trade. However, the EU27 have some other priorities/red lines, namely;

Citizens rights
Integrity of the EU single market and customs union
The Good Friday Agreement
Financial liabilities already agreed to

Putting any one or more of the above at risk brings everything to a grinding halt. The agreement already proposed but knocked back covered these priorities of course, for better or for worse.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that includes the £39bn.

All we need is a Canada style trade deal and given that the EU have already said we can have that, it won't be so difficult to get an agreement to negotiate that which will satisfy GATT.

jonbxx

17-06-2019 19:39

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999452)

Have the EU said we can have a Canada style deal? I have seen Canada being cited as the option left at the bottom of Barniers 'staircase' slide (http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/brexit-tell-us-eu/) but I thought that was more what was left after the Governemts red lines were taken in to account.

Of course a Canada style deal still closes the RoI/NI border. We need that technology (or alternatively, May shouldn't have called an election and she could have binned off Northern Ireland)

That's the problem, everything keeps cycling back to either breach UK or EU red lines. I am sure there is a deal out there but as it stands, nothing is standing out

Sephiroth

17-06-2019 23:15

Re: Brexit

There is no deal standing out there. The EU won’t lose face - any trade deal for the future relationship will require us to pay the 39 billion. If they agree to the 14 billion we say we go, then maybe.

Otherwise, sod them.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07.

Page 236 of 263

236

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page